{"id":18508,"date":"2019-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-01-27T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/ecclesiology-049\/"},"modified":"2019-01-27T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T06:00:00","slug":"ecclesiology-049","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/ecclesiology-049\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecclesiology 049"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[90],"series_event":[484],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18508","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-romans","series_event-ecclesiology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Ecclesiology 049","sermon_date":"20190127","sermon_month":"1","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":6392,"sermon_slides":6393,"sermon_mp3":6401,"sermon_id":"127191510506756","series_or_event":484,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":90,"chapter_and_verse":"16:17","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nEcclesiology 49, Romans 16:17\n\n1-27-19\n\nWe\u2019re grateful for today , grateful for this morning, grateful for the cool weather, grateful for physical life, and beyond that we\u2019re grateful for the spiritual life that You\u2019ve given us in Your Son, Jesus.\u00a0 And as children of life and light You have given us truth and so I just ask, Father, that You would make us good stewards of truth today, not just only in the study and proclamation but also in application to our personal lives.\u00a0 And we just invite the Holy Spirit to do a personal work in each of us as the Word of God today is taught in Your church.\u00a0 And we\u2019ll be careful to give you all the praise and the glory.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026. Amen!\n\nAll right, well good morning everybody.\u00a0 Let\u2019s take our Bibles and open them to the Book of Romans, chapter 16 and verse 17, as we\u2019re continuing on, believe it or not, towards the tail end of our study on Ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church.\u00a0 And we\u2019re in a section of the doctrine of the church called the purity of the church.\u00a0 In other words, how in the world is the church, God\u2019s people, supposed to keep itself practically pure living in the devil\u2019s world or in a fallen world.\n\nAnd so what you\u2019ll discover every time man has a problem God has a solution.\u00a0 And of course here we\u2019re not talking about positional purity, the church already has that, we\u2019re talking about practical purity, daily purity.\u00a0 So how can the church keep itself clean in an unclean world?\u00a0 Well, the Holy Spirit has given to the church two doctrines that hardly are ever spoken of in modern day evangelicalism but they\u2019re very important none the less.\u00a0 They are ecclesiastical separation and number two, church discipline.\u00a0 So I\u2019m going to try to finish Ecclesiastical separation today.\n\nBut we\u2019re basically looking here at three questions.\u00a0 A.\u00a0 Why separate.\u00a0 B.\u00a0 Is there a biblical basis for separation.\u00a0 And C, what exactly do we separate from.\u00a0 So A and B I think we\u2019ve already gone over, why separate.\u00a0 Well, really the bottom line, and we demonstrated this through the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, that when the church becomes just like the world it loses its authority to speak to the world in a prophetic way.\u00a0 And then number two, we went through a list of verses that give us a biblical basis for separation.\u00a0 I mean, it\u2019s completely appropriate under some circumstances to separate from people, even to separate from other Christians or organizational structures that are no longer biblically faithful.\u00a0 And so I gave you those verses, there are at least seven of them, and you can probably find more if you started studying this carefully, but these are all in the epistolary literature, which basically means in the part of the New Testament that is directly binding upon the church.\u00a0 And not the least of which is 2 John 9-11.\u00a0 That may be the most important.\u00a0 [2 John 1:9, \u201cAnyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.\u201d]\u00a0 So it says, verse 10, \u201cIf anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house,\u201d i.e. the church, \u201cand do not give him a greeting; [11] for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.\u201d\n\nAnd then third, letter C, and this is where we were last time, what exactly do you separate\u00a0 yourself from?\u00a0 I mean, what should a biblically faithful church separate themselves from?\u00a0 What kind of groups?\u00a0 What kind of people?\u00a0 And we are to separate ourselves from those that promote at least four things. The first thing is false doctrine.\u00a0 Paul, when he writes to Timothy basically instructs Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine very carefully.\u00a0 That\u2019s what Paul said to a pastor.\u00a0 And so we would separate from people or groups that deny the fundamentals of the faith and this is kind of an abbreviated list of things that you look for that you would separate\u00a0 yourself from.\u00a0 Our doctrinal statement is not much broader than that, as I\u2019ve tried to explain.\u00a0 But these are at least the core essentials of Christianity.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t have these you don\u2019t have Christianity, and so I have listed ten, some people would call these the fundamentals of the faith. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n
    \n \t
  1. Creation\/Fall \u2013 Rom. 5:14<\/li>\n \t
  2. Inspiration\/inerrancy of the Scripture \u2013 Matt. 5:18; John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21<\/li>\n \t
  3. Salvation by faith alone<\/li>\n \t
  4. Eternal existence of heaven\/hell \u2013 Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46<\/li>\n \t
  5. Trinity<\/li>\n \t
  6. Virgin birth of Christ<\/li>\n \t
  7. Deity of Christ<\/li>\n \t
  8. Atoning death of Christ \u2013 Isa. 53:3-6; 1 Pet. 2:24<\/li>\n \t
  9. Bodily Resurrection of Christ \u2013 John 20:27-28; 1 Cor. 15:14<\/li>\n \t
  10. Bodily Second Advent of Christ \u2013 Job 19:25; Zech. 14:4; Acts 1:9-11<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\u00a0 So what type of doctrines do we separate ourselves from?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Number one, you separate yourself from people that deny creation and the fall.\u00a0 Anybody that plays any type of game with Genesis\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1-11, and a lot of people are doing that today, they\u2019re kind of trying to rewrite it to sort of keep up with Darwinism, you have to understand that you\u2019re gutting the foundation upon which Christianity stands because if there is no literal creation and literal fall then there is no need to reach out to the solution, which is Jesus Christ.\u00a0 And if Adam was not a historical figure then maybe the last Adam, Jesus Christ, was not a historical figure either because the two are connected on one unbroken chain in Luke\u2019s genealogy in Luke 3.\n\nThe second fundamental of the faith that you separate yourself from, if people won\u2019t embrace it that is, are people that deny the inspiration and\/or the inerrancy of the Bible.\u00a0 The inspiration of the Bible is the fact that in the original manuscripts God carried along the writers of Scripture in such a way that they ended up recording God\u2019s message, without error, in the original manuscripts.\u00a0 I\u2019ve shown\u00a0 you that doctrine from 2 Timothy 3:16.\u00a0 You\u2019ll also see that doctrine in 2 Peter 1:20-21.