{"id":19146,"date":"2017-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-04-09T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/soteriology-055\/"},"modified":"2017-04-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2017-04-09T05:00:00","slug":"soteriology-055","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/soteriology-055\/","title":{"rendered":"Soteriology 055"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[68],"series_event":[459],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19146","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-isaiah","series_event-soteriology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Soteriology 055","sermon_date":"20170409","sermon_month":"4","sermon_year":"2017","sermon_notes":4540,"sermon_slides":4545,"sermon_mp3":4546,"sermon_id":"4917104253","series_or_event":459,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":68,"chapter_and_verse":"53:3-6","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nSoteriology 55\n\nApril 9, 2017\n\nFather, we\u2019re grateful for this morning; grateful for the Sunday that we celebrate today, which is the showing up of Jesus exactly as prophecy demanded, and He showed up at an exact time in history to be rejected by His own people, but You took that, Father, and turned that into a blessing and through that the sin debt of the world has been paid for.\u00a0 So we recognize this very special day in the life of the ministry of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 I just ask, Father, that\u00a0 You\u2019ll be with us as we look into Soteriology in Sunday School this morning in Daniel 6; I just ask that your Holy Spirit would be present and would be illuminating the Scriptures to us and that we would leave here edified even if we\u2019re here or watching from some other location I pray that people would be edified, challenged and You would do something eternal today in people, ever perhaps people could be watching that aren\u2019t saved maybe today on Palm Sunday would be the day of their salvation.\u00a0 We know that only You can do things like that and so we ask that You\u2019ll take our meager loaves and fish and as we put those into Your hands that You would multiply them.\u00a0 We ask this in Jesus\u2019 name, Amen.\n\nDid you guys bring your palms with you to Palm Sunday.\u00a0 I\u2019ve got my palms right here, right, okay.\u00a0 Let\u2019s open our Bibles to Isaiah 53\u00a0 Let\u2019s open our bibles to Isaiah 53 if we could, you should have two handouts, the test which is what we\u2019re going through, and then also a copy of the slides that we\u2019re using today.\u00a0 If you didn\u2019t get either of those or you only got one maybe you could put your hand up.\n\nWe are actually on page 5 on the test and we\u2019re in question number 35, so we\u2019ve done 52 weeks of teaching in soteriology and rather than just rushing into the next subject I have this test that I\u2019ve given you which is really designed to cause you to think back on some of the things that we\u2019ve talked about to kind of dust the cobwebs off because it\u2019s easy to put these things into your mind somewhere and never really use them, and if you don\u2019t use it what typically happens?\u00a0 You lose it, so a test is actually your friend in that sense.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t graded or anything, it\u2019s for your own edification and we have a copy of this test on our website, if you go to our Sermon Archives and you go to Soteriology Lesson number 54, under Sermon notes, this test should be accessible.\n\nJust real quickly by way of review this is the outline that we\u2019ve used, going through soteriology and we\u2019ve looked at these eight major topics.\u00a0 And now we\u2019re taking our final exam and we\u2019re already at question number 35, and you\u2019ll notice that once you hit question 35 it says: Define what are the false views of the atonement by circling the correct answer.\u00a0 So question 35 says: How do the false views of the atonement differ from the true view of the atonement.\u00a0 And one of the things to understand is why is it that we today are not meeting in a mainline denominational church?\u00a0 The mainline denominations, I would call the seven sisters, you have Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, and there\u2019s seven of them and some of them are escaping me.\u00a0 Episcopalian, which is my roots.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure if Baptist is one of the seven sisters.\n\nBut what you have to understand and I\u2019m not trying to broad brush because when you go to certain groups within those denominations there\u2019s conservative elements and split offs.\u00a0 But by and large when you go to a church like that what you have to understand is most of those churches abandoned some time back something called the fundamentals of the faith.\u00a0 So what happened is they began to send their best scholars to Europe to be educated and when you go sit in Europe under unbelievers, and I like what Thomas Jefferson said, he said, \u201cThe difference between America and Europe is the difference between heaven and hell.\u00a0 [Laughter]\u00a0 But there\u2019s this mindset that they\u2019re the best scholars over there, we\u2019ve all got to go sit under them, and so they sent they sent their best and brightest over there to study in Europe and they got exposed to something called higher criticism.\n\nHigher criticism is the idea that man sits in judgment on the Bible, so a higher critic would basically say Moses did not author the Pentateuch.\u00a0 They attribute those to redactional works written long after the time of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy.\u00a0 They would say Daniel, that we\u2019re studying on Sunday mornings, was not written by Daniel, it was someone using Daniel\u2019s name 400 years after the real Daniel died.\u00a0 They would say that the book of Isaiah is not unified so they don\u2019t attribute the book to the singular author, Isaiah.