Why It Matters Part II
McMahon, T.A.
November 1, 1999
My sister, who was helping with the inaugural ExCatholics For Christ Conference, met a friend while shopping. The conversation got around to what my sister was doing, and her friend, an evangelical, was dismayed that there would be such a conference. "After all," she explained, "my sister-in-law is a Catholic and she's saved. She has no intention of leaving the Catholic Church because that's where she's comfortable." It seems that this lady and her sister-in-law are uninformed concerning what the Bible teaches, or the Catholic faith, or perhaps both. They have a great deal of company among evangelicals who are asking: "Does it really matter?" and "Isn't TBC engaged at times in nothing more than veiled Catholic bashing?"
One of the most frustrating aspects of addressing the Roman Catholic gospel is the prevailing ignorance regarding what Catholicism actually teaches. Most evangelicals are clueless regarding Catholicism. And many practicing Catholics (including a surprisingly high number of priests and nuns) simply do not know the actual extent of the salvation requirements of their Church. Surveys of Catholics reveal the common understanding about attaining heaven: that it centers around doing works which are pleasing to God (i.e., living one's life as a basically good person), performing a preponderance of good deeds to outweigh the bad, and living up to most of what the Church teaches. Nearly all Catholics believe this affords them the best chance for getting to heaven. However, this hope falls far short of what their Church officially requires.
All Catholics "know" that it is the Church which saves them, but few understand what the Roman Catholic legalistic system of salvation demands. Foundationally, it is this: Refusal to obey the laws and decrees of the Church is a mortal sin which condemns one to hell if each such transgression is not confessed to and absolved by a priest before death. As Vatican II declared in the 1960s,
[When the Bishops are] assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.
...when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit... (Lumen Gentium 252). [Emphasis added]
Considering all the laws of the Church (a task most lawyers would find overwhelming), it's doubtful that even the most zealous Catholics know and obey every one of them. Catholics more often than not take a "cafeteria" approach to their religion, picking and choosing what laws they want to obey. For example, many reject the Church's teachings and regulations regarding contraception (even abortion!), marriage to a non-Catholic, divorce and remarriage, annulments, etc. Many wrongly think the Church has done away with some of its infallible doctrines such as indulgences (yet Vatican II condemns with anathema those who reject this doctrine). Some Catholics don't believe that transubstantiation actually changes the communion wafer into the real body, blood, soul and spirit of Jesus Christ, and some refuse to believe that purgatory is a reality. Regardless of what individual dissenting Catholics think, they are condemned by their Church for rejecting its teachings.
In addition to the myriad doctrines to "all" of which Catholics are "bound to adhere" and "obliged to submit," an inordinate and often hopelessly confusing number of other requirements are imposed which also carry the penalty of damnation if not obeyed. For instance, it is the rare Catholic who attends Mass on all the holy days of obligation. Not to do so is a mortal sin, yet one would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who can name them. Recently in a debate, Dave Hunt asked a leading Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, to enumerate them for the audience. He offered only three, two of which were incorrect (TBC offers this informative audio tape set). Part of the problem here for Sungenis and every other Catholic (other than their Church making this a sin which potentially separates them from God forever) is the complexity of this manmade requirement. Ten holy days of obligation are recognized worldwide, but in the U.S. only six require attendance at Mass. The conference of bishops decides which ones are abolished and which feast days are to be transferred to a Sunday. It seems rather incredible, as well as unbiblical, that having a current liturgical calendar (in order to know what days of each year attendance is required) should be necessary to qualify one for heaven!
But it's far more complicated than that.
Few lay Catholics are familiar with the Code of Canon Law, containing more than 1,750 laws which dictate Church rules and practice. Most know the laws they agree with and which ones they reject, but few Catholics understand that they have no such liberty of choice in this comprehensive legalistic system. Any ongoing conscious disobedience with regard to the commands of the Church excludes one from "the state of grace"—thus condemning one to hell. This bondage to law brings to mind the rebuke Jesus directed at the religious leaders of His day. From their extrabiblical tradition they imposed on the people "the commandments of men" (Mat 15:9), i.e., a profusion of rules and regulations. As a consequence the people are put under tremendous legalistic burdens and shut out of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 23:13).
Unlike God's immutable laws, Catholicism's extrabiblical legalities are arbitrary and variable yet carry eternally damning consequences. For example, eating meat on Friday was once a mortal sin; today, it's not. Formerly, a divorced Catholic who remarried was excommunicated; that's not the case today where changes in the laws seem to have been made in order to accommodate changes in our culture. While it is claimed that these are rules ordained by God, would our Lord make hell the penalty for generations of people, and then remove the penalty for a subsequent generation committing the same act? Not the God of the Bible.
Some Catholics have told me that they simply do not buy all the salvation requirements of their Church: "God will sort it all out in the end!" Rather than giving one peace of mind, however, this ill-founded hope raises a troubling question: For those Catholics who reject certain teachings of their Church, why would they nevertheless accept as valid the more agreeable doctrines Roman Catholicism promotes? For example, on what basis would one who rejects the teaching that contraception is a mortal sin be confident that receiving the Eucharist as Viaticum at the point of death assures one of eternal life? This quandary concerning one's eternal destiny is manifest for liberal and "cafeteria" Catholics, and especially for a rapidly growing, relatively new category of those who refer to themselves as "evangelical Catholics."
According to the pamphlet, "What is an Evangelical Catholic [EC]?" written by thirty Roman Catholics (mostly priests and nuns) and published "With Ecclesiastical Permission," ECs are those who
...have come into a personal faith in Jesus. They are evangelical in the strictest sense of the term in that they have received the basic gospel, accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour and are manifesting the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives. [They] have a growing love and respect for Scripture as the Word of God....They would identify themselves variously as committed Christians, Charismatic Catholics, renewed Catholics, born again Catholics, or simply Catholics who love the Lord. Surely they are brothers or sisters in Christ of all true Evangelical Christians in the various Protestant Churches. (Emphasis added)
Are they, "surely?" Is it possible to truly believe in two diametrically opposed gospels at the same time?
Can a faithful Catholic agree with what the Bible requires for salvation—faith alone in Christ alone—while also agreeing that "the sacraments of the New Law [canons and decrees of the Church] are...necessary for salvation" and "without them... men" cannot "obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification..." (Trent, 7th Session, Canon 4)? "Faith alone" is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Adding anything to faith is condemned as a false gospel by the Apostle Paul (Gal 1:6-9). Can an "evangelical" Catholic priest transubstantiate a piece of bread into the body and blood of Christ and then during the Mass "immolate" Him ("to kill as in a sacrifice," according to Webster's New World Dictionary)? Can this priest, while celebrating the Mass, also deny that the Eucharist is "truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (Trent, 13th Session, Canon 1)? Evangelicals believe that the communion elements are simply symbolic, a view anathematized by the "infallible" Council of Trent. Can "evangelical" Catholic communicants believe that the Eucharist is only symbolic of Christ and at the same time believe that the bread and wine become "the Body and Blood of Christ"? Not while claiming to be rational!
The heartbreak in all of this is that every evangelical who loves Catholics wants to believe that they really have "received the basic gospel." But which one? Rome's or the biblical gospel? And with which Jesus do they have a personal relationship? The One who cried out from the cross, "It is finished!" (i.e., the debt is fully paid), or the one who continues to be sacrificed around the world (more than 120 million times per year) on Catholic altars? And what of charismatic Catholics who seem to manifest the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Does He energize their sacraments (which deny the gospel), rituals, prayers (rosaries?), and revitalize their devotions to Mary as nearly all of them claim? No, not the Spirit of truth!
What then do we make of all this "evangelical" Catholic talk? It's part of an aggressive strategy to subvert evangelical Christianity. But why would the Roman Catholic Church even consider such a thing? The Church of Rome views itself as the visible head of Christianity; it claims authority over all who would call themselves Christians. Evangelical Christianity, which rejects Roman Catholic salvation and Rome's control in favor of the true gospel and submission to Jesus Christ personally and directly, is Catholicism's most productive enemy. The primary reason? Catholics hear the biblical gospel of salvation; they believe it and are saved. They then leave the Church. These conversions have been taking place for millions of Catholics around the world, and especially in Latin American countries where the Pope has called evangelicals "sheep-stealing rapacious wolves" and dangerous "sects" (the Vatican term for cults).
To counter those losses, beginning with Vatican II, Rome has donned evangelical apparel and added some biblical accessories (although her unbiblical salvation remains the same). Her goal has been to seduce evangelical Christians into believing that Roman Catholicism is proclaiming the same gospel and the same Jesus, so converting Catholics is redundant at best, un-Christian at worst. Rome's success in this ploy has been astounding (see Part I for just a few examples). But haven't the modifications instituted by Vatican II, the ecumenical dialogues with Baptists, Mennonites, Assemblies of God, etc., the agreement on justification with Lutherans, and the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" accord at least demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed changing, becoming more biblical? Augustin Cardinal Bea, president at the time of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and ardent suitor of leading evangelicals, makes clear Rome's intentions:
The Roman Catholic Church would be gravely misunderstood if it should be concluded that her present ecumenical adventuresomeness and openness meant that she was prepared to reexamine any of her fixed dogmatic positions. What the Church is prepared to do is to take...a more imaginative and contemporary presentation of these fixed positions. (Emphasis added)
Millions of former Catholics are now attending evangelical churches. I've spoken in one church (of more than 500 members) where more than 90 percent of them were born-again ex-Catholics. Most such believers, although thankful for their own deliverance from spiritual bondage, nevertheless grieve daily over their lost loved ones. Yet what compounds their sorrow is not only the animosity shown by Catholic friends and family members because they left the Church, but the fact that too often their evangelical churches offer little or no help in reaching Catholics for Christ; some even disdain the activity as offensive and unloving. Pastors! Elders! Ministry leaders! You and your church or organization must "offend" Catholics with the truth—that they are lost—and then with the good news of what they need to believe to be saved! It is our heart's cry that this would matter deeply to every evangelical who claims to love Roman Catholics. Anything less is real "Catholic bashing." TBC
Monday, December 26, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Excellent article along with book on Glenn Beck (from thebereancall.org)
Glenn Beck, the television and radio talk show host who is best known for his conservative political views, isn't someone whom we would normally address in our newsletter. Our concerns are usually directed at individuals, programs, or organizations that promote spiritual or theological views contrary to the Word of God. Beck, of late, seems to be making himself at home in that realm, and he's attracting many who call themselves Bible-believing Christians.
His influence among evangelicals is rather odd and may say more about the state of evangelicalism than about Beck's engaging personality. His popularity is proof that there is very little discernment that's based on testing things by the Scriptures--a consequence, in part, of the Church Growth Movement. Marketing principles have become the rule and are being used to fill churches. Biblical doctrines, which convict, have been set aside in favor of psychotherapeutic sermonettes--something to keep the folks feeling good about themselves and coming back for more. There's no doubt that this trend has dumbed down much of the church and has done away with discernment to a great extent.
Anyone who proclaims the name of Jesus--even though his understanding of who that is may be far removed from the biblical Jesus--is nevertheless accepted as a brother in Christ. Conservativism, political or otherwise, is seen to be the glue of spiritual fellowship, and its characteristics have taken on scriptural status and a basis for kinship. I've been told that "Beck must be a Christian because he's all about turning our country back to its Christian roots." That's erroneous on at least two counts.