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[2 Timothy 3:16, \u201cAll Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;\u201d\u00a0 \u00a02 Peter 1:20-21, \u201cBut know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter<\/em> of one\u2019s own interpretation, [21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.\u201d]\n\nAnd consequently we believe that the Word of God in the original manuscripts is completely without error. \u00a0Every time the Bible talks it cannot be making a mistake.\u00a0 The Bible is not primarily a scientific textbook but when it talks about science it\u2019s accurate in what it says.\u00a0 The Bible is not primarily a history book or an archeology book but when it talks about those things it\u2019s without error in what it says.\n\nSo the Bible is true with physical things that you can validate and it\u2019s also true with spiritual things that require faith to understand, like angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc.\u00a0 And we believe that that process of inspiration and also here talking about inerrancy goes right down to the very words of Scripture and goes right down to the smallest strokes of the pen.\u00a0 So anybody that wants to fiddle around with inspiration of the Bible, it\u2019s not a completely inspired book, or if they want to get into this idea of maybe the Bible\u2019s got mistakes in it, you\u2019re gutting the source from which Christianity comes.\u00a0 Without an inerrant and inspired Word you don\u2019t have a source of truth that you can look to.\u00a0 I heard one pastor say recently, well, the inerrancy of the Bible is not that important, what\u2019s important is the resurrection of Jesus. And I thought to myself well where in the idea do we learn anything about the resurrection of Jesus?\u00a0 Is it not in the where?\u00a0 In the Bible!\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So if you\u2019re going to throw out the inerrancy of the Bible you have to, by definition, start questioning everything including the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\n\nAnd then the third group or fundamental of the faith is if it\u2019s mishandled you have to separate yourself from such a movement or such a group.\u00a0 If those that deny the doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone.\u00a0 Religion, the world of religion basically will tell you this: Jesus did about 90% and you have to kick in the final 10%.\u00a0 Now if you ask a Roman Catholic well, what do I have to do for the final 10% to make me secure in Christ he\u2019ll basically say you have to pay, pray and obey.\u00a0 So if God did his 90% that you accepted by faith and you\u2019re not doing your 10% pay, pray and obey, then you\u2019re not saved.\u00a0 And you see, this was what the whole Protestant Reformation was fought over, this issue.\u00a0 In Latin it\u2019s called sola fide, sola<\/em> means by itself, fide<\/em> means faith. \u00a0\u00a0And so we believe not the upper part of the screen, we believe the bottom part of the screen, that Jesus did not 90%, not 99%, not 99.999999999% but 100%, because His final words on the cross were what?\u00a0 \u201cIt is finished!\u201d\u00a0 Man\u2019s responsibility then, coming under the conviction of the Spirit, is to receive as a gift by way of faith what Jesus did.\n\nSo this is not a scenario where, you know, your father-in-law buys lunch and you kind of have to save face, well, let me leave the tip.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s harder to receive the gift sometimes, isn\u2019t it, than to give a gift.\u00a0 So Jesus is not buying lunch and we\u2019re throwing in the tip.\u00a0 I\u2019m talking about what\u2019s necessary for justification; I\u2019m not dealing with sanctification here or growth in Christ at all.\u00a0 So basically Jesus bought the lunch, Jesus left the tip, the only thing left for you to do is to receive the gift and to enjoy the meal.\u00a0 And of course, there are many, many people that are denying that doctrine today.\n\nNow one of the key verses on all of this is Romans 4:4-5, where Paul says, [5] \u201cBut to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,\u201d so we\u2019re dealing with justification here, what does it take for a person to be declared innocent before a holy God as a lost sinner. \u201cBut to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,\u00a0 his faith is credited as righteousness.\u201d\u00a0 So we are called the \u201cseed of Abraham,\u201d the \u201cchildren of Abraham\u201d in the sense that Abraham in Genesis 15:6, which is what\u2019s being referenced here in Romans 4, was saved the exact same way.\u00a0 [Genesis 15:6, \u201cThen he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.\u201d]\u00a0\u00a0 He believed God, Genesis 15:6, and God credited it to him unto righteousness.\u00a0 There were no good works for Abraham to do, he simply believed or trusted in the revelation of God up to that particular point in time.\u00a0 Now we have a complete revelation, we look back and we see the complete mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, we see what He did for us and we trust in Him alone and in a nanosecond, some use the expression in a punctiliar point in time, meaning a nanosecond, a lost sinner is justified before God.\n\nAnd that\u2019s the only way to receive a gift from God because that\u2019s the only thing that God accepts from us that\u2019s not a work or non-meritorious, as Paul describes it here in Romans 4:4-5.\u00a0 Now if you don\u2019t have this concept you don\u2019t have Protestantism, what we would have today is we would still be Roman Catholic.\u00a0 And this is one of the reasons\u2026 and I went through these quotes last time so I won\u2019t re-read these for you because you have them there on your sheet and you can look them up yourself in the various books this individual has written. Basically when you start looking at some of the teachings and writings of John MacArthur, who has a lot of good things to say on other topics, what you start seeing is the denial of sola fide<\/em>, salvation by faith alone.\n\n[\"Eternal life is indeed a free gift (Rom. 6:23). Salvation cannot be earned with good deeds or purchased with money. It has already been bought by Christ, who paid the ransom with His blood. But that does not mean there is no cost<\/u> in terms of salvation's impact on the sinner's life. This paradox may be difficult but it is nevertheless true: SALVATION IS BOTH FREE AND COSTLY<\/u>. Eternal life brings immediate death to self. 'Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin' (Rom 6:6). Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation<\/u> when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. It is a total abandonment of self-will, like the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies so that it can bear much fruit (cf. John 12:24). It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.<\/u>\u201d\u00a0 John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus<\/em>, p. 140]\u00a0\u00a0 So there\u2019s one of his quotes in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.]\n\nHere\u2019s another one of his quotes, in the book he wrote called Faith, Works. [\u201cJesus is Lord of all, and the faith<\/u> He demands involves unconditional surrender<\/u> . . . He does not bestow eternal life<\/u> on those whose hearts remain set against Him.\u201d\u00a0 [Faith Works<\/em>, p. 25]\n\nHere is something he said in a sermon where he portrayed justification as sort of a deal between you and God.\u00a0 It\u2019s sort of like two business people reaching across the table and shaking hands and one businessman says to the other, I\u2019m going to do my part and the other business man says no, I\u2019m going to do my part and so you reach in the middle and you have a meeting of the minds and all of a sudden we\u2019ve got a deal.