\u00a0 So they divide up the book of Isaiah into Proto Isaiah, that\u2019s the real Isaiah, he wrote about a third of it, and then someone later picked up the slack and wrote Deutero Isaiah, he\u2019s not the real Isaiah either, he\u2019s someone using Isaiah\u2019s name.\u00a0 And then the final section was written by Trito Isaiah.\n\nThe problem is Jesus quotes all three sections of Isaiah and attributes it to the author, who? Isaiah.\u00a0 The problem is Jesus quotes the book of Daniel and says who wrote it?\u00a0 Daniel.\u00a0 And Jesus quotes the Pentateuch and says who wrote it?\u00a0 Moses.\u00a0 So what happened is people got under this teaching in Europe, higher criticism, and a lot of the things coming out of Europe at that time were based on certain assumptions that we know today aren\u2019t true.\u00a0 So one of the things they started to come up this, this would be the late 1800\u2019s--early 1900\u2019s, is there was no writing in the time of Moses.\u00a0 So if there was no such thing as writing in the time of Moses obviously the Pentateuch couldn\u2019t have been written in the time of Moses.\u00a0 Well, the problem is now we\u2019ve discovered the Code of Hammurabi which precedes the writings of Moses by about 400 years.\u00a0 So obviously there was writing at the time of Moses.\u00a0 But that discovery was made too late to deactivate this liberal idea that Moses didn\u2019t write the Pentateuch or the Torah.\n\nAnd a lot of it is evolutionary in thinking because poor man, in his un-advanced devolved state couldn\u2019t write anyway, he could just kind of grunt and grumble and the poor guy didn\u2019t even know what fire was until lightning struck and he could scribble a few things on the cave wall. And over the process of a long time a language evolved.\u00a0 The problem is when you go back to early Genesis you learn in Genesis 4 that they were making instruments out of bronze and iron in Genesis 4.\u00a0 Now that in and of itself deflates evolutionary anthropology because first they told us we had what?\u00a0 What comes first, the bronze age I think was first, then the iron age, and that\u2019s all based on evolutionary assumptions.\u00a0 And when you go back into the biblical text you discover them using bronze and iron at the same time.\n\nSo what I\u2019m trying to say is if you believe in evolutionary assumption you start to develop all of this higher criticism and you start to second guess things in the Bible.\u00a0 So what happened is we started sending our best and brightest future scholars, future theologians, future pastors over to Europe to get this training and our best and brightest didn\u2019t necessarily buy into everything they were taught but they brought back a little piece of it here and there.\u00a0 So I can\u2019t find a single verse in the Bible that says to qualify to teach believers you\u2019ve to go sit under unbelievers for five years or however long.\u00a0 So what happened is they brought back little pieces of liberalism here and there and you can\u2019t sit in an unbelieving environment for a long time and have it never affect you.\u00a0 So that\u2019s why when you\u2019re choosing an institution to study under you should choose very carefully because there\u2019s going to be some impact on you;\u00a0 you can\u2019t be in that environment that long without it affecting you at least a little.\n\nSo they came back into the mainline denominations and they started to say things that the laity think well, that doesn\u2019t sound right, and so what started in the mainline denominations, this takes you to about 1920, and it\u2019s what\u2019s called The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.\u00a0 And the Scopes Monkey Trial, you remember that from history, was happening around the same time which kind of expedited or intensified the conflict.\u00a0 But there was an actual theological war that took place in these mainline denominations in what are called the Seven Sisters.\n\nAnd there was a famous sermon preached during that time period by a guy named Fosdick, I think his first name was Harry, middle name was Emerson, Fosdick, and he preached the famous sermon called Shall The Fundamentalists Win<\/em>?\u00a0 In other words, we\u2019re not going to let the fundamentalists control these mainline denominations.\u00a0 So what happened is there\u2019s this conflict that goes on and guess who lost?\u00a0 We lost, I mean, if we didn\u2019t lose we would still be meeting in the mainline denominations, right?\u00a0 So when you lose a battle like that there\u2019s always a cost, so we lost libraries, we lost buildings, we lost universities, we lost endowments.\u00a0 And see people mock our side of the ledger, they say well, you fundamentalists always meet in these store-front buildings, you don\u2019t have the big steeples and stained glass windows.\u00a0 Well, there\u2019s a history there that explains why we\u2019re not meeting in the well-endowed buildings of modern day Christendom.\n\nAnd one of the things that started to get denied during this time period was the bodily substitution\u00adary death of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 So what they started to say, coming from the influence of Europe into the mainline denominations is this is how you could recognize if you were sitting in a conservative church or a liberal church, is you would basically what are they teaching about the bodily penal substitution of Jesus Christ?\u00a0 And they started to present Christ as\u2014well, He died on a cross to be an example for us.\u00a0 Now that\u2019s partially true, He is an example, but that\u2019s not why He died on the cross if you\u2019re looking for a complete reason.\u00a0 Or He died on a cross to teach us to work harder.\u00a0 Or He died on a cross to help us to love our fellow man.\u00a0 And all of these definitions are missing why He died on the cross.\u00a0 He died on the cross as my substitute. \u00a0That\u2019s why we call it the vicarious\u2026 now you now the word vicarious, right\u2014in the place of somebody else.