Born Gay or Born Sinful??

Fellow Christ follower Jesse Morrell made a very interesting and insighful post the other day on his message board regarding homosexuality and the doctrine of sin nature. You can find the post here. Essentially, Jesse puts forth the following argument:

Calvinist and many doctrines today state that sin is a result of human nature. In other words people are not sinners by choice, but by birth. That sin is a part of our DNA or an inherent part of our flesh. For example, Calvinist or proponents of Original Sin doctrine will often say: "We sin because we are Sinners". I on the other hand would argue that we are sinners because we choose to sin. What's the difference? One is essentially stating we sin because of what we are - we are born totally depraved and therefore can not do anything but sin. On the other hand, I would argue that one sins because one willfully chooses to sin, that sin is a moral choice, a decision.

Calvinist have argued for centuries that mankind is born sinful, that we have a depraved nature from the moment we leave the womb. However, in recent years with homosexuality on rampant the rise, Calvinist are facing a real dilemma explaining away an argument the gay and lesbian community have recently taken that actually agrees with Calvinist! Homosexuals in recent years have argued that they are born gay and have no real choice in their behavior or lifestyle. They say homosexuality is not a choice, but is merely something you're born with.

But I have yet to find a Calvinist that would be willing to agree with the homosexuals that being gay is something your born with. If they would agree to this argument, then they would be actually giving the homosexuals a legitimate excuse for their behavior. Many Calvinistic Christians would argue the exact converse to this argument and say that homosexuality is not something your born with, but is a choice. But wait a minute! Aren't the homosexuals actually agreeing with the Calvinist for once?! If Calvinism is true, then would every murderer, pedophile, rapist, homosexual have the same legitimate argument and that is they are neither responsible for their sin, nor can they can be held accountable for their sinful actions??

The real issue here is that homosexuals want to say they are born this way because they want to cover and excuse their sinful acts of perversion. If they can somehow excuse their sin under the guise of being "born that way", they have then a "legitimate" excuse and therefore can ease or quiet their tormented conscience. The problem is most of our doctrines in most of our churches these days actually fuel this type of argument rather then refute it! Here is what author Alfred T Overstreet said regarding this type of theology:

“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For if they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if its true that he was born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. In fact the murderer, the rapist, and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the rapist or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created all men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. No man is born a homosexual.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8).

Furthermore, the bible is clear that homosexuality is not a normal part of our human nature but rather it is a perversion (See Rom. 1:26-27; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7).

Jesse Morrell brings up a very valid questions to the Calvinist community and one that I suspect will go unanswered, and that is:

1. Is human nature sinful?
2. Is homosexuality a sin?
3. Is homosexuality human nature?

Jesse goes on to make a very valid point and that is :

A person who says that homosexuality is human nature is a person who either:

1. Does not know the Bible (at least not very well).
OR
2. Does not believe the Bible.

It has to be one of the two.

I must agree with Jesse here. What we as Christians must do is be willing to do is to take a long hard look at our theology and see if it is actually giving sinners an excuse to sin, or are we presenting the truth so that they will be saved from it! Any theological doctrine that makes sinning easier or excusable is one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and examined - for most likely it is no Truth after all.

Desiring More Than God?

I was thinking this morning about the whole doctrine of election and predestination. Here is what got me to thinking about this particular doctrine:

"If God is the one who has "double predestined" everyone either to heaven or hell, how is it then that I have a greater desire for others on this earth to enter into a personal relationship with God, than God himself does?"

I mean as a follower of Christ, I truly hope that EVERYONE is saved from sin and brings joy to the heart of our God and Savior, but yet according to Calvinist God seems to want or desire only a select few to enter into his presence for all eternity. This means that I have a greater desire for others to be saved than God himself does! Does this not strike anyone as just plain odd!!? I mean if predestination is true, then God really doesn't desire everyone to be saved, but only those he has predestined! How is it then we as followers of Christ have a greater desire for others to be saved from the torment of sin than the very Godhead does? This cannot be so!