\u00a0 [\u201cSelf-discipline comes when you look back to the covenant of your salvation\u2026that is to say when you remember that at the point of your salvation<\/u> YOU MADE A PROMISE TO SUBMIT TO THE LORD<\/u>. YOU MADE A PLEDGE AT THAT TIME TO BE OBEDIENT TO CHRIST<\/u>. You confessed Him as Lord\u2026And Lord means that He is above all. It\u2019s essential then as believers to remember that WE MADE A COVENANT OF OBEDIENCE<\/u> when we confessed Jesus as Lord. We were saved unto obedience which God had before ordained that we should walk\u2026and obedience characterized by good works\u2026and obedience to God's Word. That pledge was inherent in salvation. God at the time you came to Him for salvation promised you forgiveness and eternal life and all the grace necessary to fulfill His will, and the Holy Spirit, and YOU PLEDGED OBEDIENCE<\/u>. And you need to go back and remember that and have the integrity to be faithful to YOUR ORIGINAL PROMISE<\/u>\u2026\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [Transcription of The Art of Self-Discipline, part 2, www.gty.org.<\/em> John MacArthur]\n\nAnd he\u2019s making these comments related to justification.\u00a0 And that\u2019s one of the reasons that we\u2019re not promoting John MacArthur\u2019s ministry here, we\u2019re not going to promote his books because the fact of the matter is there\u2019s some good things in some of those books but it\u2019s an absolute maze of confusion when it comes to the clarity of the gospel.\u00a0 And so we\u2019re making a separation from people that are denying what we think is a critical cardinal Christian doctrine--sola fide.<\/em>\n\nNow I\u2019ve done teaching at this church in other venues, other classes on Lordship salvation and I\u2019m not going to reteach all of that, you can go back to our soteriology series and listen to all of that but Lordship salvation is the idea that to become justified before God a person must not only believe in Christ but they also must be willing to submit every single area of their life to Christ.\u00a0 If they\u2019re believing but at the same time you don\u2019t see at the point of faith alone commitment, obedience, perseverance, submission, sorrow, John Piper, for example, says that in the concept of belief there is a hundred other things you have to do simultaneously.\u00a0 Now he just took the word \u201cbelieve\u201d which has a simple definition in the Scripture which means trust, and he loaded it with a whole bunch of extra verbiage. \u00a0And in the process we believe that these men are teaching, whether they realize it or not, a salvation by works type of system.\u00a0 And this is what\u2019s called Lordship salvation.\n\nAnd we\u2019ve gone through, if you\u2019re on the edge of Lordship salvation, don\u2019t know exactly what it is, I would encourage you to dial back into our soteriology series where we went through seven problems with Lordship salvation.\u00a0 Lordship salvation changes the gospel; it places an impossible burden upon the unsaved.\u00a0 You\u2019re asking an unsaved person who doesn\u2019t have the new nature, doesn\u2019t have any biblical teaching, doesn\u2019t even have the Holy Spirit inside of him yet, to do something that is an impossibility.\u00a0 Lordship salvation confuses justification with sanctification.\n\nNow all of these things, commitment, obedience, submission, sorrow, all of these kinds of things, we\u2019re not negating the importance of those but those are supposed to happen in your growth \u201cin Christ,\u201d after you\u2019ve already been won to Christ.\u00a0 See the difference there?\u00a0 And so it becomes imperative to rightly divide God\u2019s Word to distinguish between justification and sanctification.\u00a0 We call it around here the three tenses of salvation, and you\u2019re probably familiar with the chart I put up here over and over again just so we can get this down.\n\nAnd what you find in Lordship salvation is that distinction is not drawn; they perpetually take verses that relate to the Christian\u2019s growth and apply it to what a Christian must do on the front end to be made right with God and in the process they\u2019ve just subtly taught a salvation or justification by works.\u00a0 I\u2019m not going to stop talking about this issue of Lordship salvation as much as it brings me into criticism from a lot of people because I believe that perhaps this is one of the most lethal deceptions that has been unleashed in the body of Christ in recent times.\u00a0 And of course, if you were Satan, wouldn\u2019t you do that?\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t you attack the heart of Christianity?\u00a0 And that\u2019s what we see coming from within with Lordship salvation.\u00a0 Lordship salvation confuses the results of salvation with the requirement of salvation.\u00a0 Obviously once a person receives the Holy Spirit and the new nature God puts in the life of the believer a desire to learn His Word, a desire to grow, and those kinds of things, but you see, to make a desire to submit to Christ on the front end of salvation is to get the cart before the horse.\n\nLordship salvation fails to make basic dispensational distinctions. They\u2019re constantly taking passages that are national in nature and aimed at Israel related to the coming of the kingdom and misapplying them to what the church age believer is supposed to teach to the lost today.\u00a0 Lordship salvation ignores the reality of the carnal Christian; they don\u2019t even think there could be such a thing in many cases.\u00a0 I\u2019ve watched Lordship salvation after Lordship salvation after Lordship salvation proponent say there is really no such thing as a carnal Christian.\u00a0 And\u00a0 yet when you read the Book of 1 Corinthians, particular chapter 3:1-3 there it is in black and white.\n\n[1 Corinthians 3:1-3, \u201cAnd I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. [2] I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it.<\/em> Indeed, even now you are not yet able, [3] for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?\u201d]\n\nAnd the reason they deny the reality of a carnal Christian is you\u2019re supposed to do all these things for Christ on the front end, to get saved to begin with, so therefore when you move into your salvation there shouldn\u2019t be great vestiges of ongoing sin in your life.\u00a0 And the reality is there\u2019s a big difference between birth and growth.\u00a0 Being born is one things but we all know people or children that are born and the birthing process, once you\u2019re born you can\u2019t be reversed, we know that growth is impeded physically in some people, malnutrition, bad parenting, whatever the case may be.\n\nAnd that\u2019s exactly how it is in the body of Christ.\u00a0 You\u2019ve got an awful lot of people that have been born spiritually whose lives really are not yet reflecting the position that they\u2019ve been given at the point of salvation.\u00a0 And so there\u2019s quite a big difference between being an obstetrician and a pediatrician.\u00a0 And you see, all of that, all of those distinctions are lost in Lordship salvation and this is where they get into sort of this idea that well, if you\u2019re not living for Christ I guess you were never saved to begin with.\u00a0 And it\u2019s like let\u2019s hold the horses here just a minute.\u00a0 Paul opens up a whole different category of people that have been saved but are not growing as they should.\n\nAnd part of the fear is if you simply acknowledge the reality of a carnal Christian they think that somehow you\u2019re supporting carnal Christianity.\u00a0 It\u2019s like yeah, carnal Christianity, isn\u2019t it great.