\u00a0 So if\u00a0 you\u2019re saying someone is living vicariously through me you\u2019re saying they\u2019re living their life through me.\n\nSo you recognize the word \u201cvicarious.\u201d\u00a0 You recognize the word \u201cpenal\u201d as in punishment, that\u2019s why we have in the legal system a penal code, a punishment. So vicarious penal substitution is the correct definition of the atonement.\u00a0 And if a preacher or a teacher or a theologian was either denying or not emphasizing the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ you could recognize that you\u2019re under a ministry that may be corrupted because of higher criticism coming from Europe.\n\nAround that same period of time there was a guy named R. A. Torrey, and others who started to fight back and saw that our side, fundamentalism, was losing. And today even that word \u201cfundamentalism\u201d is a put-down.\u00a0 Today if you use the word fundamental they\u2019re basically making you out to be a member of the flat earth society.\u00a0 But that\u2019s not the way the word fundamentalist originally arose.\u00a0\u00a0 Fundamentalism, what does that really mean?\u00a0 It\u2019s someone who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity; that\u2019s what a fundamentalist is.\n\nSo every discipline has its fundamentals, doesn\u2019t it?\u00a0 In fact, when I do some flying, later on this year, I hope the pilot is a fundamentalist and I hope he believes in the fundamentals of flying, because the gas tank has to be filled up with gas before you launch off, that he\u2019s looking at his compass\u00a0 and taking the numbers literally.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to get in an airplane with someone that\u2019s not a fundamentalist in the area of flying.\u00a0 So being a fundamentalist, although it\u2019s a put-down today that\u2019s not the way the term originally arose.\n\nSo around this time of the fundamentalist, modernist controversy as our side was losing control of denominations and libraries and endowments and things like this there started a movement called \u201cFundamentalism.\u201d\u00a0 And R. A. Torrey wrote a very influential collection of essays.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t write all the essays but he was the editor of these essays and the essays simply are called The Fundamentals of the Faith<\/em>.\u00a0 And you can find those today online; most libraries have them.\u00a0 And this is how Biola College started; it was a reaction against the drift of mainline denominations and they wanted to start a fundamentalist school.\u00a0 This is how Dallas Seminary got its start.\u00a0 This is how Moody Bible Institute got its start.\u00a0 This is how College of Biblical Studies is more of a distant relative, it started in the 70\u2019s but it\u2019s all started out of this reaction against this drift in mainline denominations.\u00a0 And so R. A. Torrey set out the fundamentals of the faith, that Daniel was written in the 6th<\/sup> century, that Isaiah is a unified book, that Jesus came out of the grave in a body (which we celebrate next week) and He\u2019s coming back in a body, a literal return of Jesus Christ.\n\nAnd these were the things that were being denied in the mainline denominations, and right there in the front of the whole thing was this idea of the atonement.\u00a0 And there\u2019s an essay dealing with the vicarious substitutionary penal atonement of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 So Jesus did not die to be a good moral example the way the mainline denominations at that time were teaching.\u00a0 He died as my substitute.\u00a0 In other words, the wrath of God that He bore on a cross 2000 years ago should have been borne by me.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo that\u2019s the spirit behind question number 35.\u00a0 How do the false views of the atonement, and I\u2019ve sort of shown you where they came from, how do the false views of the atonement differ from the true atonement? And the correct answer is B, they all deny Christ died as my substitute.\u00a0 So that\u2019s one of the ways you can recognize, if you\u2019re under somebody that\u2019s more liberal, they have a tendency to talk about all this stuff about Jesus without getting to the heart of the matter which is His substitutionary death in my place.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why R. A. Torrey made a point out of this in the books, volumes that he compiled, edited, called The Fundamentals of the Faith<\/em>.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not an odd teaching, it goes right back to Isaiah 53 which is a prophecy about Jesus written 700 years in advance.\u00a0 And people say well how do we know this is Jesus, because modern day Judaism will deny that this prophecy is speaking about Jesus.\u00a0 Well, I think Philip, the deacon, thought this was talking about Jesus because he used this passage in Acts 8 to lead who to Christ?\u00a0 The Ethiopian Eunuch.\u00a0 Acts 8:35 says Philip, beginning with that very passage of Scripture, Isaiah 53 being read by the Ethiopian Eunuch, he used this very Scripture to share with him, I can\u2019t remember the exact wording, you can look it up for yourself in Acts 8, but he used this very Scripture to teach him about Jesus Christ.\u00a0 [Acts 8:35, \u201cThen Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.\u201d]\n\nSo this is a prophecy about Jesus Christ written 700 years in advance; that\u2019s what this is.\u00a0 And when you look at this notice how substitution is so prominent.\u00a0 It says, \u201cHe was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.\u00a0 [4] Surely our griefs\u201d what? \u201cHe Himself bore\u2026 see the substitution there?