First of all, Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He may refer to himself as a Christian, but he's certainly not a biblical Christian. The distinction is as wide as hell is from heaven: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John:9). Mormon doctrine is "another gospel" that exalts "another Jesus." Both false beliefs came out of the deceived and deceiving mind of Joseph Smith. Secondly, "our country" doesn't have "Christian roots," even though some are claiming that our founding fathers were true Christians. Many were not biblical Christians but Christians in name only, who followed the faith of Deism, Masonry, and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Any early influence in America's history of a biblical nature very likely came from the Pilgrims and the Puritans.
Since I spend very little time watching television or listening to radio programs, I wasn't familiar with Glenn Beck, other than seeing him by chance on Fox News. I found his Catholic background and his conversion to Mormonism rather curious, given my own Catholic upbringing and, years later, my writing for the film documentary The God Makers. What I know about the overwhelming fictional nature of the Book of Mormon had me wondering why Beck's work as a conservative political analyst didn't give him the ability to discern the blatantly erroneous teachings, practices, and historical claims of Mormonism. However, it wasn't until he was invited to speak at Liberty University's Commencement in 2010 (the largest evangelical college in the U.S.) that I was first made aware of his growing influence among evangelical Christians.
The rationale, I was told, for having him speak to the graduating class was that his conservative point of view was consistent with the school's philosophy, and his message was needed at a time when the Obama administration seemed to be pushing this country down a path of socialism. The fact that he is a Mormon was not a concern because his address would be of a political nature, not spiritual. I learned after the event that he rewrote his talk just before speaking because he felt compelled to address spiritual issues. He said that his invitation to speak was not an endorsement of his religion by the university. "[But although we have] differences...we need to find those things that unite us." His speech was infused with religious terms that would appear to bring people together--except for the fact that these terms have very different meanings for Mormons and evangelicals. He frequently referred to the power of the Atonement, to faith, to the gospel, to the Holy Spirit, to personal revelations from God. Does it matter that a Mormon has a completely different understanding of the Atonement and the gospel from what is taught in the Bible?
Beck said, "Turn to God and live." What God might that be? The Mormon one, who has a physical body and lives on a planet near a star called Kolob? Or the One who is spirit and exists outside His creation?
Beck exhorted his audience to seek the truth. But which God is true? He closed his speech by challenging these mostly evangelical graduates to "question everything, including everything I have just told you" and to "read the Scriptures every day...." Would these include Latter-day Saints' scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price? What about "The Inspired Translation of the Bible," which Joseph Smith wrote to make sure that the Bible was "translated correctly"?
Beck's last words were greeted with a standing ovation from the faculty, the graduates, and their families and friends: "I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen." Were they cheering wildly for the biblical Jesus...or for the Jesus Christ of Mormonism? The two couldn't be more dissimilar.
For those enamored with Glenn Beck and upset with my concerns about him, let's take him up on his challenge to question his words. Many of the thoughts in his Liberty University speech can be found in his new book titled The Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life, which he co-authored with psychiatrist Keith Ablow. In it, Beck sets the record straight as to his understanding of Mormonism. That's important because I have heard all kinds of explanations--from his being naïve about the faith fabricated by Joseph Smith to his being led to biblical salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ by various evangelical leaders who have appeared on his television and radio programs. Beck, however, dispels any and all speculation:
I read everything there was to read on [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'] websites and every word of Mormon Doctrine. I treated Mormonism as if it were a hostile witness. For a while I went to the anti-Mormon literature for hints, but I found most of it to be unfair or just plain wrong. I tried every trick I could think of to find a contradiction. The problem was that I couldn't. Mormonism seemed to explain the world and my place in it better than any other faith I had looked at. It answered many spiritual questions that had gone unanswered for me for my entire life. (Beck &Ablow, The Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life, p.149)
In his Liberty University speech, which was often very emotional, he referred to the Old Testament book of Ezekiel and how he (Beck) felt that the call to be a "watchman," i.e., someone who stands guard to alert the people to the evil that could overtake them, was something God had put on his heart to do. It was his calling. If Beck's book is any indication of his "watchman" competency, he is either asleep at his post or has gone AWOL. Isaiah sets the criterion for God's watchman: "To the law and to the testimony [i.e., the Scriptures]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). Does Beck speak according to God's Word? Even if one assumes that he is talking about the God of the Bible rather than the god of Mormonism, or what the Bible declares, it is clear by comparing his views with the teachings of the Bible that he's got them both wrong.
He and his psychiatrist co-author declare throughout their book that God is within everyone: "If God is everything and everywhere and inside everyone, then I figured He had to be inside me, too...." That is a foundational premise to most of what Beck presents. It is pantheism, a belief common to Hindus, Eastern mystics, and popular among New Agers.
The truth is that the God of the Bible is not part of His creation. He created everything out of nothing. If He were inseparable from His creation then He would be subject to the death and destruction that the universe is undergoing. That would deny His perfection.
The Word of God says that the born-again believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that his body is the temple of God (Ephesians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 3:17). This is conditional, based upon faith in the biblical Jesus, and it involves God's taking up residence within the believer. God is not, nor does He become, a part of humanity.
If God were part of everyone and within everyone throughout all eternity (Beck &Ablow, Seven Wonders, p. 85), then He would be part of the evil makeup of every human. Of course, Beck and Ablow fervently deny that mankind is evil: "People are inherently good. Our souls are magnificent and capable of extraordinary performance" (p.165). That may make some "feel good about themselves," but it's contrary to numerous Scriptures that address the nature of man. The prophet Jeremiah tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (17:9), and Jesus said in Mark 10:18, "There is none good but one, that is, God."
That truth of the Bible poses a huge problem for psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, especially a Freudian psychotherapist like Keith Ablow. How so? He's in the business of facilitating a person's relief from the troublesome problems of living by helping him find his "true self, the really lovable and loving person you are at your core..." (Beck &Ablow, p. 185). The key to recovering the "real you," Ablow and Beck explain, involves a process of "digging up the painful parts of your life story..." (p. 107).
Nearly all psychotherapies assert that mankind's problems are caused by painful issues external to the person, such as emotional traumas, parental abuses, environmental conditions, a bad hair day, etc. Ablow tells us to "Accept that today's negative emotional and behavioral patterns are almost certainly connected to painful memories and unresolved conflicts in the past" (p. 131).
However, if it were acknowledged that the root of the problem is the innate evil within humanity (as the Bible declares, yet psychology denies), Ablow and his colleagues would be out of business. Just as a leopard can't change its spots, neither can the mental health practitioners do anything to change a person's sin nature. Only God can do that. Yet the charade in pursuit of the "higher self," "human potential," "self-discovery," and "the God-given reservoir of personal power inside you," (p. 50) continues to delude and deceive the masses.
Beck's description of his "life story," especially how he was led into Mormonism, is a reflection of what the pseudo-Christian cult is all about: it majors on the subjective and the experiential (e.g., a personal "burning in the bosom" experience from God). He believes that God guided him into the faith of Joseph Smith through a series of inexplicable events in his life. He says that God-ordained "coincidences," which he calls "bread crumbs," are available to help everyone "find their paths to embracing the truth" (p. 152). He and Ablow continually exalt the subjective and experiential through their promotion of "gut feelings," "intuition," "the third ear," and "the inner voice of truth inside us--the voice of God" (p. 265). They write, "Practice listening to your gut....In order to do this, you need to listen for inner voices inside you" (p. 274).
When discernment depends upon gut feelings and inner voices, it's a recipe for spiritual disaster: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). The Bible tells us to put no trust in subjective experiences but rather to trust in God's written Word: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32). Jesus' prayer to His Father certifies how He wants believers in Him to know Him and the truth of His teachings: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17).
Mormonism is rife with occult beliefs and practices, whether they be rituals taken from Masonic ceremonies to supposed communication with the deceased through baptism for the dead. This makes the Latter-day Saints extremely susceptible to demonic deception. Yet Glenn Beck seems to have added more false doctrine to an already bizarre belief system. He lauds the first-century heresy of gnosticism and gnostic books such as "The Gospel of Thomas"; he endorses communication through silent meditation ("Connect with the miracle of spirit, of God, that has lived inside you from long before you were born. You will be rewarded..." (p. 85); and he and Ablow espouse the Eastern mystical teaching of spiritual energy as an "immeasurable force that you can tap into to dramatically improve your existence....It is nothing less than your connection to God" (p. 113).
Lest someone object to one or another of the religious or psychological concepts Beck and Ablow are serving up, the two fall back on ecumenical pragmatism: "How can you begin to do this? Some people go to psychotherapists. Others go to pastoral counselors. Others begin to meditate. Still others start with twelve-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous or Al-Anon. Whatever works for you is what you should do, but we've developed a four-step plan to help you get under way."
Perhaps the reason I quote the following verse more than any other in my recent articles is because I see the church and its shepherds looking more and more to the ways of man rather than to the Word of God: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). Glenn Beck has no answers for those who are truly God's people. Nevertheless, I pray that he will come to the knowledge of the truth.
I also pray for greater discernment among those who claim to follow the biblical Jesus and the Word of God. Jesus declared to His disciples (which all true believers in Him are) that they were to "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4). He was referring specifically to the last days, the time just prior to His return. It would be characterized by massive spiritual deception. For more than three decades Dave Hunt and I have been addressing the various elements the adversary of God has used to deceive the world and the church. Of late, our TBC articles have pointed out how the unifying beliefs that are common to diverse religious groups (and anti-religious groups!) are rallying them together with amazing speed. Their mission is fixed upon the earth as they unwittingly work toward building the kingdom of the Antichrist and his apostate religion. TBC from the Berean Call
His influence among evangelicals is rather odd and may say more about the state of evangelicalism than about Beck's engaging personality. His popularity is proof that there is very little discernment that's based on testing things by the Scriptures--a consequence, in part, of the Church Growth Movement. Marketing principles have become the rule and are being used to fill churches. Biblical doctrines, which convict, have been set aside in favor of psychotherapeutic sermonettes--something to keep the folks feeling good about themselves and coming back for more. There's no doubt that this trend has dumbed down much of the church and has done away with discernment to a great extent.
Anyone who proclaims the name of Jesus--even though his understanding of who that is may be far removed from the biblical Jesus--is nevertheless accepted as a brother in Christ. Conservativism, political or otherwise, is seen to be the glue of spiritual fellowship, and its characteristics have taken on scriptural status and a basis for kinship. I've been told that "Beck must be a Christian because he's all about turning our country back to its Christian roots." That's erroneous on at least two counts.
First of all, Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He may refer to himself as a Christian, but he's certainly not a biblical Christian. The distinction is as wide as hell is from heaven: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John:9). Mormon doctrine is "another gospel" that exalts "another Jesus." Both false beliefs came out of the deceived and deceiving mind of Joseph Smith. Secondly, "our country" doesn't have "Christian roots," even though some are claiming that our founding fathers were true Christians. Many were not biblical Christians but Christians in name only, who followed the faith of Deism, Masonry, and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Any early influence in America's history of a biblical nature very likely came from the Pilgrims and the Puritans.
Since I spend very little time watching television or listening to radio programs, I wasn't familiar with Glenn Beck, other than seeing him by chance on Fox News. I found his Catholic background and his conversion to Mormonism rather curious, given my own Catholic upbringing and, years later, my writing for the film documentary The God Makers. What I know about the overwhelming fictional nature of the Book of Mormon had me wondering why Beck's work as a conservative political analyst didn't give him the ability to discern the blatantly erroneous teachings, practices, and historical claims of Mormonism. However, it wasn't until he was invited to speak at Liberty University's Commencement in 2010 (the largest evangelical college in the U.S.) that I was first made aware of his growing influence among evangelical Christians.