\u00a0 I would call carnal Christianity this\u2014an unfortunate possibility.\u00a0 It\u2019s not something to be emphasized, it\u2019s not something obviously to be\u00a0 promoted, but you really can\u2019t do pastoral ministry the way God requires pastors to do it without first acknowledging that there could be an unfortunate possibility in someone\u2019s life.\n\nAnd then number seven, the most destructive part of Lordship salvation is it denies the assurance of salvation, because if I have to submit to a bunch of subjective criteria to be justified before God in the first place, whether it be faith plus commitment, faith plus obedience, faith plus sorrow, faith plus perseverance, how do I really know if I\u2019ve persevered enough.\u00a0 How do I know if I\u2019ve sorrowed enough?\u00a0 How do I know if I\u2019ve done enough good deeds because those things are never objectively defined exactly what it\u2019s supposed to look like in terms of an ironclad standard.\u00a0 I mean, let\u2019s say most of my thoughts this week were 75%\u00a0 good but I entertained 25% of the time some negative thoughts that I shouldn\u2019t have entertained.\u00a0 Well, I guess if Lordship salvation is true maybe I never yielded at all on the front end.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo you have this epidemic of people in the body of Christ that really don\u2019t know if they\u2019re Christians or not.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t know you\u2019re a Christian how in the world can you live for God when that uncertainty is always nagging away in\u00a0 your mind, because we, as Christians, have up days and we have down days.\u00a0 And we don\u2019t fall into a state of maybe I\u2019m saved, maybe I\u2019m not every time there\u2019s a down time.\u00a0 So Lordship salvation, there\u2019s almost no assurance of salvation in their teaching.\u00a0 A lot of the advocates of Lordship salvation themselves don\u2019t even know if they\u2019re saved.\u00a0 I should have brought them in but I could give you some quotes from the late R. C. Sproul where he publicly had tremendous doubts about his own salvation.\u00a0 At different times he made statements about it in his ministry and I\u2019m thinking what a shame to live that way when Jesus Himself has made us an ironclad promise that you can take to the bank in John 5:24, if you believe in Him then you have been transferred from death unto life in a nanosecond.\u00a0 [John 5:24, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.\u201d]\n\nAnd you build your Christian house on that promise because you fulfilled your part, which if faith alone, now the Lord wants you to grow and sometimes you\u2019ll be very successful and sometimes you may have a step or two backwards but your salvation is never in doubt.\u00a0\u00a0 Your rewards at the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ may be in doubt; your degree of authority in the coming millennial kingdom is still sort of up in the air, but not your salvation and deliverance from hell itself.\u00a0 So I have absolutely no problem demarcating Sugar Land Bible Church from people and teachers that teach this doctrine of Lordship salvation because it\u2019s a denial of one of the fundamentals of the faith, sola fide<\/em> and faith by itself.\n\nIn fact, and you don\u2019t have this slide but you have your Bible, right, which is more important than the slide, amen!\u00a0 He says in Galatians 1:6-9, \u201cI am amazed that you are so quickly deserting\u00a0Him who called you\u00a0by the grace<\/u> of Christ,\u201d grace is unmerited favor, \u201cfor a\u00a0different gospel<\/u>;\u201d\u00a0 different in what sense? It mixes faith plus works,\u00a0[7] which is\u00a0really\u00a0not another;\u201d in other words, it\u2019s really not a gospel, \u201conly there are some who are\u00a0disturbing you and want to distort the gospel<\/u> of Christ.\u00a0[8] But even if we, or\u00a0an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary<\/u> to what we have preached to you, he is to be\u00a0accursed)<\/u>!\u00a0[8] \u00a0<\/sup>As we\u00a0have said before, so I say again now,\u00a0if any man is preaching to you a gospel\u00a0contrary to what you received, he is to be\u00a0accursed (anathema<\/em>)<\/u>!\u201d\u00a0 Now when you look up the word \u201caccursed\u201d in Greek\u00a0 it\u2019s the word (anathema<\/em>) <\/u>which essentially is a strong condemnation to hell on the part of the Apostle Paul, against people who commit this theological error of mixing faith plus works to be justified before God.\n\nSo if you think Sugar Land Bible Church is sort of hard core on this issue, gee, I mean, how would you like to have Paul as your pastor.\u00a0 I mean, Paul was so hard lined on it that when Peter started to compromise the issue, Galatians 2 talks about how he went and challenged Peter right to his face,\u00a0 Peter, of course, being the lead apostle.\u00a0 Up until that particular point in time Peter is the main man all the way through Acts 1-10 and Peter got wishy-washy on this and Paul thought it was such a problem that he actually went and challenged Peter to his face.\u00a0 And so if that is true why would we accommodate that kind of teaching and that kind of doctrine.\u00a0 You can\u2019t accommodate it because it goes directly against one of the cardinals of the Christian faith, justification by faith alone.\n\nAnd that\u2019s where we stopped last time.\u00a0 What are some other doctrines that you separate yourself from?\u00a0 What other doctrines are mistaught that you say that\u2019s a false doctrine?\u00a0 Well another one is the eternal existence of heaven and hell.\u00a0 And there is an awful lot of gamesmanship being done today regarding the eternality of eternal retribution.\u00a0 I could give you some big names in the evangelical society, I\u2019ll give you one of them, his name is Clark Pinnock, and he is basically saying\u2026 he\u2019s sort of teaching what the Jehovah\u2019s Witness teach, he\u2019s sort of teaching a modified form of annihilationism.\u00a0 In other words, when the lost sinner dies they just sort, after a certain process or some would say instantaneously, their soul kind of explodes or is annihilated or disappears and once that happens there\u2019s no longer eternal retribution upon the unsaved.\n\nNotice Daniel 12:2, I want you to know that your Bible flatly denies annihilationism, as much as it would be comfortable to believe in annihilationism, because maybe we have a friend or a relative that died in an unsaved state (we think) and so we kind of want to make some kind of accommodation for them.\u00a0 Your Bible doesn\u2019t allow that.\u00a0 Daniel 12:2 (one of the clearest statements on the future resurrection that we have in Scripture) says this:\u00a0 \u201cMany of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and\u201d what\u2019s the next word, \u201cever\u00adlasting contempt.\u201d You see in that verse it gives you everlasting life for the believer and right there in the same verse it gives\u00a0 you everlasting contempt for the unbeliever and you\u2019ll notice the repetition of \u201ceverlasting.\u201d\u00a0 It\u2019s the Hebrew word olam<\/em>.\u00a0 That word is applied to the believer in the next life and it\u2019s again applied to the unbeliever in the next life as well.\u00a0 So if you\u2019re saying heaven is forever, which everybody says, but somehow hell isn\u2019t forever, then you\u2019ve got a linguistic problem here.\u00a0 You have to resort to all kinds of linguistic and exegetical gymnastics to make that theology work.\n\nAnd by the way, olam<\/em> is also used to describe God, Psalm 90:4, \u201cBefore the mountains were born or gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting\u201d that\u2019s olam,<\/em> \u201cto everlasting\u201d olam<\/em>, \u201cYou were God.