Are 95% of self-proclaimed Christians really still Lost? An answer to John MacArthur

The question of who is, and who is not, a Christian never seems to go away.  I know that the Bible goes to great lengths to define how a disciple of Jesus Christ thinks, what they feel, and what they do, but the vast variety of people utilizing the name of Christ continue to bring this question to the surface.  In my book, Christianity's Big Tent, analyzing 1 John, I relied solely upon his three tests of faith: Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?  Do you love your fellow Christians?  And do you obey the commandments of God?  For some, however, such a broad definition leaves too many unanswered questions.

            I was watching a couple of YouTube videos last night of John MacArthur, a man whose name carries a lot of weight among Evangelicals, in which he clearly threw both Catholics and Charismatic Christians out of the defined Church.  In both cases, MacArthur believes that the vast majority of people, who belong to those Churches, are in fact non-Christians still destined for hell.  As I’ve said before, this way of defining the Church leaves us with an end result where 90-95% of the people in the world who think they are a Christian are not, and leaves us with a Church that can only be described as a pathetic version of the triumphant Church that was supposed to take the Gospel to the whole world.

            In the case of the Catholic Church, the primary objection of men like MacArthur, such as RC Sproul and John Piper, is the way in which the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox, Anglicans, and to a lesser extent,  Lutherans and Methodists too) defines what is happening during Communion.  Because these followers of Jesus take his words “literally”, instead of seeing it as a symbolic act, they are doomed.  There is more to it than that, such as objections about the elevation of tradition to the level of the Scriptures and prayer to the Saints and Mary, but the heart of the objection to the Catholic Church has always been transubstantiation.  The Council of Trent is still a difficult thing to deal with, its doctrines in response to the Reformation were not helpful, but then again neither was the 30 Years War.  Even with that historical baggage, shouldn’t Vatican II mean something?  Should we let the failures of the past that brought the Church to the point of schism be perpetuated?

With that in mind, here is the tally of what the average Catholic believes that isn’t supposed to help save them due to a faulty understanding of Communion:

1. There is only one God, a trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2. The Bible is the Word of God, inspired and to be revered.

3. All of humanity is sinful; each of us must repent of our sins.

4. The only hope for us to overcome our sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

5. Prayer and worship are important parts of being a Christian

6. Obeying God’s law is important, as are acts of loving kindness.

            Can you have all of this, and still be a “Church of Satan?” as MacArthur concludes?  RC Sproul believes that praying to the Saints is belittling the desire of God to use his grace by thinking that you need an intermediary.  Whether or not this objection is valid, isn’t saying that 95% of would-be Christians have failed due to their theology, despite the fact that they affirm the Nicene Creed, an insult to the power of the grace of God?  Did Christ really die for the sins of the world only to have that power fail 95% of the time?

            The objection to the Charismatic movement follows similar lines.  In this case it isn’t any core doctrine that is being misunderstood but an objection to the idea that the gifts of the Spirit as seen in Acts are still in use today.  Once again, this is a question of interpretation of Scripture, with one side seeing God’s work as a temporary solution and the other as a part of God’s ongoing plan.  That there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the Prosperity Gospel movement is no reason to throw all those who still believe in the gifts of the Spirit out the door of the Church.

            One last thing that I find troubling with John MacArthur’s view of the Church is that he believes that between AD 400 and AD 1500, there was no real Church, only an Apostate Church.  Thus for 1,100 years, the Church of Jesus Christ was only a shell that required any “real” Christians to not be a part of the community of believers, but instead to be rebels and martyrs.  The Church certainly had flaws during that time period, as it does today, but to dismiss the work of God in our world for over a millennium is a startling conclusion.

            Why do so many Evangelicals, of which I am one, prefer to think that the Church is a tiny persecuted minority, a frail and threatened thing that is dwarfed by apostasy?  Is this some sort of perverse glory in being the only ones who have it right?  Is this the result of dispensational theology, a pre-tribulation emphasis that almost hopes that the world is getting worse and the Church failing so Christ can return soon?  Whatever the reasons are, I can’t be on board with that attitude, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too powerful to be thought of as so very weak.

The History of the Bible: Lecture series

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written.  Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt.  There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

In order to best understand the lecture, please take the time to download the PowerPoint, Word document, and especially the manuscript chart.  Having them in front of you while you listen will allow you to more fully understand the information that is being presented.