The rationale, I was told, for having him speak to the graduating class was that his conservative point of view was consistent with the school's philosophy, and his message was needed at a time when the Obama administration seemed to be pushing this country down a path of socialism. The fact that he is a Mormon was not a concern because his address would be of a political nature, not spiritual. I learned after the event that he rewrote his talk just before speaking because he felt compelled to address spiritual issues. He said that his invitation to speak was not an endorsement of his religion by the university. "[But although we have] differences...we need to find those things that unite us." His speech was infused with religious terms that would appear to bring people together--except for the fact that these terms have very different meanings for Mormons and evangelicals. He frequently referred to the power of the Atonement, to faith, to the gospel, to the Holy Spirit, to personal revelations from God. Does it matter that a Mormon has a completely different understanding of the Atonement and the gospel from what is taught in the Bible?
Beck said, "Turn to God and live." What God might that be? The Mormon one, who has a physical body and lives on a planet near a star called Kolob? Or the One who is spirit and exists outside His creation?
Beck exhorted his audience to seek the truth. But which God is true? He closed his speech by challenging these mostly evangelical graduates to "question everything, including everything I have just told you" and to "read the Scriptures every day...." Would these include Latter-day Saints' scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price? What about "The Inspired Translation of the Bible," which Joseph Smith wrote to make sure that the Bible was "translated correctly"?
Beck's last words were greeted with a standing ovation from the faculty, the graduates, and their families and friends: "I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen." Were they cheering wildly for the biblical Jesus...or for the Jesus Christ of Mormonism? The two couldn't be more dissimilar.
For those enamored with Glenn Beck and upset with my concerns about him, let's take him up on his challenge to question his words. Many of the thoughts in his Liberty University speech can be found in his new book titled The Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life, which he co-authored with psychiatrist Keith Ablow. In it, Beck sets the record straight as to his understanding of Mormonism. That's important because I have heard all kinds of explanations--from his being naïve about the faith fabricated by Joseph Smith to his being led to biblical salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ by various evangelical leaders who have appeared on his television and radio programs. Beck, however, dispels any and all speculation:
I read everything there was to read on [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'] websites and every word of Mormon Doctrine. I treated Mormonism as if it were a hostile witness. For a while I went to the anti-Mormon literature for hints, but I found most of it to be unfair or just plain wrong. I tried every trick I could think of to find a contradiction. The problem was that I couldn't. Mormonism seemed to explain the world and my place in it better than any other faith I had looked at. It answered many spiritual questions that had gone unanswered for me for my entire life. (Beck &Ablow, The Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life, p.149)
In his Liberty University speech, which was often very emotional, he referred to the Old Testament book of Ezekiel and how he (Beck) felt that the call to be a "watchman," i.e., someone who stands guard to alert the people to the evil that could overtake them, was something God had put on his heart to do. It was his calling. If Beck's book is any indication of his "watchman" competency, he is either asleep at his post or has gone AWOL. Isaiah sets the criterion for God's watchman: "To the law and to the testimony [i.e., the Scriptures]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). Does Beck speak according to God's Word? Even if one assumes that he is talking about the God of the Bible rather than the god of Mormonism, or what the Bible declares, it is clear by comparing his views with the teachings of the Bible that he's got them both wrong.
He and his psychiatrist co-author declare throughout their book that God is within everyone: "If God is everything and everywhere and inside everyone, then I figured He had to be inside me, too...." That is a foundational premise to most of what Beck presents. It is pantheism, a belief common to Hindus, Eastern mystics, and popular among New Agers.
The truth is that the God of the Bible is not part of His creation. He created everything out of nothing. If He were inseparable from His creation then He would be subject to the death and destruction that the universe is undergoing. That would deny His perfection.
The Word of God says that the born-again believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that his body is the temple of God (Ephesians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 3:17). This is conditional, based upon faith in the biblical Jesus, and it involves God's taking up residence within the believer. God is not, nor does He become, a part of humanity.
If God were part of everyone and within everyone throughout all eternity (Beck &Ablow, Seven Wonders, p. 85), then He would be part of the evil makeup of every human. Of course, Beck and Ablow fervently deny that mankind is evil: "People are inherently good. Our souls are magnificent and capable of extraordinary performance" (p.165). That may make some "feel good about themselves," but it's contrary to numerous Scriptures that address the nature of man. The prophet Jeremiah tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (17:9), and Jesus said in Mark 10:18, "There is none good but one, that is, God."
That truth of the Bible poses a huge problem for psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, especially a Freudian psychotherapist like Keith Ablow. How so? He's in the business of facilitating a person's relief from the troublesome problems of living by helping him find his "true self, the really lovable and loving person you are at your core..." (Beck &Ablow, p. 185). The key to recovering the "real you," Ablow and Beck explain, involves a process of "digging up the painful parts of your life story..." (p. 107).
Nearly all psychotherapies assert that mankind's problems are caused by painful issues external to the person, such as emotional traumas, parental abuses, environmental conditions, a bad hair day, etc. Ablow tells us to "Accept that today's negative emotional and behavioral patterns are almost certainly connected to painful memories and unresolved conflicts in the past" (p. 131).
However, if it were acknowledged that the root of the problem is the innate evil within humanity (as the Bible declares, yet psychology denies), Ablow and his colleagues would be out of business. Just as a leopard can't change its spots, neither can the mental health practitioners do anything to change a person's sin nature. Only God can do that. Yet the charade in pursuit of the "higher self," "human potential," "self-discovery," and "the God-given reservoir of personal power inside you," (p. 50) continues to delude and deceive the masses.
Beck's description of his "life story," especially how he was led into Mormonism, is a reflection of what the pseudo-Christian cult is all about: it majors on the subjective and the experiential (e.g., a personal "burning in the bosom" experience from God). He believes that God guided him into the faith of Joseph Smith through a series of inexplicable events in his life. He says that God-ordained "coincidences," which he calls "bread crumbs," are available to help everyone "find their paths to embracing the truth" (p. 152). He and Ablow continually exalt the subjective and experiential through their promotion of "gut feelings," "intuition," "the third ear," and "the inner voice of truth inside us--the voice of God" (p. 265). They write, "Practice listening to your gut....In order to do this, you need to listen for inner voices inside you" (p. 274).
When discernment depends upon gut feelings and inner voices, it's a recipe for spiritual disaster: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). The Bible tells us to put no trust in subjective experiences but rather to trust in God's written Word: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32). Jesus' prayer to His Father certifies how He wants believers in Him to know Him and the truth of His teachings: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17).
Mormonism is rife with occult beliefs and practices, whether they be rituals taken from Masonic ceremonies to supposed communication with the deceased through baptism for the dead. This makes the Latter-day Saints extremely susceptible to demonic deception. Yet Glenn Beck seems to have added more false doctrine to an already bizarre belief system. He lauds the first-century heresy of gnosticism and gnostic books such as "The Gospel of Thomas"; he endorses communication through silent meditation ("Connect with the miracle of spirit, of God, that has lived inside you from long before you were born. You will be rewarded..." (p. 85); and he and Ablow espouse the Eastern mystical teaching of spiritual energy as an "immeasurable force that you can tap into to dramatically improve your existence....It is nothing less than your connection to God" (p. 113).
Lest someone object to one or another of the religious or psychological concepts Beck and Ablow are serving up, the two fall back on ecumenical pragmatism: "How can you begin to do this? Some people go to psychotherapists. Others go to pastoral counselors. Others begin to meditate. Still others start with twelve-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous or Al-Anon. Whatever works for you is what you should do, but we've developed a four-step plan to help you get under way."
Perhaps the reason I quote the following verse more than any other in my recent articles is because I see the church and its shepherds looking more and more to the ways of man rather than to the Word of God: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). Glenn Beck has no answers for those who are truly God's people. Nevertheless, I pray that he will come to the knowledge of the truth.
I also pray for greater discernment among those who claim to follow the biblical Jesus and the Word of God. Jesus declared to His disciples (which all true believers in Him are) that they were to "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4). He was referring specifically to the last days, the time just prior to His return. It would be characterized by massive spiritual deception. For more than three decades Dave Hunt and I have been addressing the various elements the adversary of God has used to deceive the world and the church. Of late, our TBC articles have pointed out how the unifying beliefs that are common to diverse religious groups (and anti-religious groups!) are rallying them together with amazing speed. Their mission is fixed upon the earth as they unwittingly work toward building the kingdom of the Antichrist and his apostate religion. TBC from the Berean Call
Saturday, August 20, 2011
From Ray Stedman on Calvinistic teaching updated
Concerning Redemption
Read the Scripture: 2 Corinthians 5:17-19
Article V of our Doctrinal Statement reads:
Concerning Redemption
“We believe Jesus died upon the cross as a sin-less substitute for sinners of all ages and times, and that the Father was thus, by means of the Spirit, reconciling the world to Himself. All who receive the risen Jesus as Lord, by faith, are spiritually born into permanent membership in the family of God.”
Like all the statements, this is a condensation. It is normally treated under the subject Soteriology, the doctrine of Salvation. There are a number of important divisions of it. We want to take up the cross as central to the Christian faith; the substitutionary work of Jesus on that cross; the universal application of it for all ages and times; the reconciliation which was one of the effects of the cross; and ultimately the regeneration which is the gift of life to those who believe and receive the Lord Jesus.
I’m sure most, if not all of you, are in full agreement with the fact that the Cross is the central theme of redemption. The Scriptures clearly indicate that though the teaching of Jesus was profound and world-shaking in its implications, no one is saved by the teaching of Jesus. We are saved by his death upon the cross and his subsequent resurrection. The gospel, the good news, is not that Jesus taught wonderful truths, but that he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried and rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures. That’s the gospel.
That is the reason why as you read through the four Gospels you will find that every one of them devotes by far the largest percentage of treatment to the last week of Jesus, rather than his three preceding years of ministry. There is an account of his teaching, of his travels up and down the length of Palestine, his ministry in training the twelve disciples, sending out seventy others, etc. There are many stories that gather about that ministry, of his miracles and the effect he had on the people, but when it moves to the account of the crucifixion, of Jesus’ death, the majority of the gospels is devoted to that. That last week becomes the central focus of each of the gospels.
I think in order to understand the Atonement we might take a look at what I believe is one of the clearest passages in the Scriptures that teaches it, Paul’s treatise in Romans chapter three. In this epistle to the Romans, the apostle spends the first three chapters showing how the human race is absolutely hopeless and helpless apart from the redemption provided in Christ. There is no way for anyone to be saved apart from the work of Jesus. He is showing us the lost condition of the race.
By the way, I’ve put on the board here the symbols usually employed by all Calvinists to summarize the heart of Calvinist teaching, which forms the word TULIP. We’re going to look at that in some detail, but the first of these would be what we are talking about right now: the total depravity of human beings. That is what Paul establishes in the first three chapters of Romans, up to verse twenty-one. His conclusion (NIV) is:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” (That doesn’t mean they don’t pursue small gods, but no one seeks the real God, because the effect of seeking him is to find themselves condemned. That’s why men turn away, as Paul goes on to say): “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (And don’t mentally add: ‘except me’.) Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
This is an excellent summary of what is meant by “total depravity”. It doesn’t mean man cannot do what looks good in his own eyes, or in the eyes of others. There are many apparently wonderful, charitable deeds and merciful acts performed by total unbelievers, which appear to us very good things, but remember God is looking at the heart. He sees the motive behind these things, and what may look like a very good deed to us is oftentimes a very evil deed in God’s eyes, because the motive is wrong.