I once heard evangelist and teacher, Gordon Olson once say that he converted from Calvinism as a result of an experience he had while preaching one Sunday. During his sermon he had a thought that shook him to the core. He realized that according to his present theology of Calvinism he had a greater desire to see others in his congregation to be saved than God himself did. Gordon realized there was something tremendously wrong with that sort of thinking and began to re-evaluate his theology. He came to understand that any theology whereby man could somehow desire his fellow mankind to repent and be saved more than God, had some real problems.

So for those who embrace Calvinism and yearn to see men saved, you need to ask yourself this question: Do YOU have a greater desire for men to be saved than what your doctrine puts forth??? Do you have a greater desire or love of your fellow man than your current image put forth by your doctrine? Do you question why you have a greater desire to see men saved or desire for revival and grieve why God has not yet moved?? The issue is not that your desires betray you, but that your theology has created a false image of the Godhead!

Wordle

My friend and fellow blogger Dean Lusk mentioned a really cool Java App called Wordle that will apparently take all the words from your blog and turn them into a word picture for you. I guess it gives a good indication what your blog is all about. This is really neat to play around with!



Thanks Dean!

XXXChurch VS One Coureagous Christ Follower

In a time where false doctrines such as Calvinism and Universalism have almost spiritually bankrupted the church, there are times where courageous men and women do step forward to rebuke or exhort those who are out in the public forum promoting such false doctrines.

The following video is an exchange between a group growing in recent popularity known as The XXXChurch.com and one lone Christ follower. This "ministry" drive around the country promoting their "Christian" website that supposedly exposes the dangers of pornography. The only problem is their website gives the appearance of a actually embracing porn rather than telling people to repent from it. Some of their tactics include putting up a 30 ft inflatable penis in front of churches to promote their ministry! They also go to Adult Porn Industry conventions and hand out "The Message" bible that says "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" on the cover (rather than preaching the gospel they feel by just handing out bibles this alone will bring people to repentance. I guess this is taking "Sola Scriptura" to a whole new level!). You can see another example of their so called "Christian" tactics here. Again on this video they are confronted by some street preachers that tell them their tactics are neither biblical nor honoring the death of Christ and that they need to turn from sin and not embrace this poison of pornography. Let's keep one thing in mind here folks and that is the bible says that it is only through coming to the realization of our sins and allowing that realization to bring us to a point of brokenness, that will led people to repentance.

The following video is what I consider true Christian courage. How many of us would be so bold to confront someone in public of promoting such a false doctrine? I want you to pay particular attention to what the guy from XXXChurch says when confronted about sin - he says he "sins everyday" and that "He Can't help but sin". This guy is simply regurgitating what he has been taught and that is he is "Totally Depraved" and that sin is not a choice but something he is born with - Original Sin. It is the product of Calvinism we have to thank for this type of "ministry" as we can so these folks are simply taking their theology to their logical conclusion and that is one can sin in word thought and deed daily - simply because they have born that way and can not change the will of their hearts and minds. This type of stuff will not end until we as believers start rebuking this false teaching that sin is a birth defect rather than a moral choice.

Pagan Christianity: A Hard Look at Why We Do Church the Way We Do.

Early Church Father Tertullian was once quoted as saying "Custom without Truth is error grown old." Personally I have often asked tough questions of why we as the church do the things we do. In other words why is it we have the same order of service Sunday after Sunday? Why is it that only the pastor that gets the liberty of preaching? Why do we have such expensive buildings? Why do some churches require their laity to dress up in their finest every Sunday? Why is it that if you want to be an evangelist or pastor one does not need to go to church, but must go to seminary (where is this ever in scripture??!). Why is it we have "Worship Leaders" but yet worship is supposed to be a lifestyle led only by the Holy Spirit?

For those who have the courage to ask the tough questions of the present day church as to "Why do we do what we do Sunday after Sunday?" then I have a book for you! For those who have always wondered "Is this REALLY the way the apostles and the Early Church Fathers conducted church?" Then there is a book that answers many of these tough and often avoided questions. George Barna and Frank Viola have written an intriguing book that looks at just where most of our church traditions and liturgy come from. The results are alarming and yes may even cause some people to take a collective step backwards and reevaluate how and why we do church the way we do.