\u00a0 So you ask an annihilationist, well, do you believe God is forever? Oh yeah, absolutely.\u00a0 Well do you believe that heaven is forever?\u00a0 Oh year, absolutely, I believe that.\u00a0 Well do you believe that hell is forever?\u00a0 Oh no, that\u2019s not true.\u00a0 Well, you can\u2019t play that game with God or His Word because olam<\/em> is used to describe all three. \u00a0So whatever you believe about heaven in terms of its eternality and God in terms of His eternality you can\u2019t make a special pleading for hell; hell is just as much an eternal reality as is those previous two things that I mentioned.\n\nThis concept is not just taught in the Old Testament, you\u2019ll also find it in the New Testament.\u00a0 There\u2019s a parallel passage over in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 and verse 46, Jesus\u2019 sheep and goat judgment. \u00a0Jesus says, \u201cThese will go away into\u201d what? \u201ceternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.\u201d\u00a0 [Matthew 25:46]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Now just like \u201colam\u201d is the Hebrew word for eternality, in Greek ionios<\/em> is the Hebrew word for eternality.\u00a0 So you\u2019ll notice that ionios<\/em> is applied to the believer in the next life, but also in the same verse the repetition of ionios<\/em> is applied to the unbeliever in the next life.\u00a0 \u201cThese will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.\u201d\u00a0 Ionios <\/em>first here for the unsaved, ionios<\/em> second here for the saved.\n\nAnd by the way, just for the record, the same word, ionios<\/em> is\u00a0 used to apply to God Himself in Romans 16:26, \u201cbut now is manifested by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal\u201d that\u2019s our word ionios<\/em>, \u201cGod, who has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;\u201d you\u2019ll notice that \u00a0ionios<\/em> there applies to God Himself.\n\nSo you ask an annihilationist do you believe that heaven is forever? Oh yeah, I believe that.\u00a0 Do you believe that God is forever.\u00a0 Oh yeah, I believe that.\u00a0 \u00a0Well do you believe that hell is forever for folks that die in an unsaved state?\u00a0 Oh no, I don\u2019t believe that.\u00a0 Well, you can\u2019t have it that way because \u00a0\u00a0ionios<\/em> is applied to all three concepts, just like in the Old Testament olah<\/em> is applied to all three concepts as well.\u00a0 We haven\u2019t gotten to Revelation 14 yet, we may get there before the rapture, but what does Revelation 14:11 say?\u00a0 It\u2019s a very clear statement about eternal retribution.\u00a0 It\u2019s talking about people in the tribulation being unsaved and evidencing that because they received the mark of the beast.\u00a0 So the smoke of their torment goes up for how long?\u00a0 Forever, and if that weren\u2019t enough it says \u201cforever and ever.\u201d\u00a0 So there\u2019s ai\u014dnios<\/em> there\u2019s a kind of a shorter form of the word there but it\u2019s the same root, there\u2019s ai\u014dnios<\/em> used twice to describe the unsaved.\u00a0 I mean, saying \u201cthe smoke of their torment goes up forever\u201d would be enough but just to get the point across the Holy Spirit doesn\u2019t just say forever, He says \u201cforever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, who receives the mark of his name.\u201d\n\nNow it\u2019s very interesting that at the end of the tribulation period in Revelation 19:20 the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire.\u00a0 And notice what it says there.\u00a0 \u201cAnd the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.\u201d\u00a0 And then you might know from our prophecy charts we\u2019ve been using as we\u2019ve been teaching through Daniel and the Book of Revelation and other prophetic books that following that judgment in Revelation 19 a thousand years will elapse, called the kingdom of God or the millennium, where the devil is not thrown into the lake of fire with his buddies, the beast and the false prophet, as happened at the end of the tribulation period but the devil is put in another place called the abyss because God has one more purpose for Satan, to deceive the world at the end of the thousand years.\n\nAnd then once God has finished using Satan for God\u2019s purposes then Satan, a thousand years later, will be thrown into the same lake of fire that the beast and the false prophet have been thrown into. And I want you to see something very interesting\u2014a thousand years later Satan is reunited with his two cohorts, the beast and the false prophet, in the lake of fire.\u00a0 Look at Revelation 20:10, it\u2019s very interesting.\u00a0 This is a thousand years later. It says, \u201cAnd the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone,\u201d now look at this, \u201cwhere the beast and the false prophet\u201d what\u2019s the next word, \u201care also;\u201d\u00a0 wait a minute, they\u2019re still in there, a thousand years has passed but they\u2019re still in the same lake of fire, they didn\u2019t disintegrate, they didn\u2019t explode, they continue on in this state of eternal retribution.\u00a0 And then the last clause in verse 10 is, \u201cand they will be tormented day and night\u201d and then it uses ai\u014dnios<\/em> twice again, \u201cforever and ever.\u201d\n\nAnd as much as I\u2019ve never really liked this doctrine and if I had my way I would take white out and take all this out of my Bible, I\u2019m not here to second guess what God has said; God has disclosed things to me that are beyond my comprehension or even my way of doing things.\u00a0 Isaiah 55:8-9 says, \u201cas the heavens are higher than the earth,\u201d His ways are higher than mine.\u00a0 [Isaiah 55:8-9, \u201cFor My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,\u201d declares the LORD.\u00a0 [9]\u00a0 \u201cFor as<\/em> the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.\u201d]\n\nAnd what we have today with liberalism and in some cases evangelicalism is people, like Clark Pinnock or you get into the kingdom of the cults, annihilationism is taught by the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses also.\u00a0 It\u2019s just an unwillingness to submit to what the text says.\u00a0 So what they want to do is they want to make God in man\u2019s image rather than the other way around.\u00a0 And that\u2019s an authority of Scripture issue and when somebody starts to challenge these types of concepts, the eternality of heaven and hell it\u2019s time to just say well, we\u2019re just going to part company,\u00a0 you go your way and we\u2019re going to go a different path.\u00a0 I mean, there\u2019s no room for fudging around on something that God has clearly spoken.\n\nAnd by the way, if this wasn\u2019t true, the eternal retribution concept, why in the world would we work so hard to evangelize?\u00a0 Why would we work so hard under God\u2019s grace to send out missionaries?\u00a0 I mean, why even bother to go to the trouble of being a missionary, learn another culture, translate the Bible from Greek or Hebrew into some foreign dialect that folks that\u2019s unnatural for them.\u00a0 You\u2019re doing that because you\u2019re trying to reach an unreached people group because there\u2019s something to be afraid of when you look at these passages.\u00a0 If\u00a0 you throw a wet blanket on the doctrine of eternal retribution and you sort of make it into something that it\u2019s not you just simultaneously threw a wet blanket over missionary work.\u00a0 The whole impetus of evangelism and missions is lost when you start going soft on what the Bible says concerning eternal retribution.