I remember a statement I heard years ago about rich men who gave money for various worthy causes: “It takes a lot of philanthropy to deodorize a great fortune.” I think that is probably true. Many give money because it make them feel good, or it makes them look good to others. The recipients of their charity may be greatly helped, and that looks like a good deed, but it is not in God’s eyes if the motive is wrong. God is reading the heart, and Paul’s conclusion is, there is none righteous, not even one.
That means all of mankind is lost. It doesn’t mean they are all equally bad. It means that nothing they do can be seen as good in God’s eyes because the taint of evil, the original sin we inherited from Adam, the self-centeredness of our nature, poisons every thought, every deed. We can make it look good to ourselves and to others, but not in the sight of God.
What then can we do? Here Paul for the first time in Romans gives us a clear-cut statement of the wonderful work of Christ in solving that dilemma:
“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.”
I think it very important we understand the word “righteousness” here. Righteousness is used in two ways in Scripture. It’s used, of course, to describe good behavior. If someone lives right we say they are living righteously, and it is used that way in the Bible in places, but not in Romans. In Romans, righteousness is not what you do but what you are, and he has just pointed out that no one is righteous. He says it very plainly in verse ten: “there is no one righteous, not even one.” So if it is necessary to be righteous to be accepted before God, we’re sunk! But now, he says, a righteousness from God is made known! He’s of course speaking of the gift of righteousness in Christ.
Now you need to know that the word “righteousness” and the term “justification” are derived from the same root. They are really the same word: “to justify”, a word you frequently see in Scripture, which really means “to make righteous.” It comes from the same Greek root, dikaiosune, “to justify”. “to make righteous”. So what he is saying is now a way to be made righteous before God apart from the law has been known, to which the Law and the Prophets bear witness. That is the gift of righteousness given to those who believe in Jesus: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” So it is a gift!.
I think the English word that gets closest to the heart of this Greek term, is the word “worth”. Everyone is looking for worth. Psychologists tell us that a sense of self worth is essential to functioning as a human being, without which you will function badly in society, and will be totally lost. If you have no sense of self worth you’ll curl up in a corner in a fetus position and be actually unable to move. That happens to some persons. They lose their sense of value about themselves and they are rendered totally inoperative. Therefore, worth is a very necessary quality, and everybody’s looking for it. You only have to turn on your television, listen to the commercials, listen to people talk on the street, and you will hear them saying in one way or another that what they are looking for is a way to be important, to feel worthwhile.
What most look for is a sense of worth in the eyes of other people. If we can find that, it does give us a temporary shot in the arm about ourselves. If our parents love us as children, we get a sense of worth from that. If our friends love us even when we are sometimes obnoxious, we get a sense of worth from their friendship. So everyone is looking for friends, love, acceptance, and this is a basic human quest which cannot be denied.
But even those fortunate enough to have received a continuing sense of worth from others, such as favored children, the good-looking, those with special gifts, etc., – even those people find that worth received from other people doesn’t satisfy. Even the most loyal, close, dearest friend, your mate, for instance, cannot satisfy the longing for worth in the human heart. There comes eventually the awareness that something is missing. There is an emptiness, a feeling of vacuity. This is what creates the universal restlessness apparent everywhere in the world today.
What are they looking for? They are looking for worth in the eyes of God. Ultimately, because we are human beings made in the image of God, and as the Scripture says, God has put eternity in our hearts, we never can be satisfied with anything less than God’sapproval. And that is what the gospel offers. There is a worth given us by God. It can’t be earned, you can’t buy it, you can’t create it. It doesn’t come through the Law, Paul says. It’s apart from the Law. The Law can give you worth if you will perfectly obey it, but if you mess up in one little thing you’ve lost it all. You can’t earn this worth, but you can have it as a gift from God through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s the good news! I don’t think there is anything to even remotely compare to that good news in all the world.
That’s better than a Jaguar, a trip to the Caribbean, winning the lottery, whatever. Nothing compares with the good news that we are acceptable in the eyes of God, even though we have been law-breakers, and messed up, and there is none righteous, no not one. That’s the great statement of Romans.
The Law and the Prophets bear witness to this. You can find this in the Old Testament as well as in the New. You will find Moses in the Law describes a series of sacrifices, offerings, animals to be slain, rituals to be performed, all of which are a picture of how to meet the demands of a righteous God even when you had messed up your life. You did it by bringing a substitute, putting an animal to death. No animal was ever offered alive to God. It had to be dead, because God was teaching the world by that means that sin is a deep, serious problem that only death can solve. The animal had to die, but it is your substitute. This of course gives meaning to the words of John the Baptist when Jesus was emerging from the waters of baptism. John said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
So the Law bears witness to it and so do the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, David and others writing in the Old Testament. In Psalm 32, David writes: “Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” There are many other witnesses in the Old Testament to consider if we had time. So Paul concludes this is not something the Law can give you, but it is something to which the Law and the Prophets bear witness.
Now this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. What does that add? You see that is not universally applied. It is sufficient for the salvation of the entire world, (we’ll come to that again when we discuss the term “Limited Atonement”) but it is not universally applied because it is not universally accepted, It is to those who believe. So you see this is an answer to the teaching you encounter sometimes of universal salvation. Some take verses of Scripture to mean that Christ died for all men, therefore all are saved, and it is irrelevant whether or not you believe it. Here Paul specifically limits it to those who believe, as Jesus himself did. He said to the Pharisees, for instance, “You will not come to me that you might have life.”
Life was available for them, but they refused to come, believe and receive it.
Life was available for them, but they refused to come, believe and receive it.
And it comes through faith. Faith simply means you take this word seriously. You believe what God has said and apply it to yourself. You say, “this means me.” I find a lot of people struggle at this point. They think others have the right to be saved, but God didn’t mean them. They’re too bad, or too far gone, too heard-hearted, or whatever. You run into a lot of excuses, but it is simply, as Jesus put it, “whosoever will may come unto me.” If you will to come, then you have the faith to come, and by faith in Jesus Christ, believing this applies to you, you receive the gift of righteousness. And Paul continues:
“There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (He is summarizing what he has already stated in the previous verses) and are justified (made righteous) freely by his grace (that is, by God’s gracious initiative) through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
Redemption is the price, not through the teachings of Jesus, but through the redemptive work of the cross.
Now in verse twenty-five the apostle will explain more fully how this works : “God presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” The words “sacrifice of atonement” are translated variously in other versions. (Readings from class: NAS “as a propitiation.” NIV footnote “As the one who would turn aside his wrath”, RSV…an expiation by his blood”. There is no English word that fully captures what the Greek text is saying here. This attempt here to call it a “sacrifice of atonement” is one way of trying to get at the meaning. The two words usually employed are “expiation” and “propitiation”, and it is referring to the value of the death of Jesus. Expiation means to satisfy justice. Propitiation means to awaken or release love. They are not the same thing. Propitiation is the larger term; it goes further than expiation.
Let me illustrate. These days we read a lot about industrial accidents. Someone is working for a company and the safety equipment is lacking or inadequate, and a worker is injured severely, perhaps even paralyzed for life by some accident. The company is responsible because they failed to provide adequate safety measures to prevent this from happening, so that in the settlement that follows the suit or court trial, the company is charged a huge sum of money to settle the claim. When that money is paid by the company to the injured individual, the company has expiated its guilt. The law cannot come back and require more. Justice has been satisfied. Expiation satisfies justice.
There are many who point out that when Jesus died upon the cross he satisfied the justice of God. That is true. He did. But he did more than that, and it is an incomplete view of the atonement to just use expiation as explanation of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. He did satisfy God’s justice, so that God no longer has a just claim against those who believe in Christ. But it goes further than that. What Jesus did was propitiate God.
Propitiation, if I may return to my illustration, could only be accomplished with great difficulty by the company in that situation. You see when they satisfied justice, that said nothing about how the injured man felt about the company. He might be very bitter and angry the rest of his life. He might regard that company as disgraced from then on, and though their guilt has been expiated, the man himself has not been propitiated. If somehow the company owners could come and apologize to him and tell him how sorry they felt, and that they had taken steps to assure it would never happen again, and apologized to such a degree that the man felt they were clear in their intent, and he then forgave them—then he had been propitiated. He had been made to feel right toward the company. He now regards it with favor. He sees it was accidental and they had no intent to allow the accident to happen, so he feels right about it. That is propitiation.
That is really the word used here: a propitiatory sacrifice. Our Lord when he died not only satisfied God’s justice, but he rendered him free to show his love. That is why in chapter five of Romans Paul will add: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” God is free to show his love to us; that is propitiation. So we are justified freely. God presented him as a propitiatory sacrifice through faith in his blood.
Now Paul goes on to further explain, “He did this to further demonstrate his justice. Because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” What is he talking about? He is talking about the ages in which people had run rampant on the earth, and God seemingly did nothing about it. You see, the last time in history to this point where the anger and justice of God had been demonstrated against sin, was the Flood, which was God wiping out the race because it was so evil. Their evil had become so blatant and rampant that God decided to eliminate humanity from the planet, except for eight people. Thus his justice was demonstrated.
Now many centuries after the flood, evil was running wild throughout the earth, tyrants were ruling, people were murdering and raping one another, stealing properties and damaging people, and God seemingly did nothing about it. Still today people raise questions about the Holocaust. They ask how a just God could permit Hitler to exterminate six million innocent Jews and not do anything about it. His justice is being impugned by these circumstances.
Now how did the cross satisfy that justice? We are told that on the innocent head of Jesus, the sinless person, God poured out the total amount of his wrath. This is why Jesus feared the cross. He was no coward; it wasn’t the physical agony of it that he feared, terrible as that was. There was no more shameful or painful death that man has ever devised than crucifixion. It’s a prolonged agony that cannot be relieved. You can’t think of any agony more unbearable than crucifixion. But that isn’t what Jesus feared. Other men have been crucified. Peter was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die the death that Jesus did.
But what made Jesus sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane was not the agony of the cross, but the sense of forsakenness from God that he knew was involved in bearing the sins of the race. God turned his back upon his own beloved Son, and that is what drew the cry of dereliction from our Lord’s lips: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” That sense of abandonment and alienation by God is the most awful thing any human being can contemplate. That’s what hell is, that sense of abandonment by God, cast into outer darkness forever alone. That’s the terror of it, and that is what Jesus faced on the cross. Thus the justice of God was visibly demonstrated in that God did not spare his own Son one iota of his wrath. Paul says this in Romans 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?”
So that is what Paul is referring to. “He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” How can God still be just, yet declare guiltless someone who is very guilty indeed? A just God could never do that, unless his justice had somehow been satisfied. This is the wonder of the gospel, that God has found a way in which he can expiate the sin of man, propitiate the being of the Father, thus establishing that God remains just when he justifies the ungodly. I think there is no clearer explanation of the gospel than that.
There are many passages that deal with the Atonement, statements that run throughout the Old and New Testaments. Peter says “he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree”, and Hebrews speaks of how “he has by himself purged our sins” and shed his blood for the remission of sins. Another passage often referred to in this connection is the great theological statement in Philippians 2: 5-8 (NIV):
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, (or literally, the form of God, which means the very nature of God) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (held onto, grasped and not let go of) , but made himself nothing, he emptied himself…”
There is theological debate over what he emptied himself of. Some claim he gave up his deity, but that would be impossible, because Jesus was God. How could he cease to be what he was? You cannot give up what you really are. What it means is he gave up the manifestation, the visible demonstration of his deity. He laid aside the right to act as God when he came to earth and took upon himself the right to act as a man filled, in touch with God, which is our position.