Although this post is not a review of the book, I do want to discuss or mention just some of the points Barna and Viola address in the book. It is my hope that my audience here has the courage to go out and buy the book and take to heart what Barna and Viola are addressing and get to the truth of how the true church of Jesus Christ is suppose to look and function.

The Church Building: Was it really Christ's intent that His followers build and own expensive edifices? Was the New Testament church really supposed to meet in such lavish or expensive buildings? To date Christian churches in the United States OWN over $230 BILLION worth of property and buildings - collectively this is more capital assets of some of the top Fortune 500 corporations in the WORLD! Wouldn't it be better served that this money be spent to serve the poor or be used for global evangelism?? Ever wondered why we need to sit in pews or have a stage from which the pastor speaks from?

Order of Worship: Why is it that the "Pastor" is at the very center of every church service? Why is it that the modern day church service seems to choke or make no room for anyone to give a word of exhortation or share an insight, or start a song, or spontaneously lead a prayer?? Why does it seem the service is so set in concrete and makes little or no room for the Holy Spirit to openly work or move?? Why is it we are forced to be a muted staid pewholders?? The answer: Surprisingly most if not all of the liturgy or church service stems from the churches early roots in Roman Paganism and Catholicism. Although the Reformers brought some changes, most of these changes simply shuffled things from being Priest centered to now Pastor-centered. The truth is most of how we do church is not rooted in the bible but from Paganism brought forth by Roman Emperor Constantine.

The Sermon: Why is it that Sunday after Sunday the sermon is delivered by the same person? Why is it that the sermon is required to be given to a passive and muted audience? Why is it that the sermon is more like a theatrical monologue rather than a free flowing dialog between fellow believers? Why is it the sermon is more like a cultivated and prescribed speech (Three points and a conclusion?). Ever wish you could stop the pastor and ask a question or for a further explanation. There is good reason why the current systems does not allow for this to occur.

The Pastor: Why is it in order for someone to "preach the gospel" that individual must have been taught at a seminary or bible college? Is ordination really biblical?? Was all truth really supposed to come from one individual or was the church to operate in a more organic manner? The reality is the present day pastor is really born out of a single-bishop rule spawned out of a Roman Pagan inspired system. A single pastor system essentially elevates one person to unrealistic expectations or responsibilities that is neither biblical or practical.

Sunday Morning Costumes: Just where did the notion that we must put on our "Sunday Best" when attending church? Doesn't the notion of requiring people who want to attend church to put on a suit or their finest clothes contrary to that of the message of Christ?

Minister of Music: Barna and Viola put forth an interesting argument here. They reference 1 Corinthians 14:26 whereby Paul says: "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, everyone of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." The interesting thing here is note the use of the word "everyone of you has", doesn't the Worship Leader make this impossible by limiting the headship if Christ in leading his followers into singing praise songs to the Father? When worship is limited to being led by only those who are "talented", this then becomes more like entertainment than corporate worship. Doesn't the worship of Christ belong in the hands of ALL God's people?

Tithing and Clergy Salaries: This has to probably be one of my favorite chapters. Did you know that for the first 300 years of the church did not promote nor require tithing? Did you know if someone wanted to be a pastor or evangelist they took a vow of poverty and were put in the same category as widows and orphans? The amazing thing is tithing applied to the Old Testament era where taxation was needed to support the Levite priests. But yet today this is the only Old Testament Law still upheld by the present day church. Again the only reason the present day church upholds the tithing requirement is it must have some means of paying for its expensive buildings and salaries. But yet didn't Jesus come to do away with the "Temple Tax" or set us free from the bondage of supporting the Old Testament clergy system? Besides, tithing has become a so called litmus test for Christian discipleship. As a matter of fact I have personally known of churches who require their staff or anyone in a teaching capacity to pay tithes. No tithes - no position. But yet where is any of this scriptural? Again, tithing eliminates giving from the heart and again allows an external "righteousness" to be established in the church.