\n\nAnd this is one of the things that my study of systematic theology has taught me; one of the things you have to understand is if you compromise one area of doctrine it\u2019s not going to be long until that has an impact on another area of doctrine.\u00a0 \u00a0Eschatology, eternal retribution, has a direct impact on\u00a0 your philosophy of missiology, it\u2019s a seamless tapestry and an alteration is one is going to lead automatically to an alteration in another.\u00a0 It\u2019s just like dominoes in a row, all you\u2019ve got to do is knock over one domino and the rest start to follow very, very fast.\u00a0 And so this concept of eternal retribution is not something that you can monkey around with.\n\nOne of my professors, Dr. Alan Gomes of Talbot Seminary, I took a few classes under him, he was very good professor, he wrote an article criticizing evangelicals back in 1991, who were already compromising on eternal retribution and instead teaching annihilationism.\u00a0 Gomes says, \u201cA punishment [such as torment]\u201d because what they\u2019re saying is poof, you just disappear, well if you disappear as an unbeliever how could that be eternal punishment?\u00a0 Gomes says, \u201cA punishment [such as torment] that is not felt is not a punishment. It is an odd use of language\u201d\u00a0 you know, being tormented forever and ever, \u201cto speak of an insensate state (an unfeeling state), an inanimate object receiving punishment. To say, \u2018I punished my car for not starting by slowly plucking out it\u2019s spark plug wires, one by one,\u2019 would invoke laughter, not serious consideration.\u201d\u00a0 [(Summer 1991). \u201cEvangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell\u201d (Part 2). In the Christian Research Journal. Page 11.]\n\nBecause you can\u2019t punish something that can\u2019t feel, do you see that?\u00a0 For eternal punishment to be punishment that concept itself is incompatible with the doctrine of annihilationism.\u00a0 So that would be another doctrine that we would separate\u00a0 ourselves from, people that will not acknowledge what the Scripture teaches.\n\nAnother doctrine that we would separate ourselves from is individuals that deny the Trinity.\u00a0 What \u00a0do we believe about the Trinity? \u00a0It\u2019s a mystery, it\u2019s hard for the human mind to wrap itself around it but the best I can explain it is the Trinity is as follows:\u00a0 God is one, He\u2019s monotheistic.\u00a0 Many, many Old Testament and New Testament verses teach that.\u00a0 One of them is Deuteronomy 6:4, \u201cHear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!\u201d\u00a0 You might want to jot down Isaiah 45:21, it very clearly teaches monotheism.\u00a0 [Isaiah 45:21, \u201cDeclare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.\u201d]\n\nHowever, even though God is monotheistic He has revealed Himself in three separate personages, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all three of which sharing in the essence of deity.\u00a0 And yet somehow at the same time each maintains its own personhood or uniqueness.\u00a0 The Son uniquely remains the Son although He shares in the same essence of deity with the Father, and it\u2019s the same with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit always remains the Holy Spirit even though the Holy Spirit shares the same essence of deity with the Father and the Spirit.\n\nSo you know people sometimes criticize our view on the rapture and they say this all the time, we believe in the pretribulational rapture and they\u2019ll say this and it always makes me laugh when they say it, they say give me one verse that proves the pre-trib rapture.\u00a0 My response is well give me one verse that proves the Trinity, because that\u2019s not how Bible doctrine is revealed.\u00a0 There is no book of the Bible that says we\u2019re in the Trinity part of the Bible now.\u00a0 There is no book of the Bible that says we\u2019re in the rapture part of the Bible now.\u00a0 To put any doctrine together, including the tri unity of God, you have to piece Scripture together with Scripture and we do that with the rapture; we\u2019re doing that with the Trinity.\n\nIn 1 Peter 1:2 you\u2019ll see that the Father is called God.\u00a0 [1 Peter 1:2, \u201caccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.\u201d]\n\nIn Acts 5:3-4 you\u2019ll see that the Holy Spirit is called God.\u00a0 [Acts 5:3-4, \u201cBut Peter said, \u201cAnanias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some<\/em> of the price of the land?\u00a0 [4] While it remained unsold,<\/em> did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.\u201d] That has to do with the discipline, maximum divine discipline of Ananias and Sapphira.\u00a0 Peter specifically says in Acts 5:3-4 to Ananias and Sapphira, you have not just lied to the Spirit but you have lied to God, which means that the Holy Spirit is God.\n\nSo the Father is God, the Spirit is God, there\u2019s no doubt that the Son, Jesus Christ, is God.\u00a0 My mother, for example, was raised in a home where she was taught that Jesus is a good moral teacher but He never claimed to be God.\u00a0 And I think to myself, well then He wasn\u2019t a very good teacher if that\u2019s true because He taught He was God over and over again.\u00a0 And yet people have this mindset of Jesus, He was a great Reformer, or whatever they want to make Him into, a very teacher but He never claimed to be God.\u00a0 Of course He claimed to be God.\u00a0 In John 8:58-59 He took the title \u201cI AM\u201d and applied it directly to Himself.\u00a0 [John 8:58-59, \u201cJesus said to them, \u2018Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.\u2019\u00a0 [58] Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.\u201d]\n\nNow \u201cI am\u201d in the Greek it\u2019s ego eimi<\/em>, is a big BIG dea1!\u00a0 (With an exclamation point after it).\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because that\u2019s the title that God uses.\u00a0 Remember the calling of Moses?\u00a0 Moses, and Exodus 3:14 says \u201cwhom shall I say has sent Me.\u201d And God says tell him \u201cI AM\u201d sent you. \u00a0[Exodus 3:14, \u201cGod said to Moses, \u2018I AM WHO I AM\u2019; and He said, \u2018Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.\u2019\u201d]\u00a0 The self-existent One.\u00a0 And Jesus took that title and He applied it directly to Himself in John 8:58-59.\u00a0 [John 8:58, \u201cJesus said to them, \u2018Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.\u2019\u00a0 [59] Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.\u201d]\n\nAnd the Jews had absolutely no problem deciphering the message; they knew exactly what He was doing because immediately, John 8:59 says they picked up stones to stone Him to death.\u00a0 To their mind it was blasphemy because a mere man is not supposed to claim to be God.\u00a0 I mean, there\u2019s absolutely no ambiguity that Jesus claimed to be God.\u00a0 Now in the trials of Jesus there\u2019s three religious trials in the Passion Week and three political trials.\u00a0 Three before the Jewish leaders and three more before the political Roman establishment.\u00a0 And over in Mark 14:61-64 Jesus took Daniel 7:13, the prophecy of the Son of Man coming at the end of the age to bring in His kingdom, He took that prophecy and applied it to Himself.\n\n[Mark 14:61-64, \u201cBut He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, \u201cAre You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?<\/em>\u201d [62] And Jesus said, \u201cI am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.\u201d [63] Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, \u201cWhat further need do we have of witnesses? [64]\u201cYou have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?