“…taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!”
This is a clear statement of his substitutionary sacrifice. He died as a man on the cross. God cannot die. The deity of Jesus did not die, but his humanity did. The blending of those two natures is such that the effect of his death was as though God himself had in some way encompassed death. This is the consistent argument of Scripture.
What was the effect of this? Scripture indicates the first effect was to reconcile everyone in the world to God. This needs to be carefully understood, because there is a lot of confusion and heretical ideas at this point, some pursuing one aspect of this too far. Let’s look at another great statement by the Apostle Paul on the meaning of the death of in II Corinthians 5:16
“So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. (That is, he no longer sees human beings on the shallow estimation of men’s values—if you’re rich, or have a high position you’re more important than others. That’s the way we humans look at it.) “Though we once regarded Christ in this way…” (There was a time when, as a young rabbi from Tarsus, Paul regarded Christ as a man, a usurper trying to act like God. He blasphemed God, being completely off base.) But he says, “we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf (actually, in Christ’s stead, in his place): Be reconciled to God.”
Now reconciliation has two aspects. It refers to how people feel toward one another. If you are quarrelling with someone, and upset with them and they with you, you need to be reconciled. You need to view one another differently. But where two are involved, one can be reconciled and not the other. Reconciliation is the statement that when Christ died on the cross he expiated sin and propitiated God, so that God is reconciled toward man. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer used to illustrate it this way: Man and God are alienated from one another, unable to communicate. God in his justice was feeling anger against man because of his terrible evil that was rampant in the world. And man was angry with God, blaming him for everything and unable to communicate with him. But because of the death of Christ, God was reconciled to man. He turned a smiling face toward mankind.
Actually, this is over-simplification, and in some sense is wrong, because we must not have the impression that God the Father was placated by Jesus. God, as it states in the passage, was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The Father was just as eager for reconciling mankind as the Son was. He loved the world, and wanted to bring it back to himself. So in no sense was the love of God unavailable to man before the cross.
The appeal of the gospel we preach is to the individual. Younow be reconciled to God! Turn around and accept this gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ. Give up your independent spirit, your justifying of yourself, and acknowledge your need of redemption. Receive it; be reconciled to God. If that be true, as I believe it is, then what reconciliation does is to render men savable.; that is, the death of Jesus was for the whole world.
I want to now call your attention back to Calvinistic teaching. According to his followers, John Calvin taught these five points: Total Depravity of mankind; Unconditional Election; (God chose some to be saved, and this the Bible does clearly teach as we’ll see later), but here is the one in question—Limited Atonement. According to the Calvinists (not Calvin, but Calvinists), the Scriptures teach that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was only intended for the elect. God only chose to save the elect, and that is all that was meant in the sacrifice of Christ. The non-elect, those who did not receive salvation, were not included in the atonement. In other words, Christ did not die for everybody. He died only for those who would be saved.
This was conceived of in an attempt to make the work of Jesus appear to be as efficacious as possible. That is, it was in no sense a failure—that God intended only to save a certain number, and Christ actually died only for those, and he saved all of those; therefore, his intention from the beginning was completed. Here there is a great deal of debate. Personally, I cannot accept the doctrine of Limited Atonement. I’ll explain this later.
The fourth point of the Calvinistic five is Irresistible Grace.; that is, when God calls man cannot resist. If you have read C. S. Lewis, you know how he describes his conversion as being dragged kicking and screaming, with his eyes darting in every direction, hoping for some way to escape, but God draws him to himself and he finds he is unable to escape, and receives the Lord. He is describing irresistible grace. God can save whom he will. Paul will argue that with great perspicacity in Romans nine.
The last point is the Perseverance of the Saints, that once saved you cannot be lost. The proof of regeneration is continuance, and this appears again and again throughout Scripture. You may fall away for awhile, but you can’t stay there. You come back again. This is popularly called Eternal Security.
Those are the five points of Calvinism. For the most part, because I would agree with four of them, I would usually be classified, and would classify myself as a Calvinist. I spent some interesting time at a conference with Dr. James Torrance, who is Professor of Theology at St. Andrews in Aberdeen, Scotland. He is a great student of Calvin. I was pleased that he indicated Calvin really never did teach what is known as Limited Atonement, that it was more his followers’ teaching.
One of the reasons for that is the way it deals with the love of God. The well-known verse, John 3:16, says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” That means God loves everybody, and that is the reason for his working out this amazing plan of redemption. This is borne out by John’s statement in his first letter: Godis Love. If you pursue Limited Atonement far enough, you will have to say that since God loves the elect, he does not therefore love the non-elect. And if he does not love the non-elect, he does not love everybody.
Jonathan Edwards, a great New England scholar, and John Owens, one of the great Puritan fathers, taught that God actually did not love everybody, and made statements to the effect that God cannot be love because he does not love everyone. That runs counter to the Apostle John, doesn’t it. This is the problem with Limited Atonement. But when you see that God made provisions for everybody’s salvation through Christ, but requires a personal response to receive it, then you can no longer view the atonement as limited, since it is unlimited in its possibilities. It is limited only by the unwillingness of people to receive it, or willingness to reject it.
There is a great passage in Colossians 1, which we will deal with briefly. The Apostle has been speaking of Christ’s deity and says in verses 18-20:
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, (that’s a reference to the resurrection) so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
That seems to state that everything has been reconciled, everything on earth, and everything in heaven which is the invisible realm and which would include the devil and his angels, and on earth all evil men such as the Hitlers and Stalins, the tyrants of history, murderers, thieves, etc. All sinners of earth will be reconciled. Universalists lean heavily on this verse, maintaining everybody is going to be saved. But you see it’s a great mistake to identify reconciliation with salvation. Reconciliation is the first step in salvation, not the whole thing.
In Romans 5:9-10, Paul clarifies the distinction:
“Since we have now been justified (made righteous) by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
Do you see the distinction he has drawn between reconciliation and salvation? Reconciliation, he says, is the foundation God has already accomplished in Christ, upon which the right to give his life rests, and as he has made clear, those who believe receive life on the grounds that they have been reconciled by his death. So the death of Jesus reconciled everything, that is, it rendered it subject to God, and those who receive
the Lordship of Jesus are given life. Thus everybody’s been reconciled, as II Corinthians stated as well, that God has reconciled the world unto himself through the death of his Son.
the Lordship of Jesus are given life. Thus everybody’s been reconciled, as II Corinthians stated as well, that God has reconciled the world unto himself through the death of his Son.
Why then does Paul plead, “be reconciled unto God”? Because personal regeneration depends upon accepting the death of Jesus for oneself. So reconciliation is not equivalent to salvation. Everything has been reconciled already, and thus the statement in Philippians that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Whether things in earth or in heaven, every knee shall bow – angels, devils, demons, humans – everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord. In other words, their opposition to him will cease. That’s what reconciliation accomplishes; it removes all opposition. It doesn’t mean they are saved. It means they recognize that their condemnation is just. They no longer rationalize, they agree with God in what he has said about them, and the fate they have been given is right. That’s what reconciliation accomplishes, but that is not regeneration. On the basis of reconciliation, we shall be saved through his life. That is what Paul refers to in II Corinthians 5:17 when he says if any man be in Christ (has received Christ), he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.
(Class question) The serpent in the wilderness was erected on the pole for everyone to see, but only those who looked at it were healed of a snakebite. That’s another picture of this same thing. Everywhere in Scripture there is the implication that reconciliation must be received.
There is another theological issue that arises at this point, and that is hotly debated today, and that is, in what way do you have to see Jesus in order to be saved? There is a quarrel going on currently over what is called “Lordship salvation”. Do you see Jesus as your Savior and are saved, or do you see him as Lord to be saved? I was taught at Dallas Seminary that you can receive Jesus as your Savior and that later on you learn about his Lordship, but your regeneration is effected by receiving him as Savior.John MacArthur is now contesting that hotly, saying no, we must see and receive him as Lord in order to be regenerated.
I have to say I consider this sort of a tempest in a teapot. I think both sides are right. I don’t believe you have to know everything in the Bible that is implied in the Lordship of Jesus in order to be saved. But we have to see that God has made Jesus Lord. He is the Master of the universe, the Judge of all things, God’s man for redemption, the way to God. You must see that, otherwise there will not be content to your belief in him. You can’t come to him as though receiving an insurance policy against going to hell, then go on living exactly as you were. Regeneration changes you inside. This is the clear teaching of Scripture. It changes your outlook and your attitude. It is opposed inside you by the habits of your past life, and you struggle against it, often failing, but there is something in the regenerated person that cannot quit.
I remember once receiving a phone call from a young man who had come to Christ a few weeks previously, and he had been struggling greatly. He called me about eleven o’clock at night and said, “Hey, I just want to tell you, I’m going to quit being a Christian. I just can’t make it, can’t handle it.” I said, “Well, I understand that. I think that’s a good idea. Why don’t you just quit? There was a full minute of silence, and finally he said, “No, I can’t do that.” I said “Yes, I know that.” He couldn’t, and he didn’t. There’s a feeling that you want to, which is understandable. We all get to that point, but there is something in the believer that will keep bringing him back. He may struggle at great length, go off for a while and fight it for a long time, but there is something that keeps telling him “you belong to God.” He knows it but won’t admit it. Others can see it and think he’s backslidden or lost his salvation, or whatever, but sooner or later he will get back, because that which is born of God cannot sin, he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and he will eventually turn to God.
That’s the story of the prodigal son, isn’t it. He couldn’t forget he was his father’s son, and his last resort was, “I will arise and go to my father.” I never refer to that without thinking of the black preacher I met in Dallas who told me how he preached that. He said he told about the prodigal son who went into the far country and was feeding the pigs in the pigpen. He took off his coat and sold that, then took off his shirt and sold that, then took off his undershirt and sold that. And then “he came to himself” (as the Bible says) and said “I will arise and go to my father.” That’s what the believer will do.
I believe there is a sense in which you receive Christ as your Savior, you desperately want to be saved, you ask him for relief, and in some sense you also are receiving him as Lord because he is offered on those terms in Scripture. Every offer of salvation includes the statement that Jesus is Lord. Romans 10:9: “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. What did the Apostle Paul say to the Philippian jailor? “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved. (Acts 16:31) Salvation is always offered on these terms. Jesus is never offered as a Savior. He becomes our Savior when we receive him as our Lord. Salvation is his work, but Lordship is his person.
I think if you began to explore with both of these parties what they meant by what they are saying you would come out pretty much at the same place. Obviously John MacArthur is trying to protect the fact that you cannot just have “cheap grace”, as Bonhoeffer calls it; that is, just accept Christ so you won’t go to hell, but not let him change your life to any degree. That is cheap grace, and it is not real salvation. On the other hand, the Dallas Seminary teaching is defending the fact that you don’t have to understand everything about Jesus in order to be saved. You come to him. Jesus put it that way: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). He didn’t say after you have studied theology for six months then come to me and I will give you rest.
(Class question about “depart from me I never knew you” from the Sermon on the Mount.) Well, that’s an example of cheap grace, a sign they did not mean it and there was no real change in their lives. It is what the Pharisees were doing. They thought they were God’s people, having come to him through the sacrificial system, and yet Jesus said they were “whitened sepulchers”. They had been whitewashed, but inside there was nothing but death.