Although these are not all the points addressed in the book, these are for the most part the major issues both Barna and Viola see as things that are limiting Christ's church from truly functioning as an organic entity. The point I truly appreciate about this book is its straight forwardness and courage to take on the current church establishment. Granted, Barna and Viola have received their fair share of hate mail and threats, but yet when we look over the canvas of church history so did many others who where so bold and courageous to approach or question the church establishment of their day - Barna and Viola in my opinion will be found years from now to be considered and recognized as church heroes. It is my hope that you will have the courage to read this book, and to be honest with yourself and address many of their points on how we can honor Christ as an organic body of believers.

Historical Views of the Atonement

In a recent discussion I was having with a Calvinist, he put forth that Calvinism has history on its side and that is because the Strict Judicial Atonement Model of Calvinism was the atonement model that has always been adhered to by the church. He went one to say that this was the same atonement model put forth by the apostles. For one, I found this comment to be rather arrogant, because there is no real clear cut atonement model ever put forth in the scriptures. Much like a puzzle, one needs to take up the various pieces from BOTH the Old Testament and New Testament, and come up with a particular picture or concept of what exactly the atonement was for and why is it necessary? I will discuss this further in future upcoming posts, but today I simply want to lay out a brief history of the various atonement models throughout church history*:

1. Satisfaction Theory: Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt.
A. Satisfaction to Satan, to whom man had chosen to give allegiance and must be liberated by Christ paying to him the ransom price (common from 3rd to 11th centuries): Irenaeus (130?-202?); Origen (185?-254?); Gregory of Nyssa (335-399); Augustine (354- 430); Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

B. Satisfaction to God the Father universally for all mankind, through a sacrificial death of the Divine Logos who had become one with lost humanity: Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of the Deity of Christ. In salvation the goodness of God must act consistent with His truthfulness and honor, which involves the principle of justice. "Christ as man endured death for us, inasmuch as He offered Himself for that purpose to the Father." Man must be freed not only from the penalty of sin, but from sin itself and be quickened into life.

C. Satisfaction to the ethical nature or justice of God, which demands absolute legal vindication: Anselm (1033-1109), said to have written the first scientific treatise on the Atonement, 1098. God rightfully demands honor and supremacy which man has refused to give, and thus has incurred a debt to God which can only be paid by punishment or by some substituted satisfaction. The God-man, Jesus Christ, with austere dignity came into our world and by His immaculate conduct and by His obedience to a gruesome suffering of death acquired merit before God which may be imputed to the believer as a perfect judicial standing. A Side Note: Something to ponder here - does this at all sound like forgiveness? If God is literally beating His Son just so he can take out his "vindictiveness" and "Anger" out on him, where then is the forgiveness of God? This is a huge problem for Calvinist who put forth that God would never set aside his anger or wrath, in order to forgive. But yet is this what the Bible or even Jesus says about forgiveness????

D. Satisfaction through a mystical union or a sacrificial bearing of the penalty of sin, providing a "relative satisfaction" as distinguished from an absolute strictly legal satisfaction in the full discharge of guilt, as advocated by Anselm: Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), a pious and influential monk, typical of the majority of theological leaders from Apostolic times up to Anselm and the Reformation, who followed the descriptive statements of the New Testament without pursuing them to ultimate speculative conclusions.

E. Satisfaction to the offended holiness and justice of God through Christ's bearing the full penalty of man's sin in His vicarious death: Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564); and early Reformation leaders, who adopted Anselm's principle of strict judicial satisfaction. The entire guilt and punishment that sinners deserve was transferred to Christ, who by His obedience in life and sufferings endured their total penalty so that sin may no longer be imputed or penalty demanded from those for whom He died, or from those who had been elected to be saved from all eternity. "Our sins were transferred to Him by imputation."

F. Satisfaction as above, with greater emphasis in early post-Reformation times upon the active righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer as a perfect positive standing: Lutheran and Reformed (or Calvinistic) Confessions, and the Federal Headship theory developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all.