\u00a0 \u201cAnd our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted, [5] But He was pierced through for our transgressions,\u201d see how it keeps saying He did this for us, \u201cHe was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging\u201d what? \u201cwe are healed. \u00a0[6] All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on\u201d what? \u201cHim.\u201d\u00a0 [Isaiah 53:3-6]\n\nSo when you get to this subject of atonement the correct understanding of it is substitution.\u00a0 Now I\u2019m not denying the fact that when you look at the death of Christ you don\u2019t see in it aspects of where we should be servants and good to people and that kind of thing, and that\u2019s all true but the problem with the drift into liberalism is they focused on all that other stuff and they started omitting the fact that He was our substitute.\u00a0 So any definition of the atonement that does not use the word \u201csubstitute\u201d in it, vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement, is inadequate, ultimately an unbiblical definition.\n\nAnd the church really started to hammer this into place as late as the 1100\u2019s because long before the fundamentalist modernist controversy, and I want you to understand something about the devil, he never takes a vacation.\u00a0 Have\u00a0 you noticed that?\u00a0 He never clocks out; you know, you never get an e-mail from Satan saying back in the office in two weeks.\u00a0 I mean, he\u2019s working all of the time to distort and corrupt anything that\u2019s good.\u00a0 And very early on in church history people started to get really fuzzy with the doctrine of the atonement.\n\nAnd these are the false views of the atonement: the ransom to Satan view, which is this idea that Christ\u2019s death is a ransom to Satan and not the Father.\u00a0 Now the modern teacher that has been flagged as teaching something like this or very similar is Joyce Meyer who you see a lot on TV and if you look at some of the criticisms of her what is being said, and you can ferret out the evidence for yourself, is she is sort of drifting into this ransom to Satan idea, that the death of Jesus Christ is really not a payment for the sins of the world but it\u2019s some kind of payment to the devil.\u00a0 And again there\u2019s an element of truth to it but it really doesn\u2019t capture the idea.\u00a0 I mean, Jesus didn\u2019t die on the cross to pay Satan back anything; He died on a cross to pay our sin debt, right?\u00a0 Our sin debt separates us from a holy God.\n\nAnd then you see the moral influence view, Christ\u2019s death is an expression of God\u2019s love.\u00a0 That\u2019s what really started to take hold in the mainline denominations.\u00a0\u00a0 You can see the years when that came into existence, long before the fundamentalist\/modernist controversy.\u00a0 Then you have the moral example view; Christ\u2019s death inspires us to be sacrificial, which it does, but that\u2019s not why He died ultimately, He died as my substitute.\u00a0 Then you see the governmental view, Christ\u2019s death promotes respect for God\u2019s law, so look at how much God hates violations of His law, look at the death of His Son, so therefore what should I do?\u00a0 I should work harder to keep His law.\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s a works oriented salvation and again it fails to capture the idea of substitution.\n\nAnd then this last one, the only way you could embrace it is if you could care less about the Bible and it\u2019s revelation; it\u2019s the accidental view which is this idea that forces took Christ off guard, swept Him off guard and fate accidentally ended Jesus\u2019 life, so He was killed because of forces outside of His control.\u00a0 The easy refutation to that is over in John 10 and verse 18, which says, \u201cNo one has taken it away from Me\u201d speaking of His death, \u201cbut I lay it down on\u201d what? \u201cMy own initiative, I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.\u201d\u00a0 If you go back to verse 17 it says, \u201cFor this reason the Father loves Me, because I laid down My life so that I may take it again.\u201d\u00a0 Jesus never lost control of anything; He allowed it to happen.\u00a0 In fact,\u00a0 you recall that He, in\u2026 I think it was the exchange with Pilate, if I remember right, He said to shut this whole thing down My Father could just summon myriads of angels to stop it, but He voluntarily submitted to the cross because He had His mission of dying as our substitute.\n\nSo this accidental view, fate accidentally ended Jesus\u2019 life, obviously is wrong as well.\u00a0 But really the key thing to understand is all of these definitions of the atonement fall short because they deny the concept of vicarious penal substitution.\u00a0 You guys with me on that?\n\nSo therefore the correct answer to 36 is C.\u00a0 The correct answer to 37 is B.\u00a0 The correct answer to 38 is C.\u00a0 The correct answer to 39 is C.\u00a0 And the correct answer to 40 is A.\u00a0 So starting with number 35 the correct answer is B.\u00a0 36, the correct answer is D, 37 B, 38 C, 39 C, 40 A.\n\nSo this takes us to Roman numeral 5, at the bottom of page 5, determine the accuracy of these statements regarding one\u2019s condition for salvation by circling the correct answers.\u00a0 I hope you know this one, number 41, the one condition for salvation, I should have said justification, the one condition for justification is what?\u00a0 C, belief alone in Christ alone.\u00a0 In fact, how many times does the Bible say this?\u00a0 I\u2019ve got a question coming up on that, anybody know the number?\u00a0 200.\u00a0 Now people have asked me, well can you give us a list of those 200 verses and I can\u2019t because I haven\u2019t done the work but J. B. Hixson, who\u2019s going to be speaking here at the end of this month, has compiled a list of 160 so I think he\u2019s got to find 40 more, if I\u2019m not mistaken, so his work has just begun. But I have taken his list and I have posted it for today\u2019s lesson under Sermon notes.