(Class question) They thought there was a relationship. They said, have we not in your name preached and done many mighty works? There are a lot of mighty works done in the name of Jesus today by people who don’t know him as Lord. Think of all the hospitals and rescue operations, charity organizations, all done in the name of Christ, but not necessarily done by true Christians.
(Class question about the grain of wheat which falls into the ground and dies.) Clearly, this is implying there must be a giving up of the right to self. That is what death does; it gives up the right to your self. That is what happens when you truly receive Christ. You come to him asking he deliver and change, or indwell you—whatever terminology you choose. You are giving up your right to yourself. It’s like a drowning swimmer who can’t save himself. Someone comes to rescue him and he clings to that person, impeding his own salvation. They tell us the best strategy may be to knock the person out in order to save him. He has to give up on that self salvation in order to be saved. This is what our Lord is saying, you can’t save yourself, and you have to give up trying in order to be saved. He will do all of the saving. Our hymn says it beautifully:
“Nothing in my hand I bring.
Simply to thy cross I cling.
Naked look to thee for dress.
Helpless, look to Thee for grace.
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.”
We don’t offer God anything. We don’t bargain with God. We come as hopeless, helpless victims asking for redemption, and it immediately is ours as a gift of grace.
(Class question) This is a natural question. Why doesn’t God give faith to everyone, if by irresistible grace he calls everyone he wants to himself? This ties in with unconditional election. Why doesn’t God choose everybody? Here we come against what is often called the paradox of redemption. There are statements about this in Scripture that we cannot reconcile. All we can do is accept them, because they are both plainly stated. Jesus himself stated both sides. He says he will not cast out any who come to him (as in John 6:37), but he also clearly says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” That is unconditional election, isn’t it?
This a watershed of theology. You fall off one side into Calvinism and on the other side toward Arminianism (which is the opposite view of Calvinism) by how you answer that question. Hyper-Calvinists take the side of God’s election and irresistible grace to the exclusion of the will of man entirely. I think this is going too far.
However, in the Arminian or Pelagian (the teacher who taught this in the fourth century) view, it is said man chooses whether he is to be saved, and it is totally up to him. He can choose to accept or reject, and when he chooses then God acts. They explain election in terms of the foreknowledge of God, who looked down the corridors of time and saw everybody who would accept him when they heard about it, and he elected them to be saved. Scripture does not support that. Paul argues in Romans nine to the effect that God is sovereign and he knows who is going to be saved because he has chosen them. He first elects, then foreknows.
We’ll never settle the debate. I think I’ve shared with you before that the great theological question to ask is, am I foreordained to be an Arminian, or am I free to choose to be a Calvinist?
(Class question) If you carefully read chapter nine of Romans you will see how Paul handles this very question. He says someone will ask, “why does God condemn us since we can’t resist his will?” His answer is remarkable: “Who are you to ask God questions like that?” You’re not equipped to get into the same ring with him. You’re dealing with a damaged instrument, you’re finite and limited in your observations, you don’t see the whole picture—and you are going to tell God whether he can or cannot do what he does?
If it were not for election, no one would be saved. Because none of us desires God. We don’t want God messing up our lives. Every one of us fights against him, without exception. Therefore, it were not for election no one would be saved. This is a great doctrine, and we ought to highly value it.
(Class Question) God is dealing with Israel as a nation (the wild olive tree in chapter 11 of Romans) and saying that because Israel as a people were the children of Abraham they had an opportunity to be saved, because of the giving of the Law and the knowledge of God, etc., given to the patriarchs. But he says that was taken away from them because of their unbelief. They were broken off, and the Gentles who had no such opportunity were put in their place in order to have the knowledge of salvation. He says the reason for that is the natural branches, the Jewish nation, will see God’s blessing upon the Gentile world that they ought to be having and will be made zealous because of that. It will finally wake them up until they too begin to believe, and when the Deliverer comes out of Zion (that is the Messiah) returns, they will receive and believe in him. He is dealing here with those wheels within wheels with which God handles history.
(Class Question) Why does the article of faith state here “by means of the Spirit God was reconciling the world unto himself?” It is by means of the Spirit that Jesus is made available to any of us. It’s the Spirit revealing to us the person of Jesus; therefore, our whole understanding of the work of Christ rests upon the work of the Spirit, who teaches us as we read, how it applies to us. Hebrews tells us it was “through the eternal Spirit” that Jesus offered himself without spot unto God. So we have the work of the Spirit involved in the actual dying of Jesus, his resurrection, and the application of this truth to mankind. Everywhere it rests upon the work of the Spirit. We saw in the study of the Trinity that the three persons always work together. This is simply recognition of that fact.
(Class Question) What does it mean, “that which is born of God cannot sin?” That statement is found in I John 3:9: “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning because he has been born of God.” What he is referring to here, as I tried to make clear when I showed the circles representing humanity, is that we have a human spirit, a soul and a body. The human spirit is what is being referred to here. The Holy Spirit entering the human spirit results in regeneration, the giving of life, the new birth. That which is born of God, that human spirit regenerated by the presence of the Holy Spirit within, cannot sin. It doesn’t sin, doesn’t desire to sin, and cannot sin.
But the soul, which is our conscious life outside of that, has been dominated by the flesh, the sinful attitudes by which we have been living all our lives, and it still needs to be conquered by that Spirit. Therefore, it sins at times, and at times it does not as there are areas that are conquered by the Spirit within us, as we yield to his Lordship and that part of our conscious life is cleansed. In that area, we become Christ-like. That continues throughout our lives until gradually, more and more, our soul is being repossessed for Christ. Sin is still possible in this area as long as we are in the body, which is not redeemed until the resurrection.
(Class Question) Can a true believer quench the Spirit? Yes, we certainly can; otherwise the warning would not be there to prevent us from doing that. To quench the Spirit means to resist the leading of the Spirit. To hesitate when the Spirit tells you not to do something that is wrong or to do something that is right, and be unwilling to go along with him, to fight and resist. We can do that, and we do.
I just want to mention two excellent books on the cross of Christ. I think the best book available on the meaning of the Atonement is John R. W. Stott’s new book called The Cross of Christ. An excellent book, very deep study of the Atonement. A more easy-to-read book in some ways, is the collection of sermons by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the cross. He was a vigorous preacher, and that vigor and excitement and power comes through very clearly in these sermons. In some ways this is a more stimulating book. Stott’s book is an intellectual study, while Lloyd-Jones’ book is emotional experience of the effect of the cross in a believer’s life. Both are very good books.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Recomend Reading J. Vernon Mcgee outlines on the Gospel of Luke
Few Radio ministries can produce the caliber Bible Teaching as the Through The Bible Radio Program by J. Vernon Mcgee.
Although he went to be with the Lord many years ago his teaching is impacting people all over the world today.
Although he went to be with the Lord many years ago his teaching is impacting people all over the world today.
Notes & Outlines
LUKE Dr. J. Vernon McGee
LUKE Dr. J. Vernon McGee
GOSPEL OF LUKE
WRITER: Luke was the “beloved physician” of Colossians 4:14. He used more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medi- cine. The choice of Luke by the Holy Spirit to write the third Gospel reveals that there are no accidental writers of Scripture. There was a supernatural selection of Luke. There were “not many wise” called, but Luke belongs to that category. He and Paul were evidently on a very high intellectual level as well as a spiritual level. This partially explains why they traveled together and obvi- ously became fast friends in the Lord.
Dr. Luke would rank as a scientist of his day. He wrote the best Greek of any of the New Testament writers, including Paul. He was also an accurate historian. According to Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Luke was a careful historian of remarkable ability.
A great deal of tradition surrounds the life of Dr. Luke, which is needless for us to examine in a brief analysis. He writes his Gospel from Mary’s viewpoint, which confirms the tradition that he got his information for his Gospel from her. Surely he conferred with her. Also there is every reason to believe that he was a Gentile. Most scholars concur in this position. Paul, in Colossians, distinguishes between those “who are of the circumcision” (Colossians 4:11) and the others who are obviously Gentiles. Luke is in the list of Gentiles (Colossians 4:14). Sir William Ramsay and J. M. Stifler affirm without reservation that Luke was a Gentile.
References to Luke: Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24; also the “we” section of Acts — Acts 16:10-17; 20:6; 21:18; 27:1; 28:16.
THEME: “Behold the Man”
Jesus is the second man but the last Adam (1 Corinthians
15:45, 47). God is making men like Jesus (1 John 3:2), therefore Jesus is the second man — for there will be the third and even the millionth. He is the last Adam, as there will not be another head of the human family. Jesus was “made like his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17) that His brethren might be made like Him.
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH: Each Gospel presents Jesus
WRITER: Luke was the “beloved physician” of Colossians 4:14. He used more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medi- cine. The choice of Luke by the Holy Spirit to write the third Gospel reveals that there are no accidental writers of Scripture. There was a supernatural selection of Luke. There were “not many wise” called, but Luke belongs to that category. He and Paul were evidently on a very high intellectual level as well as a spiritual level. This partially explains why they traveled together and obvi- ously became fast friends in the Lord.
Dr. Luke would rank as a scientist of his day. He wrote the best Greek of any of the New Testament writers, including Paul. He was also an accurate historian. According to Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Luke was a careful historian of remarkable ability.
A great deal of tradition surrounds the life of Dr. Luke, which is needless for us to examine in a brief analysis. He writes his Gospel from Mary’s viewpoint, which confirms the tradition that he got his information for his Gospel from her. Surely he conferred with her. Also there is every reason to believe that he was a Gentile. Most scholars concur in this position. Paul, in Colossians, distinguishes between those “who are of the circumcision” (Colossians 4:11) and the others who are obviously Gentiles. Luke is in the list of Gentiles (Colossians 4:14). Sir William Ramsay and J. M. Stifler affirm without reservation that Luke was a Gentile.
References to Luke: Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24; also the “we” section of Acts — Acts 16:10-17; 20:6; 21:18; 27:1; 28:16.
THEME: “Behold the Man”
Jesus is the second man but the last Adam (1 Corinthians
15:45, 47). God is making men like Jesus (1 John 3:2), therefore Jesus is the second man — for there will be the third and even the millionth. He is the last Adam, as there will not be another head of the human family. Jesus was “made like his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17) that His brethren might be made like Him.
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH: Each Gospel presents Jesus
from a different viewpoint. Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was
born the Messiah. Mark emphasizes that Jesus was the Servant of
Jehovah. Luke stresses the fact that Jesus was the perfect Man. John
presents the fact that God became a man, but not from the scientific
approach.
Dr. Luke states that he examined Jesus of Nazareth, and his find- ings are that Jesus is God. He came to the same conclusion as John, but his procedure and technique were different.
SPECIAL FEATURES: Although the Gospel of Luke is one of the synoptic Gospels, it contains many features omitted by Matthew and Mark.
• Dr. Luke gives us the songs of Christmas.
• Dr. Luke has the longest account of the virgin birth of Jesus of any of the Gospels. In the first two chapters he gives us an unabashed record of obstetrics, and a clear and candid statement of the virgin birth is given. All the way from Dr. Luke to Dr. Howard Kelly, gynecologist of Johns Hopkins, there is a mighty affirmation of the virgin birth, which makes the statements of pseudo-theologians seem rather puerile when they unblushingly state that the virgin birth is a biological impossibility.
• Dr. Luke gives us 20 miracles, and 6 of them are recorded in no other Gospel.