This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam's sin advanced by Augustine (354-430). Through the Covenant of Grace, the Lord Jesus is the federal Head of those who are to experience salvation, being appointed to bear the full guilt of their sins (Adamic and personal) in an atoning death viewed as His passive obedience. By His active obedience to the full demands of Divine law, He is said to have fulfilled perfectly man's requirements and imputes His righteousness to believers so that it is legally considered to be theirs Since in the full development of the satisfaction theory, whatever has been accomplished in the Atonement is an exact equivalent of guilt so that salvation proceeds upon the basis of strict judicial justice, in no understandable way can it be general or made for everyone in the same sense, or all will be saved since God will not demand a double payment f or guilt-Christ's and the sinner's. But the sacred Atonement was made for all, with no theological reservations: Jn. 3:16-17; Mk. 16:15-16; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:3-6; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:1-2. The Lord Jesus as the Son of Man was under obligation to obey for Himself, since He was "born under the law" (Ga. 4:4-5). His obedience could not, therefore, be imputed to anyone, but He was free to give His life in atonement since He "committed no sin."

2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the
problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.

A. The sufferings of Christ were necessary to the Divine government, rather than to the Divine nature: Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). "Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He Himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?" He strongly opposed the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, and could not understand why a ransom should be paid to the Father. He could only fall back on the "economy" of God and put forth no theory of satisfaction. Other early writers, like Athanasius, also mentioned God's governmental problems.

B. Christ suffered unto death in His human nature, not in His Divine nature, and thus the Atonement was not an infinite value to pay fully for the eternal punishment of sinners, but was graciously accepted by God the Father as sufficient to satisfy Divine justice: Duns Scotus (1265-1308) In line with the majority of Christian thinkers of the centuries, he held the principle that the Atonement provided a "relative satisfaction" to the justice of God and proposed his theory in opposition to Anselm, who had insisted upon absolute total equivalent satisfaction through an infinite sacrifice. He came to view the Divine will as not bound by anything fixed in the Divine nature, but free to decide upon what basis sins could be forgiven.

C. Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, and His grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt, nor is it a complete satisfaction of justice for sin. It is a Divinely- appointed condition which precedes the forgiveness of sin, just as the death of a lamb or a goat in the Mosaic economy. Christ's sufferings took the place of a penalty, so that His sufferings have the same effect in reconciling God to man, and procuring the forgiveness of sin, that the sinner's endurance of the punishment due to his sins would have had. The sufferings of Christ were not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty: Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609); Episcopius (1583-1643); Curcellaeus (1586 1659); Limborch (1633-1712); known as Arminianism. Outside Holland, Arminianism exerted considerable influence in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, and America, and hence throughout the world through various denominations, especially Methodism. subjects, when repentant sinners are pardoned through a commitment of faith (E.A. Park, 1883): New England Theology; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758); his son (1745-1801); Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840); Caleb Burge (1782-1838); N.W. Taylor (1786-1858); C. G. Finney (1792-1875); Congregationalists (very extensively); "New School" Presbyterians; several groups of Baptists; other groups and leaders in America and England (called "American Theology").

In the governmental theory, the Atonement is not required by the subjective nature or vindictive justice of God before mercy is extended. It is not God in isolation as the injured party, but rather God as a benevolent Ruler in relationship to His moral creatures, with great problems of reconciliation that require solution. These problems involve man's relation to God in intelligent moral government, as well as some means to convey God's very deep reactions toward sin and His abounding mercy toward man in spite of man's desperate rebellion. Man must be broken down before God in deep respect and penitence in a return to a right attitude towards God's loving regulation before forgiveness can take place. The sacred advent and atonement of Christ, therefore, is not merely a.measure to discharge guilt by some calculated equivalent. It is the most profound measure conceivable, with an objective to restore a ruptured God-man relationship in all that is involved. The Atonement was, therefore, general in the absolute sense and legally discharged the guilt of no one.

3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place. The life and sufferings of Christ were conceived to be an exhibition of Divine love to reconcile man back to God by breaking down his resistance and drawing him back into a life of fellowship with God. There is no specific necessity of satisfying the Divine nature or the problems of God's moral government. The life and sufferings of the God-Man were intended to exert a moral impression upon a hard and impenitent heart, which is thereby melted into contrition, and then received into favor by the boundless compassion of God (Abelard): Clement (185?-254?) of Alexandria; Peter Abelard (1079-1142) of France, who opposed Anselm; Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), a lawyer and New England pastor. Many liberals in theology of succeeding generations accepted his general opinions without sharing his deep sincerity.