To watch part 1 in the series, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible video, 1 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 2 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 3 of 3 

To look at the PowerPoint slides used in the presentation, click on the link below:

 History of the Bible PowerPoint (for all 3 parts)

To view the manuscript evidence Word document, click on the link below:

Manuscript evidence

To view the manuscript history chart created by Pastor Powell and Pastor Scott Woodlee, click below:

Manuscript History chart 

Sermon Video: Take up your cross and follow him - Luke 9:23-27

What is the cost of becoming a Christian?  We are all happy to share the benefits that flow from following Jesus Christ, but as Jesus’ words in Luke 9:23-27 make clear to us, there is a significant commitment on our part that God requires in return.  After telling his disciples that suffering and death were in his near future, Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”  The call to discipleship from Jesus begins with a legitimate question: Knowing what road Jesus is about to walk down, will you choose to follow him?  For the disciples, this was shocking news that would be very difficult to process, for us, we have the benefit of looking back on how this time of trail in the end produced the victory of Easter. 

            The dark road that Jesus travel to provide redemption for humanity does end in victory, that assurance offers us great comfort, but the call from Jesus to imitate his self-denial to the extent of volunteering to carry our own metaphorical cross still reminds us that the path to Christ-likeness is never going to be easy.  The self-denial that Jesus is asking us to embrace is in service to the kingdom of God, which is why the ascetics who practiced the denial of the normal pleasures of living and isolation were on the wrong path.  If we truly wish to follow in Jesus’ footsteps then we too must serve the needs of the poor and weak by showing them God’s love and mercy.

            As further evidence that this is the road that we must travel if we wish to follow him, Jesus continues by explaining that only those who are willing to let themselves be replaced by God as the center of their life are capable of truly having life.  Those who grasp and clutch at life for themselves will inevitably lose what they strive after.  We can see this principle at work in the world around us every time we see the reward of love returned when freely given and at the same time the bankruptcy of selfishness as the false siren’s call of wealth, fame, and power fails time and time again to satisfy.

            Will you follow Jesus?  The question is asked of us all, only you can decide if you are willing to make such a commitment.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

Sermon Video: "Who do you say I am?" - Luke 9:18-22

The most important and contentious question faced by the Early Church was this: “Who is Jesus?”  There were those who questioned the humanity of Jesus, primarily those from a Gnostic viewpoint, and there were those who doubted the full divinity of Jesus, led by Arius.  At the Council of Nicea in AD 325, these issue were brought to the forefront by the Emperor Constantine who had no tolerance for division within the Church.  The resulting creed solidified the Orthodox position on the person of Jesus, and even though it didn’t eliminate for good those who would occasional challenge the Church’s teachings on the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus, it did set the boundary as to what those teaching would be.

            This same question about who Jesus really is was actually asked, by Jesus, of his disciples.  The disciples had a much closer and prolonged experience with Jesus than the crowds, and thus were able to see beyond the possibility that Jesus might be John the Baptist defying death, or Elijah back to fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, to the truth behind all of the miracles.  Peter spoke up for the disciples to declare of Jesus, “the Christ of God”.  This declaration by Peter reflects the belief by the disciples that Jesus had been chosen by God to fulfill the long-awaited role of Messiah.  “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of “Anointed One”, a term that in Israelite history could refer to both the kings who were anointed by before assuming the throne, and the priests who were anointed before they began to serve in the temple.  Jesus, as the Messiah, would go on to fulfill both leadership roles, as the priest-king, descended of David with the right to sight upon the throne, but also performing the priestly duty of offering a sacrifice on the behalf of the people.

            Rather than basking in the glow of their acknowledgment, Jesus immediately informs his disciples that his role as Messiah will be far different than anyone anticipates.  Instead of glory and victory on the battlefield, the Son of Man “must suffer many things”, be betrayed by his own people, and killed.  This shocking revelation must have made the disciples stagger, how could God’s Messiah suffer like the prophets of old, how could his own people possibly reject him, and how could he fail to overcome their attempt to kill him?  Before they can even process this wholly unexpected prediction, Jesus finishes it off with the finale to his mission, “and on the third day be raised to life.” 

            Was Peter right to declare that Jesus was the Messiah?  Absolutely, but he had no idea what God’s Messiah was really here to do.  The incarnation of Jesus, God made flesh, has far loftier goals than mere political solutions, far more lasting than simply being a good role model.  The Christ will change everything between God and mankind, not through his miraculous power, but through his willingness to accept an unjust death.  Who is Jesus?  He is the Christ, the Son of Man and the Son of God, sent to live, die, and be raised to life to save us from our sins.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.