\u00a0 So if you go there and you click on the icon under Sermon Archives, you go to today\u2019s Soteriology lesson, go to Sermon notes and click on it, you\u2019ll see his list of 160 verses, which condition salvation by faith by itself, faith alone in Christ alone.\n\nThe very first time this happens, to my knowledge, where it\u2019s very clear, is Genesis 15:6 which says, \u201cAbraham\u201d what?\u00a0 Committed his life to Christ and repented of his known sins through great emotion and vowed to bear fruit.\u00a0 NO!\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t say that!\u00a0 \u201cAbraham believed God and it was\u201d what? \u201ccredited unto Him to righteousness.\u201d\u00a0 [Galatians 3:6]\u00a0 So that\u2019s why the Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, when he develops his doctrine of justification by faith alone keeps quoting which story?\u00a0 The Abraham story.\u00a0 Paul does this in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and many other passages.\u00a0 And the reason Paula keeps doing this is he\u2019s showing that this idea of salvation by faith alone is part of something that God has always wanted.\u00a0 Paul says I\u2019m not making this stuff up, this goes back all the way to the time of Abraham.\u00a0 I would argue going back to Adam and Eve, that\u2019s how they were saved, but it really doesn\u2019t get clear in terms of real strong articulation until the story of Abraham.\n\nSo back to the test here, the correct answer to number 41 is what? C.\u00a0 And then moving on to question 42 and we spent a lot of time on this in soteriology, what are the problem passages that seem to contradict this one condition of salvation?\u00a0 And it\u2019s a very peculiar thing that happens today in modern day evangelism.\u00a0 People, instead of building their theological case from the 200 clear passages they go to some weird verse somewhere, I don\u2019t mean to say weird but a verse that doesn\u2019t even deal with the subject of justification at all and they want to build their evangelistic presentation on some remote verse.\u00a0 And these are the remote verses that they use and we\u2019ve gone through each of these and explained why they\u2019re not saying what everybody thinks they\u2019re saying.\n\nYou don\u2019t build your evangelistic presentation on some remote verse that really has nothing to do with it; you build your evangelistic presentation on belief alone in Christ alone.\u00a0 So that\u2019s why we like to, when we give an evangelistic model at this church we like to use the five finger model, maybe that\u2019s not the best description of it because when I think of five fingers I think of stealing something.\u00a0 But we have these posted on all of our Sunday School rooms, and the thumb stands for the idea that you are guilty before a holy God.\u00a0 The five finger method is interesting and it\u2019s helpful because in the five finger method I don\u2019t ask anybody to do anything until I get to my ring finger. The rest is education.\n\nSo the thumb stands for the fact that you are a sinner before God.\u00a0 And you could use Romans 3:23 for that.\u00a0 [Romans 3:23, \u201cfor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God\u201d].\u00a0 And then you move to the index finger and this is where you explain to people that if you don\u2019t want to do the time don\u2019t do the what? crime, and this is where you explain to people that sin has a price tag.\u00a0 And a great verse to use on that is Romans 6:23, which says, \u201cThe wages of sin is death,\u201d so you\u2019re telling people that they\u2019re guilty and they are under the judgment of God in those first two fingers.\u00a0 And then you move to the middle finger and this is where you tell them what Jesus did for them to remedy their problem.\u00a0 I like to use at this point Romans 5:8, \u201cFor while we were\u00a0 yet sinners Christ\u201d did what? \u201cChrist died for us,\u201d Romans 5:8 explains that.\u00a0 So you\u2019re telling people that Jesus died on a cross as a substitute for YOU as an individual.\u00a0 He wasn\u2019t just thinking about humanity in general, although He probably was to some extent, He was thinking about you as a person.\u00a0 And so you personalize it.\n\nAnd this is where this presentation is very different than what you get from Calvinistic theologians because Calvinistic theologians, because of their belief in limited atonement do not believe that Christ died for the whole world; they believe that Christ only died for the elect.\u00a0 So J. Adams, a man that I have a lot of respect for because he tried to bring back into Christendom, into the area of counseling, an approach based on counseling from the Bible and the Bible alone.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s Nouthetic counselling if I\u2019ve got my words right.\u00a0 And Jay Adams largely did for Christianity what the late Henry Morris did for Christianity in the area of origins, because Henry Morris came along and he said you know what?\u00a0 This strategy that we\u2019ve been using ever since Darwin published his Origin of Species, which I call the backwards Christian soldier strategy, where we\u2019re intimidated by the world of science and so we rewrite the Genesis text to keep up with what so-called scientists are saying.\n\nHenry Morris wrote a seminal book called The Genesis Flood<\/em>; Henry Morris being the credential scientist, he coauthored it with John Whitcomb who was a credential Hebrew scholar, and the two of them in The Genesis Flood<\/em> said enough of this, we\u2019re not going to do the backwards Christian soldier strategy anymore; we\u2019re going to bring back the whole concept of origins based on the Bible.\u00a0 So they started holding the secular world hostage to the Bible.\u00a0 So they started second guessing carbon 14 dating and showing its inaccuracy.\u00a0 They started to show that the evidence for the missing link is still what?\u00a0 Still missing, that\u2019s why it\u2019s called \u201cthe missing link.\u201d\u00a0 And The Genesis Flood<\/em> is such a tremendous book because it brought back a Bible only approach to origins, which is the viewpoint we have here at this church.