4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a
noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living. If man is going to realize his potential and be reconciled to God, he must repent and reform his ways. For this purpose Jesus Christ was miraculously brought into our world and thus was more than a mere man (Socinianism, 1600's), or was natural born and as a religious genius identified himself with God in special devotion to achieve a unique
ministry to mankind (Unitarianism, 1700's). His virtuous and loving conduct in life and in death as a noble martyr showed us how we ought to love God and each other, or become converted and reconciled to God: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), in Poland; Unitarians, who trace their views back through Arius (256-336); and others of humanistic opinion (Christ a mere man).

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

Case 1: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -All are not being
saved through it. -Therefore, It could not have been made for all.

Case 2: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -It was made for all. - Therefore, all will be saved through it.

Case 3: -The Atonement was made for all: Is. 53:6; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16-17; 6:51; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2.3-6; Tit. 2:11; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:2; also Is. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Mt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Ro. 2:11; Re. 3:20.

• Only a minority are being saved through it: Ge. 6:5-8; Is. 53:1; Mt. 21:10; Lk.
13:23-24; 23:21; Jn. 5:40; 6:60, 67; 7:7; 16:33; Acts 8:1; 14:22; I Co. 4:13.

• Therefore, it was not a literal or an exact payment for sin.

*Excerpted from his work The Truth Shall Make You Free, by Gordon Olson

Essential Elements of the Gospel

Recently in our home church one of our fellow members, Bruce brought up a great discussion regarding how does one identify the "Essential Elements of the Gospel" and how does one know when not to join efforts with others as their doctrine is determined to be false.

Here is what was discussed:

In an age with so many doctrines and so many denominations it has become harder and harder to decipher what are the essential elements of the gospel?

Somethings to consider: The purpose of knowing the barest essentials of the gospel is so that we can:

1. Understand how to witness to the lost
2. Identify who are God's fellow laborers in the Truth
3. Which doctrines are mandatory for salvation and fellowship and which are not
4. Who has false hope

There are only four concepts that must be understood for salvation:

1. One must understand what sin is and why it alienates us from God
2. Who is Jesus Christ, and what did He do so that we can be reconciled to God
3. That we live by faith which means daily choosing universal benevolence
4. That only those who persevere to the end shall truly be saved


Any "Gospel" that alters or denies the above mentioned points is a false Gospel. Anyone who teaches a false Gospel is a False Teacher or Prophet.

Colossians 1:19-23 19For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

How much latitude is there in the Gospel Message??

Galatians 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

What is the purpose of the Gospel?

Romans 1:16-17 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."


Romans 16:25-27 25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Ephesians 1:13 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.

CAN ANYONE BE SAVED APART FROM THE GOSPEL?

What happens if the Gospel is altered in the least degree?


1 Cor 1:17 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Is the contingency of salvation a key element in the Gospel?

2 Timothy 2:8-13 8Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. 10Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 11Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; 12if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us. 13if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

1 Cor 15:1-2 1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

2 Thess 2 :13-15 13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

If the contingent nature of salvation is a key element of the Gospel, what about those who's gospel does not contain this element?

Hebrews 4:6 6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.

2 Thess 1:6-9 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

2 Tim 2:19 19 Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."



1 John 2:3-6 3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

1 John 3:7-10 7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

If continued obedience to Christ is a key element of the Gospel, what about those who's Gospel does not demand this?

How do we identify false witnesses, and should we partner with those who do not preach the Gospel?

Jude 4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about[a] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.


Matthew 7:15-20 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Matthew 24:10-13 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

2 John 4-11 4It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. 5And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. 7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

SO WHAT ARE THE KEY DOCTRINES OF THE MODERN DAY CHURCH THAT MARK IT AS A FALSE RELIGION?

1. Once Saved Always Saved - Denies the Contingency of Obedience and Faith!

2. Everyone Sins in Word, Thought and Deed! - Turning Grace into Licentiousness

3. Total Depravity - Turns sin into something physical and not the moral and denies the redemptive power of the cross over sin (See 1 & 2)