• He likewise gives us 23 parables, and 18 of them are found nowhere else. The parables of the prodigal son and the good Samaritan are peculiar to the third Gospel.
• He also gives us the very human account of the walk to Emmaus of our resurrected Lord. This proves that Jesus was still human after His resurrection. Dr. Luke demonstrates that the resurrection was not of the spirit but of the body. Jesus was “sown a natural body...raised a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). A definite human sympathy pervades this Gospel, which reveals the truly human nature of Jesus as well as the big-hearted sympathy of this physician of the first century who knew firsthand a great deal about the suffering of humanity.
Dr. Luke states that he examined Jesus of Nazareth, and his find- ings are that Jesus is God. He came to the same conclusion as John, but his procedure and technique were different.
SPECIAL FEATURES: Although the Gospel of Luke is one of the synoptic Gospels, it contains many features omitted by Matthew and Mark.
• Dr. Luke gives us the songs of Christmas.
• Dr. Luke has the longest account of the virgin birth of Jesus of any of the Gospels. In the first two chapters he gives us an unabashed record of obstetrics, and a clear and candid statement of the virgin birth is given. All the way from Dr. Luke to Dr. Howard Kelly, gynecologist of Johns Hopkins, there is a mighty affirmation of the virgin birth, which makes the statements of pseudo-theologians seem rather puerile when they unblushingly state that the virgin birth is a biological impossibility.
• Dr. Luke gives us 20 miracles, and 6 of them are recorded in no other Gospel.
• He likewise gives us 23 parables, and 18 of them are found nowhere else. The parables of the prodigal son and the good Samaritan are peculiar to the third Gospel.
• He also gives us the very human account of the walk to Emmaus of our resurrected Lord. This proves that Jesus was still human after His resurrection. Dr. Luke demonstrates that the resurrection was not of the spirit but of the body. Jesus was “sown a natural body...raised a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). A definite human sympathy pervades this Gospel, which reveals the truly human nature of Jesus as well as the big-hearted sympathy of this physician of the first century who knew firsthand a great deal about the suffering of humanity.
COMMENT:
Chapter 1 — Historically, Dr. Luke begins his Gospel before the other synoptic Gospels. Heaven had been silent for over 400 years when the angel Gabriel broke through the blue at the golden altar of prayer to announce the birth of John the Baptist. Luke gives us the background as well as the births of John and Jesus. Neither Joseph nor Mary was God’s accidental choice. They both possessed certain noble human character traits. Joseph was an unselfish, humble and dependable man of high ideals. Mary possessed the same character traits. She was obedient and uncomplaining, with a definite knowl- edge of the Old Testament. Long before medical science gave any attention to heredity, Dr. Luke placed a great emphasis upon it.
Dr. Luke makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is virgin born. No other conclusion can be drawn from the definite, direct, and dog- matic statements of the angel Gabriel to Mary. Until man knows more about the origin of life, he is in no position, scientifically, to refute dogmatically the statement of Dr. Luke. A true scientific approach is that of humble inquiry and patience.
Three songs are in this chapter:
(1) Elisabeth’s greeting of Mary, vv. 42-45; (2) The magnificat of Mary, vv. 46-55;
(3) The prophecy of Zacharias, vv. 67-79.
Chapter 2 — This is the careful historical record of the birth of Jesus tied into the record of the Roman government. The simple record of the visit of the shepherds is tied into the sublime record of the visit of the heavenly host.
Jesus was brought to the temple when 8 days old to be circum- cised according to Mosaic Law:
But, when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4, 5)
As a result of this visit to Jerusalem, we have the songs of Simeon and Anna.
Chapter 1 — Historically, Dr. Luke begins his Gospel before the other synoptic Gospels. Heaven had been silent for over 400 years when the angel Gabriel broke through the blue at the golden altar of prayer to announce the birth of John the Baptist. Luke gives us the background as well as the births of John and Jesus. Neither Joseph nor Mary was God’s accidental choice. They both possessed certain noble human character traits. Joseph was an unselfish, humble and dependable man of high ideals. Mary possessed the same character traits. She was obedient and uncomplaining, with a definite knowl- edge of the Old Testament. Long before medical science gave any attention to heredity, Dr. Luke placed a great emphasis upon it.
Dr. Luke makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is virgin born. No other conclusion can be drawn from the definite, direct, and dog- matic statements of the angel Gabriel to Mary. Until man knows more about the origin of life, he is in no position, scientifically, to refute dogmatically the statement of Dr. Luke. A true scientific approach is that of humble inquiry and patience.
Three songs are in this chapter:
(1) Elisabeth’s greeting of Mary, vv. 42-45; (2) The magnificat of Mary, vv. 46-55;
(3) The prophecy of Zacharias, vv. 67-79.
Chapter 2 — This is the careful historical record of the birth of Jesus tied into the record of the Roman government. The simple record of the visit of the shepherds is tied into the sublime record of the visit of the heavenly host.
Jesus was brought to the temple when 8 days old to be circum- cised according to Mosaic Law:
But, when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4, 5)
As a result of this visit to Jerusalem, we have the songs of Simeon and Anna.
The one isolated incident from the boyhood of Jesus is recorded
by Dr. Luke to let us know that Jesus had a normal human child-
hood (see vs. 52).
(1) Jesus increased in wisdom (mental), (2) in stature (physical),
(3) in favor with God and man (spiritual).
Chapter 3 — Luke, with a true historian’s approach, dates the ministry of John the Baptist with secular history (see vv. 1, 2).
Luke places the emphasis upon John’s message of repentance as the condition for the coming of the Messiah. From the Mosaic sys- tem of washing in water, which was a common custom of immer- sion in that day, John baptized those who came to him as merely a preparation — a moral reformation — for the coming of Christ. Jesus would baptize by the Holy Spirit — a real transformation.
The genealogy in this chapter is Mary’s, which reveals two facts. First, it goes back to Adam, the father of the human family. Jesus was truly human. Matthew, in presenting Jesus as king, traces the genealogy back only as far as Abraham. Luke, in presenting Jesus as man, goes back to Adam. In the second place, Mary was descended from David through another than Solomon; that is, from David’s son Nathan (v. 31; compare 1 Chronicles 3:5).
Chapter 4 — Jesus is tempted as a man by Satan. They were human temptations such as come to all of us. They cover the entire spectrum of human temptations, and are threefold:
(1) Make stones into bread to satisfy needs of the body. There is nothing wrong with bread; it is the staff of life. The body has need of bread and Jesus was starving. What is wrong? To use His great powers to minister to Himself would be selfish. He must demon- strate the truth of the great principle, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4:4). This is contrary to the thinking of this crass materialistic age that lives only to satisfy the whims of the body. Modern man in our secular society says, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” And as far as man is concerned, that ends it all. Selfishness is the curse of a creedless secular society. Our Lord, in meeting this temptation, refuted the popular philosophy of the world.
(2) The nations of the world derive their power through brute force and political intrigue. War is a way of life. Hate and fear are
(1) Jesus increased in wisdom (mental), (2) in stature (physical),
(3) in favor with God and man (spiritual).
Chapter 3 — Luke, with a true historian’s approach, dates the ministry of John the Baptist with secular history (see vv. 1, 2).
Luke places the emphasis upon John’s message of repentance as the condition for the coming of the Messiah. From the Mosaic sys- tem of washing in water, which was a common custom of immer- sion in that day, John baptized those who came to him as merely a preparation — a moral reformation — for the coming of Christ. Jesus would baptize by the Holy Spirit — a real transformation.
The genealogy in this chapter is Mary’s, which reveals two facts. First, it goes back to Adam, the father of the human family. Jesus was truly human. Matthew, in presenting Jesus as king, traces the genealogy back only as far as Abraham. Luke, in presenting Jesus as man, goes back to Adam. In the second place, Mary was descended from David through another than Solomon; that is, from David’s son Nathan (v. 31; compare 1 Chronicles 3:5).
Chapter 4 — Jesus is tempted as a man by Satan. They were human temptations such as come to all of us. They cover the entire spectrum of human temptations, and are threefold:
(1) Make stones into bread to satisfy needs of the body. There is nothing wrong with bread; it is the staff of life. The body has need of bread and Jesus was starving. What is wrong? To use His great powers to minister to Himself would be selfish. He must demon- strate the truth of the great principle, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4:4). This is contrary to the thinking of this crass materialistic age that lives only to satisfy the whims of the body. Modern man in our secular society says, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” And as far as man is concerned, that ends it all. Selfishness is the curse of a creedless secular society. Our Lord, in meeting this temptation, refuted the popular philosophy of the world.
(2) The nations of the world derive their power through brute force and political intrigue. War is a way of life. Hate and fear are
the whips that motivate the mob. This is satanic, and Satan offers
the kingdoms of the world on these terms. Men must be changed to
enter God’s kingdom: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The answer of Jesus has a note of
finality, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve” (Luke 4:8; see Deuteronomy 6:13).
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not car- nal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
(3) The temptation to cast Himself down from the temple seemed a logical procedure for Jesus to impress the crowd as to His person and mission. But Jesus followed no easy way to the throne. He had to wear the crown of thorns before He wore the crown of glory. Stifler states succinctly, “There are two ways of despising God, one is to ignore His power, the other is to presume upon it.” Both are sin. It is easy to do nothing and then mouth pious platitudes about God providing for the sparrows and that He will take care of us. But God says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Genesis 3:19). The missionary to a foreign land will have to study to learn the language, and then God will help him. We are partners of God, not puppets.
Dr. Edward Judson, after considering what his father, Adoniram Judson, suffered in Burma, said, “If we succeed without suffering, it is because others have suffered before us. If we suffer without suc- cess, it is that others may succeed after us.” Jesus rejected a false and phony spiritual stance. His answer was devastating: “Ye shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as ye tested him in Massah” (Deuteronomy 6:16).
Actually, Jesus began His public ministry in His hometown of Nazareth where He was rejected and ejected. It was in the syna- gogue where He announced the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1, 2. He broke off the reading before He came to “the day of vengeance of
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not car- nal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
(3) The temptation to cast Himself down from the temple seemed a logical procedure for Jesus to impress the crowd as to His person and mission. But Jesus followed no easy way to the throne. He had to wear the crown of thorns before He wore the crown of glory. Stifler states succinctly, “There are two ways of despising God, one is to ignore His power, the other is to presume upon it.” Both are sin. It is easy to do nothing and then mouth pious platitudes about God providing for the sparrows and that He will take care of us. But God says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Genesis 3:19). The missionary to a foreign land will have to study to learn the language, and then God will help him. We are partners of God, not puppets.
Dr. Edward Judson, after considering what his father, Adoniram Judson, suffered in Burma, said, “If we succeed without suffering, it is because others have suffered before us. If we suffer without suc- cess, it is that others may succeed after us.” Jesus rejected a false and phony spiritual stance. His answer was devastating: “Ye shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as ye tested him in Massah” (Deuteronomy 6:16).
Actually, Jesus began His public ministry in His hometown of Nazareth where He was rejected and ejected. It was in the syna- gogue where He announced the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1, 2. He broke off the reading before He came to “the day of vengeance of
our God” (compare Isaiah 61:1, 2 with Luke 4:18-20).
Chapter 5 — Dr. Luke carefully records the cleansing of the leper and the healing of the paralytic.
Chapter 6 — He records in detail the healing on the sabbath of the man with the paralyzed hand. He repeats the so-called Sermon on the Mount down on the plain (see v. 17). Jesus must have repeat- ed His most important teachings again and again.