\u201d And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.\u201d\u00a0 Daniel 7:13, \u201cI kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.\u201d]\n\nAnd they had once again no problem, there was no ambiguity here, they had no problem deciphering the message because the Bible says, Mark 14:61-64, at one of these religious trials of Jesus the high priest immediately tore his robe, just like in John 8:59,\u00a0 they immediately picked up stones to stone Him to death.\u00a0 He [the high priest] tore His robes and He said, what further evidence do we need, to put this man to death in other words\u00a0 This man is a blasphemer.\n\n[Mark 14:61-64, \u201cBut He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, \u201cAre You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?<\/em>\u201d [62] And Jesus said, \u201cI am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.\u201d [63] Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, \u201cWhat further need do we have of witnesses? [64] You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?\u201d And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 John 8:59, \u201cTherefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.\u201d]\n\nSo this idea that Jesus was a good teacher but He never claimed to be God, that is laughable when you actually read what the Scripture says.\u00a0 So the Son is God, the Spirit is God, the Father is God, and yet at the same time somehow they maintain their unique personhood, the mystery of the Trinity.\u00a0 And this is why we don\u2019t invite Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in her to set up their ministry table. By the way, when you go in and out of Fort Bend Public Library, every time I\u2019ve been over there, if you go on a Saturday there\u2019s where the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses are, passing out their literature; very nice people, very smiley, it\u2019s amazing how attractive and colorful their brochures are, but why would we not embrace that type of doctrine?\u00a0 Because they\u2019re denying the Trinity.\u00a0 They don\u2019t believe that Jesus Christ is the eternally existent second member of the Trinity.\u00a0 They believe Jesus Christ was a creation.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0\u00a0 And if you say that Jesus was a creation then you\u2019re denying the Trinity.\n\nWhat\u2019s wrong with Mormonism?\u00a0 I mean, they all vote Republican, right?\u00a0 What could be wrong with that?\u00a0 You look at a Mormon, you look at someone like Glenn Beck for example, who\u2019s very popular on TV, you listen to a lot of his things that he says and he\u2019s got the same sort of limited government political philosophy that I have but the fact of the matter is you separate yourself from somebody like that because he is denying the Trinity whether he openly teaches on it or not.\u00a0 They believe that Jesus was nothing more than a brother, if you will, of Satan.\u00a0 So it\u2019s important to understand true doctrine so you can sort of understand what to separate\u00a0 yourself from.\u00a0 So one of the fundamentals of the faith that collapses very fast is any type of teaching tampering with the Trinity.\n\nAnother doctrine that\u2019s mishandled that you separate yourself from folks if they don\u2019t teach it correctly is the virgin birth of Christ.\u00a0 Here are some quotes from leading evangelicals that to me look like they\u2019re getting very soft on the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ.\u00a0 This is Andy Stanley.\u00a0 Andy Stanley, to my knowledge probably has the largest, or perhaps the second largest church in the United States of America and it\u2019s sad to watch because he is the son legendary Charles Stanley who I\u2019ve always had a very high opinion of, and I\u2019ve always wanted to like Andy Stanley, we went to the exact same school, he was there before I was, and he\u2019s got a pretty good first name\u2026 I mean, why not reach out and why don\u2019t we just set up an Andy Stanley satellite campus here at Sugar Land Bible Church?\u00a0 I mean, why don\u2019t we just livestream his stuff?\u00a0 Why don\u2019t we put all his stuff on our website?\u00a0 Well, you can\u2019t, because he\u2019s soft on the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ.\n\nHe said, this was a couple of years ago, \u201cOne of the challenging things about the Christmas season and one of the challenging things about the Christmas story is, in fact, the Christmas story \u2013 the Christmas story as it relates to the birth of Jesus. Because there is so much miraculous, there is so much amazing, there is so much that\u2019s really unbelievable about it and a whole lot of people just don\u2019t believe; and I understand that. Maybe the thought is that they had to come up with some myth about the birth of Jesus to give him street cred later on.\u201d\n\nI mean, is that how the doctrine of the virgin birth came about, a bunch of people in biblical times inventing it to give Jesus street cred.\u00a0 \u201cIt is interesting because Matthew gives us a version of the birth of Jesus. Luke does, but Mark\u201d doesn\u2019t even mention it.\u00a0 Well, Andy, there\u2019s a reason Mark doesn\u2019t mention it\u2014Mark has a different purpose for writing.\u00a0 Mark is trying to explain that Jesus, to a Roman audience, is a suffering servant.\u00a0 And in Greco Roman times a mere slave did not have a genealogy.\u00a0 That\u2019s why it\u2019s omitted.\u00a0 I think Mark probably reasoned that the issue has already been covered very well in Matthew and Mark so why just restate it?\u00a0 To say that Mark doesn\u2019t mention it so therefore it\u2019s a denial of the virgin birth, that misunderstands what Mark is doing or what any biblical writer is doing; they\u2019re weaving material together consistent with their purpose in writing.\u00a0 In other words, a failure to mention something is not the same thing as a denial.\u00a0 It\u2019s like when I used to teach at the college and I used to give people exams and I was one of those professors that did that.\u00a0 Can I get an amen!\u00a0 [Laughter]\n\nAnd so you have students coming up at the end of the semester and they\u2019re saying I didn\u2019t think I had to take the final.\u00a0 I say why would you think that?\u00a0 Well, you never emphasized it later on in the class.\u00a0 I said well was it on the syllabus?\u00a0 Yeah, but you never talked more about it.\u00a0 Well, you\u2019re confusing a lack of mentioning something with a cancellation.\u00a0 And this is what is very troubling about this statement that he makes; it\u2019s not even brought up in Mark\u2019s Gospel.\u00a0 And then he says it\u2019s not even brought up in John\u2019s Gospel.\u00a0 Now I don\u2019t even think that\u2019s true.\u00a0 I think Jesus makes an indirect reference to it in John 8 when the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of being an illegitimate child.\u00a0 Luke does but Mark and John don\u2019t even mention it and a lot has been made of that.\u00a0 \u201cAnd you have heard me say some version of this a million times but if someone can predict their own death and resurrection I\u2019m not all that concerned about how they got into the world.\u00a0 Do you realize what he just did there?\u00a0 He is not concerned about how Jesus got into the world because after all, we\u2019ve got the death, burial and resurrection.\u00a0 Folks, if you don\u2019t have a virgin birth you don\u2019t have a Messiah qualified to die and rise from the dead.