\n\nAnd what Henry Morris did for the world or origins Jay Adams for the world of counselling because today what people are doing when they go to a counsellor is they\u2019re sitting under someone that believes in integration, which is you take the theories of Sigmund Freud, who by the way was a complete and total pervert the best I can tell, an unregenerate person, and you take the teachings of Carl Jung, and most people don\u2019t know this but Carl Jung was heavily involved in the occult.\u00a0 Carl Jung actually had a spirit guide that talked to him, named Philemon, of all names.\u00a0 So I believe he got a lot of his theories from demons. So what people think is well Freud has such valuable concepts and Jung has such valuable concepts and they reached into this guy, Abraham\u00a0 Maslow and they brought him in and so they\u2019re mixing all of this stuff together and then they say we\u2019re Christians also so let\u2019s put the Bible with that also.\u00a0 And that\u2019s called integration, which\u2026 I was in a Christian gathering once where a guy stood up and said my goal is to integrate the principles of psychology with the Bible, just like people are trying to mix the principles of evolution, Charles Darwin, with the Bible.\u00a0 And my wife, and you guys all know my wife, she turns to me and privately says why don\u2019t we mix oil and water together too?\n\nAnd so that\u2019s sort of my mindset, is we counsel people based on the Word of God.\u00a0 The College of Biblical Studies believes in that; that\u2019s one of the attractions that I had towards The College of Biblical Studies to work there; they believe in a Bible only approach.\u00a0 And if someone has some kind of physical problem, like for example my cousin was dealing with depression because of a chemical imbalance in his brain, well then you send them to not a psychologist but a psychiatrist who has expertise in medicine.\u00a0 But as long as it\u2019s not a physical issue like this, we believe that the Bible is sufficient to counsel people in any issue that they\u2019re going through because 2 Timothy 3:17 says the Scripture will equip you for how many good works--\u201cevery good work.\u201d\u00a0 [2 Timothy 3:17, \u201cso that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.\u201d]\n\nSo Morris brought back this sufficiency of Scripture and see this is a big deal because a lot of people say they believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture, which is all well and good, but I want to know, do you believe in the sufficiency of the Scripture.\u00a0 A lot of people say I believe the Bible is inerrant but it\u2019s not sufficient, not sufficient to help us understand origins, not sufficient for counseling, so let\u2019s reach into the secular world to mix these ideas with the Scripture. \u00a0What we believe here is the Bible is inerrant and it\u2019s also sufficient.\u00a0\u00a0 Now that was a big rabbit trail, wasn\u2019t it?\u00a0 I\u2019m explaining why I have a very high opinion of Jay Adams because Jay Adams brought back a Bible oriented approach, a Bible only approach in the area of counseling.\n\nHowever, Jay Adams, when it comes to the area of eschatology doesn\u2019t know up from down.\u00a0 Now how do I know that?\u00a0 Because I did my doctoral research on preterism and I found this little skinny book that Jay Adams wrote on the book of Revelation in the library and he is what\u2019s called a preterist and he\u2019s arguing that the beast was Nero, he doesn\u2019t believe in a future antichrist, he takes all of the prophecies of the book of Revelation and puts them into the past.\u00a0 I mean, is he going to tell people that when he\u2019s counselling them?\u00a0 I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s part of his approach or what.\u00a0 But I\u2019m just saying you can agree with someone on a point but then the authority is not that person it\u2019s what the Bible says.\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 So I can agree with Adams on a point and I have a great deal of respect for him on the issue of the sufficiency of the Bible but when it comes to eschatology I don\u2019t follow his views at all.\n\nAnd Jay Adams, in this book, Competent to Counsel<\/em>, which is his seminal book, it\u2019s of equal significance, I believe, as The Genesis Flood<\/em> book, he makes a statement that when he shares the gospel to the unsaved he does not tell them, and I\u2019ve used the exact quote so it\u2019s not a matter of misrepresenting him, it\u2019s what he says in his book, when he shares the gospel with the unbeliever he does not tell them that Christ died for them.\u00a0 And you say well why not?\u00a0 Because Adams believes as a very strong five point Calvinist, in limited atonement and he doesn\u2019t know if they\u2019re one of the elect.\n\nSo back to our five finger message, that was just an excursus here.\u00a0 In this middle finger here you are telling them that Christ died for them.\u00a0 You should say that unequivocally, unapologetically, because we at Sugar Land Bible Church do not embrace limited atonement; we embrace unlimited atonement, that the whole wide world today, because of what Jesus has done, is savable.\u00a0 So you communicate Romans 5:8-9.\u00a0 [Romans 5:8-9, \u201cBut God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God<\/em> through Him.\u201d]\n\nAnd then finally when you get to the ring finger you communicate what they have to do.\u00a0 So what are they supposed to do?\u00a0 They are supposed to fulfill a single condition; it\u2019s stated in the Scripture 200 times.\u00a0 It\u2019s not believe and work.\u00a0 It\u2019s not believe and be baptized.\u00a0 It\u2019s not ask Jesus into your heart.\u00a0 It\u2019s not to publicly confess your sins.\u00a0 It\u2019s not to sell your possessions.\u00a0 It\u2019s not to even forgive others.\u00a0 Am I against all those things?