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cbecause the whole resurrection thing is so amazing and, in fact, you should know this. \u00a0Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [https:\/\/christianindex.org\/andy-stanleys-approach-to-the-virgin-birth]\u00a0\u00a0 That last statement I completely reject that; Christianity doesn\u2019t exist if you don\u2019t have a virgin birth.\u00a0 So we would separate from groups like this.\n\nBrian McLaren, you sort of expect more of this kind of thing from him as a leader of the emergent church.\u00a0 He has a podcast called \u201cBe Still and Go.\u201d\u00a0 And he talks here about A Post-Patriarchal Christmas and how the resurrection is a \u201cscience-defying miracle.\u201d\u00a0 Well, of course it is, that\u2019s what a miracle is supposed to be, right.\u00a0 It\u2019s supposed to deny science or else it wouldn\u2019t be a miracle.\u00a0 \u201cHe protested, \u2018This approach never really worked for me. How can you use something you can\u2019t prove\u2014a virgin birth long ago\u2014to prove something else\u2014the unique identity of Jesus?\u2019 McLaren goes on and he says \u201cthe virgin birth\u2019s \u201cgreatest value isn\u2019t in proving something, but in meaning something.\u201d \u00a0McLaren says men are messing it up, in other words, our interpretation of it is messing up what God originally intended.\u00a0 And then he says \u201cI\u2019m going to work directly with women for a change.\u201d\u00a0 Oh, so this whole virgin birth thing is really about the oppression of women.\u00a0 Did you know that?\u00a0 \u201c\u2019I\u2019m going to work directly with women for a change.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0I\u2019m taking a step to overthrow the patriarchy.\u201d Whether you believe the \u201cvirgin birth story\u201d or not, McLaren said, whether you believe in \u201cits \u201cliteral factuality\u201d is \u201cnot the point.\u201d\n\nThe literal factual miraculous reality of the virgin birth is not the point?\u00a0 I thought that was the point!\u00a0 But what he\u2019s doing is he\u2019s bringing in what\u2019s called critical theory, deconstructionism, that\u2019s what\u2019s taught in all the campuses today, that when\u00a0 you read people of the past what they\u2019re really doing is they\u2019re trying to oppress you.\u00a0 Anybody that\u2019s a racial minority is being oppressed by these dead white people from the past.\u00a0 And here he\u2019s reading in critical theory related to feminism into the virgin birth story.\u00a0 This is what you call deconstructionism.\u00a0 \u201cMcLaren concluded the virgin birth is\u201d quote \u201cabout a profound rejection of violence,\u201d the notion that peace can never come through the old, blood-stained path of patriarchy.\u201d\n\nNow it\u2019s dominoes in a row, isn\u2019t it.\u00a0 Were you here when I preached the Sunday before Christmas.\u00a0 I gave seven purposes or reasons for the virgin birth, back to the old dominoes in a row, you knock over one domino and the rest start to fall very fast.\u00a0 Like what?\u00a0 Fulfillment of prophecy, Christ\u2019s humanity and deity, Christ\u2019s eternality, Christ\u2019s sinlessness.\u00a0 I mean, if Jesus had had a normal physical conception the sin nature from Adam would have been passed on to him.\n\nAnd it doesn\u2019t matter what lip service you give to the death of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, all of it is invalid for the simple reason that God requires what kind of a sacrifice?\u00a0 An unblemished sacrifice, just like the Passover Lamb was unblemished.\u00a0 And the atonement of Jesus Christ suffers; you\u2019ve got Jesus now physically born under a curse and at least two gospel accounts, Matthew and Luke are telling you a lie.\u00a0 This is what deconstructionists want you to believe.\u00a0 It\u2019s really all about the oppression of some group, in this case women.\n\nSo what do you do with people that start to play games with the virgin birth of Christ?\u00a0 Well, you give them a warning.\u00a0 You try to figure out are they saying something that I misunderstood?\u00a0 I try to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as I can but you get to a certain point where there\u2019s no repentance and they just continue to barrel forward with this false doctrine, what am I supposed to do as a shepherd?\u00a0 I would steer my sheep away from people like that.\u00a0 And people say well, don\u2019t you know all the good things that are happening in Andy Stanley\u2019s church?\u00a0 Don\u2019t\u00a0 you realize how big it is?\u00a0 And don\u2019t you realize how many satellite campuses they have?\u00a0 And I\u2019m not denying that they\u2019re probably are some good things.\n\nBut let me ask you a question.\u00a0 How much, if this is filled with water, in fact, I have a better one for show and tell, here\u2019s a real one filled with water, which won\u2019t be filled with water in a second if I drink it all, but if this thing is filled with water and I wanted to poison it how much poison do I really need?\u00a0 I mean, I don\u2019t have to fill this thing three-quarters up with poison, or 95% with poison.\u00a0 All you\u2019ve got to do is put one drop in there.\u00a0 And this is my concern with some of these so-called ministries that I\u2019ve been talking about.\u00a0 It\u2019s not with a lot of the wonderful things they may be saying or doing; it\u2019s that single drop of poison on a fundamental issue, the virgin birth, which left unchecked will, mark my words, will destroy Christianity.\n\nAnd if you think that liberalism has so effect on the church I would just invite you to do something.\u00a0 Go travel around Europe today and take a look at the state of the church.\u00a0 You know, Europe is where the Protestant Reformation itself happened.\u00a0\u00a0 God mightily worked through Europe and today what is it, less than 1% of the population is even church going at all.\u00a0 The dominant growing religion probably in Europe is not Christianity but Islam.\u00a0 And how do you account for this deterioration?\u00a0 I\u2019ll tell you exactly how you account for it.\u00a0 It\u2019s what started to happen in their institutions because that\u2019s where you have higher criticism. And Rudolf Bultmann and Wellhausen, and the JEPD theory denying Mosaic authorship and folks saying well, the Book of Daniel wasn\u2019t written in the sixth century, it was written in the second century.\u00a0 And after all, we don\u2019t really have the original manuscripts so we think this was all pieced together by folks long after the time of Moses, through various documents, called the JEPD theory.\n\nWhere did all this stuff originate?\u00a0 It originated in Germany, it originated in Europe, and look at the state of the church today?\u00a0 It\u2019s destroyed.\u00a0 So when you start to understand this you can start to see why I, as a shepherd, get a wee bit uptight with people that are very, very popular that seem to be always either denying or marginalizing something without which Christianity couldn\u2019t, won\u2019t go forward.\u00a0 Christianity, if this kind of stuff continues unchecked, and if you don\u2019t start to have voices raising up against these kind of things the Christianity we have will not exist for generations down the road.\u00a0 And it may be too late already, I hope it\u2019s not!\u00a0 But history is largely repeating itself; the things that happened in Europe are largely repeating themselves for the United States.\n\nFather, we\u2019re sorrowful by some of these things we see but at the same time grateful for the truth You\u2019ve given us.\u00a0 Help us to be good defenders of the truth in these last days.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be careful to give you all the praise and the glory.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026 Amen.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t