\u00a0 No, but those are things you do after you\u2019re saved.\u00a0 Those are issues related to your growth.\u00a0 See that.\u00a0 To get them saved you tell them to fulfill a single condition which is to believe in Jesus Christ.\u00a0 You\u2019ve told them that they are a sinner, you told them that they\u2019re under the judgment of God, you told them what Jesus has done for them, now\u00a0 you\u2019re telling them what they are supposed to do.\n\nAnd a great verse on it; there\u2019s 200 to pick from, is Ephesians 2:8-9, you all know that verse very well, in fact sometimes I say we all know it very well and then I go to quote it and I misquote it.\u00a0 So to preempt that problem I\u2019m going to read it.\u00a0 Ephesians 2:8-9, which says, \u201cFor by grace you have been saved through faith, that is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one can boast.\u201d\u00a0 Or use John 3:16, but there the onus is placed completely on the unbeliever, that they are supposed to do one thing and it might be helpful to explain to them what believing is, because a lot of people don\u2019t know.\u00a0 When you look up the definition of believe in the lexicon it says give reliance, dependence, confidence.\n\nNow I wish.... I wish I had the gift of evangelism.\u00a0 I don\u2019t have it and so when I first came to this church part of my mind said well, I\u2019m just going to teach the Word and I\u2019m not going to really give the gospel every week because, you know, I don\u2019t have the gift of evangelism.\u00a0 And I had a talk with my friend, Robby Dean, of West Houston Bible Church about this and he said you know, you really ought to give the gospel every week.\u00a0\u00a0 And I said well, I don\u2019t have the gift of evangelism, I don\u2019t think anybody is really going to get saved, I mean, why should I do it?\u00a0 He says because you\u2019re creating a model for those in the flock that do have the gift of evangelism so they can share it accurately.\u00a0 So by hearing it over and over again you\u2019re kind of getting a sense of the general things that you should share with the unbeliever.\n\nSo Romans 3:23, you\u2019re guilty under sin. Romans 6:23, you\u2019re under the judgment of God.\u00a0 Romans 5:8, look at what Christ did for you as an individual, something Jay Adams won\u2019t say; you can boldly say it though.\u00a0 You move to my ring finger here and you have Ephesians 2:8-9 or John 3:16.\u00a0 [Romans 3:23, \u201cfor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\u201d\u00a0 Romans 5:8, \u201cBut God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.\u201d\u00a0 Ephesians 2:8-9, \u201cFor by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;\u00a0 [9] not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.\u201d\u00a0 John 3:16, \u201cFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.\u201d]\n\nAnd then let\u2019s say a person responds and believes, then what do you do?\u00a0 You move to the pinky and the pinky is you\u2019re telling them that the salvation which they have is theirs forever because you have, as an unbeliever, now a believer, have fulfilled your condition and now you\u2019re living your Christian life based on the promises of God and you give them the assurance of salvation. \u00a0Now what verses could you use for the assurance of salvation?\u00a0 John 5:24 is excellent on that. John 6:47 is excellent on the assurance of salvation. \u00a0\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\u00a0 John 6:47, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.\u201d]\n\nI think on our Sunday School rooms when we have the hand up, the five finger approach we put on the end there 1 John 5:13, this is excellent on it, \u201cThese things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may\u201d what, so that you can be 99% sure you have eternal life?\u00a0 NO, it doesn\u2019t say that, does it.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026so that you may\u201d what? \u201cknow you have eternal life.\u201d\u00a0 So it\u2019s not like the weather report, 25% chance of rain today, maybe you\u2019re saved, maybe you\u2019re not.\u00a0 If you understand the condition that God has set out to lost humanity and God\u2019s character, who cannot lie, you can assure people that if you have trusted in Christ then they are on their way to heaven.\n\nSo this approach, and I understand that every conversation is different.\u00a0 With a lot of people you don\u2019t really have a lot of time sometimes with people or the conversation goes different ways, they want to talk about the age of the earth or something like that, what about those angels in Genesis 6?\u00a0 And I would say that to the best of your ability to steer away from all that kind of stuff because that\u2019s just a road block, and to get back to this very simple approach of these five fingers and to try to get those five points communicated.\u00a0 And I think that\u2019s theologically the best way to share the gospel.\n\nAnd one of the problems with parachurch ministry is they put together a formula; many of them have what\u2019s called the ABC method.\u00a0 You hear this all the time.\u00a0 A stands for admit you\u2019re a sinner, B stands for believe, and C stands for confess.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t do ABC then you\u2019re not saved.\u00a0 Well, you\u2019ve just altered the gospel when you do that.\u00a0 You\u2019ve put in front of people three conditions where God only gives one condition.\u00a0 The other points you\u2019re making are educational; you\u2019re making them aware that they\u2019re a sinner.\u00a0 And again, it\u2019s got to be the Holy Spirit using you because I can\u2019t talk anybody into getting saved; the Holy Spirit has to be at work.\u00a0 And we know that He is at work because of John 16:7-11, where He is busy convicting the world of what sin?\u00a0 Unbelief.\u00a0 He works overtime on the unsaved people convicting them.\u00a0 He\u2019s not trying to morally reform them; He\u2019s\u2019 not trying to say boy, you\u2019re a bad person because you have a tattoo and you shouldn\u2019t color your hair bright green or whatever.\u00a0 And by the way that earring through your nose, you need to get rid of that.\u00a0 And you need to stop cussing also, and you need to stop gambling, you need to stop going to Vegas on the grounds that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.\n\nSee, the Holy Spirit is not concerned with unbelievers of those sins. We\u2019re all worked up about stuff like that. What the Holy Spirit is doing is convicting them over and over again of the sin of unbelief. See that?\u00a0 So when you evangelize an unbeliever you focus on the stuff that the Holy Spirit is already bothering them about.\u00a0 The more you get into other topics, like tattoos or whatever, the more you\u2019re stepping out and doing things that the Holy Spirit is not involved in.\u00a0 And this is what Lewis Sperry Chafer called True Evangelism<\/em>.\u00a0 Evangelism that bears fruit.\u00a0 Why does it bear fruit?\u00a0 Because it\u2019s focusing on the things that God is already doing.\u00a0 And the more you have certain Scriptures memorized the more you can quote the Scripture, the more you can quote Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:9, John 3:16, and 1 John 5:13, the more you\u2019re actually quoting the Scripture the greater\u00a0 your chances of winning a convert because the Holy Spirit uses the Scripture to convict the lost man or woman of their need to trust in Christ.\u00a0 See that?\n\n[Romans 3:23, \u201cfor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\u00a0\u00a0 Romans 6:23, \u201cFor the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.\u201d\u00a0 Romans 5:9, \u201cMuch more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.\u201d\u00a0 John 3:16, \u201cFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.\u201d 1 John 5:13, \u201cThese things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.\u201d]\n\nSo it is not our oratorical flair or pizzazz that leads people to Christ.\u00a0 \u201cFaith comes by hearing and hearing by the\u201d what? \u201cthe Word of God.\u201d\u00a0 [Romans 10:17] That\u2019s what the Holy Spirit is going to use.\n\nSo where are we now?\u00a0 Back to the test.\u00a0 The answer to number 42 is D.\u00a0 The answer to 43, terms that make the gospel overly complicated, is all of the above.\u00a0 What do we say?\u00a0 We don\u2019t say believe, we say confess, deny, surrender, ask, accept, make, receive and this is how a lot of evangelistic tracts look.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why we\u2019re kind of cautious about what kind of evangelistic tracts we allow into our rack there in the church, because what they\u2019ll tell you is you\u2019re saved by grace, not by works, and then you keep reading the tract and it gives you five works you\u2019ve got to do.\u00a0 I hope you\u2019re going to church, I hope you publicly tell somebody, hope you do this, hope you do that.\u00a0 And you put a bunch of works on people that God never authorized.\n\nAnd try telling this to a parachurch ministry that has their whole structure in place, they\u2019re teaching conferences around the world, and even in many cases God is using them in spite of their bad methodology.\u00a0 Try being in my position as a Bible teacher trying to explain to people that the method you\u2019re using is biblically inaccurate.\u00a0 They don\u2019t want to hear that because our methodology is cranking.\u00a0 And so that\u2019s why there\u2019s a conflict between churches like ourselves, independent Bible churches, and parachurch ministries that want to come in and they want to use their system.\u00a0 See that.\n\nThe fact of the matter is you go through the New Testament you don\u2019t find any parachurch ministries.\u00a0 Am I against a parachurch ministry?\u00a0 No, I was greatly blessed in college by Campus Crusade for Christ; I have academic degrees from seminaries and parachurch ministries but what you have to understand is the parachurch ministries, according to the hierarchy established by God, the parachurch ministries are here to support the local church.\u00a0 It\u2019s not the parachurch ministry dictating to the local church.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo many times the mindset of a parachurch ministry is the church is here for us.\u00a0 That is not biblical at all.\u00a0 The parachurch ministry, the church is not here for them, these ministries are there to assist and help the local church.\u00a0 And many times those involved in parachurch ministries have the wrong mindset.\n\nSo a lot of them use methodologies that really aren\u2019t found directly in the Scripture and where did those methodologies come from?\u00a0 And I can\u2019t get into that right now because I\u2019m out of time.\u00a0 They from a guy named Charles Finney, who brought into America the second great awakening and Finney taught you induce conversions by (quote) \u201cany means possible.\u201d (close quote)\u00a0 So if you have to darken the sanctuary, if you have get out the dry ice, if you\u2019ve got use guilt, whatever it takes that\u2019s what you do.\u00a0 And so Finney brought in, I believe, a lot of unbiblical methods.\u00a0 And what people do is they hear something and then they hear it over and over again and they think it\u2019s in the Bible.\u00a0 That\u2019s what they use with the lost when in reality we need to get our evangelistic methodology from the Bible and not bring it what?\u00a0 To the Bible.\n\nSo anyway, I got off on a lot of things that I didn\u2019t want to get off on; maybe that was the Lord though.\u00a0 So the correct answer to number 43 is D.\u00a0 And you already know the correct answer to 44, right?\u00a0 C.\u00a0 So we\u2019ll pick it up next time, on resurrection Sunday, with question number 45.\u00a0 So we\u2019ll stop talking at this point.\u00a0 We have a couple of minutes left for Q and A.","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