Chapter 7 — This chapter opens with another meticulous record of healing. In this case it is the centurion’s servant. Although Jesus had no personal contact with the servant, he was made well. Dr. Luke alone records the raising from the dead of the son of the widow of Nain. He is the only Gospel writer who records Jesus’ raising of two persons from the dead, the other being Jairus’ daugh- ter (8:54, 55).
Also in this chapter is the first of 18 parables that Luke alone records. It grew out of Jesus’ visit to the home of a Pharisee where a woman anointed His feet with ointment. The simple parable of the two debtors reveals that this woman of the street was better in God’s sight than Simon, the Pharisee.
Chapter 8 — This chapter records events that are in the other synoptic Gospels.
Chapter 9 — This chapter also records events found in Matthew and Mark. All three record the transfiguration. John does not record it, as the transfiguration sets forth the perfect humanity of Jesus rather than adding proof to His deity, and John emphasizes the deity of Jesus. Verse 29 may give the impression that the light was shin- ing upon Him as a spotlight, but that is not Luke’s intention. Mark 9:3 reads, “And his raiment became shining, exceedingly white like snow, as no fuller on earth can whiten them.” The light came from within. This was probably the original condition of Adam and Eve. The word for transfigured is from the Greek metamorphoom. The English derivation is metamorphosis. Metamorphosis can be upward or downward:
Chapter 5 — Dr. Luke carefully records the cleansing of the leper and the healing of the paralytic.
Chapter 6 — He records in detail the healing on the sabbath of the man with the paralyzed hand. He repeats the so-called Sermon on the Mount down on the plain (see v. 17). Jesus must have repeat- ed His most important teachings again and again.
Chapter 7 — This chapter opens with another meticulous record of healing. In this case it is the centurion’s servant. Although Jesus had no personal contact with the servant, he was made well. Dr. Luke alone records the raising from the dead of the son of the widow of Nain. He is the only Gospel writer who records Jesus’ raising of two persons from the dead, the other being Jairus’ daugh- ter (8:54, 55).
Also in this chapter is the first of 18 parables that Luke alone records. It grew out of Jesus’ visit to the home of a Pharisee where a woman anointed His feet with ointment. The simple parable of the two debtors reveals that this woman of the street was better in God’s sight than Simon, the Pharisee.
Chapter 8 — This chapter records events that are in the other synoptic Gospels.
Chapter 9 — This chapter also records events found in Matthew and Mark. All three record the transfiguration. John does not record it, as the transfiguration sets forth the perfect humanity of Jesus rather than adding proof to His deity, and John emphasizes the deity of Jesus. Verse 29 may give the impression that the light was shin- ing upon Him as a spotlight, but that is not Luke’s intention. Mark 9:3 reads, “And his raiment became shining, exceedingly white like snow, as no fuller on earth can whiten them.” The light came from within. This was probably the original condition of Adam and Eve. The word for transfigured is from the Greek metamorphoom. The English derivation is metamorphosis. Metamorphosis can be upward or downward:
(1) Upward — the ugly larva in the cocoon that became a beauti-
ful butterfly,
(2) Downward — death.
In the transfiguration it is upward.
There are three steps in the life of Jesus:
contrasting condition — the demon-possessed boy at the foot of the mountain (vv. 37-43). What a contrast!
Dr. Luke also gives much attention to demon possession. In chapter 8 he records Jesus’ visit to Gadara and the man in the tombs possessed with demons. This man and the boy at the foot of the mount are extreme cases. He also records other cases, and from these we can draw certain conclusions:
• Casting out a demon is the first miracle recorded by Luke (4:31-35). • Demons recognized Jesus (4:41).
• Demonism is distinguished from diseases (4:40, 41).
• Demonism is a reality, as real as cancer or fever.
• Demons disturb men physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiri-
tually.
• They destroy the lives of men and bring about inevitable eternal
doom.
• Demonism is synonymous with unclean spirits.
• They control the lives of those whom they possess. Victims do not
abide by rules and customs of society.
• A demon-possessed person cannot discipline himself — the will is
destroyed, leading to strange conduct (e.g., nudity).
• He is abnormal but not necessarily insane.
• The personality is degraded and debased. Ultimately he will be
caused to do frightful and terrifying acts (8:27-29; 9:39, 42).
• Demons belong to the spiritual world, not the physical.
• They are behind false religion (1 Corinthians 10:20).
• Demons desire to inhabit persons. Many occupy one person.
• They dread the bottomless pit — would rather go into pigs — pigs
(2) Downward — death.
In the transfiguration it is upward.
There are three steps in the life of Jesus:
-
(1) Innocent and holy — born without sin;
-
(2) Holy in the sense that He met temptation and overcame it
(Adam did not meet this test);
-
(3) Transfigured — this is the goal for humanity. In the transfig-
uration of Jesus we see the hope of humanity.
contrasting condition — the demon-possessed boy at the foot of the mountain (vv. 37-43). What a contrast!
Dr. Luke also gives much attention to demon possession. In chapter 8 he records Jesus’ visit to Gadara and the man in the tombs possessed with demons. This man and the boy at the foot of the mount are extreme cases. He also records other cases, and from these we can draw certain conclusions:
• Casting out a demon is the first miracle recorded by Luke (4:31-35). • Demons recognized Jesus (4:41).
• Demonism is distinguished from diseases (4:40, 41).
• Demonism is a reality, as real as cancer or fever.
• Demons disturb men physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiri-
tually.
• They destroy the lives of men and bring about inevitable eternal
doom.
• Demonism is synonymous with unclean spirits.
• They control the lives of those whom they possess. Victims do not
abide by rules and customs of society.
• A demon-possessed person cannot discipline himself — the will is
destroyed, leading to strange conduct (e.g., nudity).
• He is abnormal but not necessarily insane.
• The personality is degraded and debased. Ultimately he will be
caused to do frightful and terrifying acts (8:27-29; 9:39, 42).
• Demons belong to the spiritual world, not the physical.
• They are behind false religion (1 Corinthians 10:20).
• Demons desire to inhabit persons. Many occupy one person.
• They dread the bottomless pit — would rather go into pigs — pigs
would rather die.
• Only Christ can deliver from the power of demons, as it is the
power of Satan (8:28; 9:42, 43).
There is evidence of demon possession today. After World War II, with its bloodbath and atrocities in which the finer sensibilities of men had been degraded and deadened, demonism moved into this vacuum. Dr. Kurt Koch, who made a special study, gives many case histories.
Verse 51 is the turning point in the ministry of Jesus. He begins His march to Jerusalem and the cross.
Chapter 10 — Luke alone records the familiar parable of the good Samaritan. The final interpretation is that Jesus is the Good Samaritan who found mankind wounded by sin on the side of life’s highway where religion and the Law went by, indifferent and inca- pable of helping.
Chapter 11 — The two parables on prayer are recorded only by Luke. Most parables illustrate by comparison. These illustrate by contrast. The insistent friend and the sleepy neighbor who would not answer his door at midnight certainly do not illustrate the reluc- tance of God to answer prayer. God is willing to answer, and He is not asleep; it is we who are not insistent and persistent in prayer. In the second parable, a human father never gives his son a stone as substitute for bread, and surely God is as good as a human father. He is much better! These parables illustrate by contrast.
Chapter 12 — Luke alone gives us the parable of the rich fool who built bigger barns in this life but made no provisions for his soul in the next life.
The parable of the steward, who abused his servants because his lord seemed to delay his return, also is unique in this Gospel.
Chapter 13 — Luke alone records the incident of Jesus healing the crippled woman in the synagogue on the sabbath.
Chapter 14 — Luke alone records the delightful occasion of Jesus going to dinner at the home of one of the chief Pharisees. He gave His host and guests a lesson in etiquette in the devastating parable of the ambitious guest. There are two other parables in this
There is evidence of demon possession today. After World War II, with its bloodbath and atrocities in which the finer sensibilities of men had been degraded and deadened, demonism moved into this vacuum. Dr. Kurt Koch, who made a special study, gives many case histories.
Verse 51 is the turning point in the ministry of Jesus. He begins His march to Jerusalem and the cross.
Chapter 10 — Luke alone records the familiar parable of the good Samaritan. The final interpretation is that Jesus is the Good Samaritan who found mankind wounded by sin on the side of life’s highway where religion and the Law went by, indifferent and inca- pable of helping.
Chapter 11 — The two parables on prayer are recorded only by Luke. Most parables illustrate by comparison. These illustrate by contrast. The insistent friend and the sleepy neighbor who would not answer his door at midnight certainly do not illustrate the reluc- tance of God to answer prayer. God is willing to answer, and He is not asleep; it is we who are not insistent and persistent in prayer. In the second parable, a human father never gives his son a stone as substitute for bread, and surely God is as good as a human father. He is much better! These parables illustrate by contrast.
Chapter 12 — Luke alone gives us the parable of the rich fool who built bigger barns in this life but made no provisions for his soul in the next life.
The parable of the steward, who abused his servants because his lord seemed to delay his return, also is unique in this Gospel.
Chapter 13 — Luke alone records the incident of Jesus healing the crippled woman in the synagogue on the sabbath.
Chapter 14 — Luke alone records the delightful occasion of Jesus going to dinner at the home of one of the chief Pharisees. He gave His host and guests a lesson in etiquette in the devastating parable of the ambitious guest. There are two other parables in this
chapter that are in no other Gospel — the building of a tower and a
king preparing to make war.
Chapter 15 — Luke alone records the most famous parable of all, labeled the prodigal son. Actually, there are three parables in one:
• The parable of the lost sheep — the work of God the Son in
restoring a sinning son;
• the parable of the lost coin — the work of God the Holy Spirit; and • the parable of the lost son — the work of the Father in restoring a
sinning son.
Chapter 16 — There are 2 parables here that are not found else- where. The parable of the steward who used his position to further his selfish ends is another parable by contrast. The children of this world are clever and crooked in the use of money. They do it for their own selfish purposes. In contrast, the children of light do not exercise the same wisdom in the use of money for the cause of Christ in the world.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable but an actual happening. The name of the poor man is given here, and it is highly unlikely that our Lord would have made up a name and then, in the same account, introduced Abraham by name. Perhaps all His parables are actual incidents. Our Lord follows these two men from this life through the doorway of death and gives a record from the other side — after death.
Chapter 17 — Luke alone records the two parables here: the brief story of dedicated service that belongs to the master, and the healing of the 10 lepers with the attendant thanklessness of the 9.
Chapter 18 — The parable of the unjust judge is another teach- ing on prayer by contrast. God is not an unjust judge who has to be prodded into action by the insistent pleadings of a widow who makes herself a nuisance.
The parable of the Pharisee and publican who went up to the temple to pray shows the different attitudes of people when they pray.
Chapter 15 — Luke alone records the most famous parable of all, labeled the prodigal son. Actually, there are three parables in one:
• The parable of the lost sheep — the work of God the Son in
restoring a sinning son;
• the parable of the lost coin — the work of God the Holy Spirit; and • the parable of the lost son — the work of the Father in restoring a
sinning son.
Chapter 16 — There are 2 parables here that are not found else- where. The parable of the steward who used his position to further his selfish ends is another parable by contrast. The children of this world are clever and crooked in the use of money. They do it for their own selfish purposes. In contrast, the children of light do not exercise the same wisdom in the use of money for the cause of Christ in the world.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable but an actual happening. The name of the poor man is given here, and it is highly unlikely that our Lord would have made up a name and then, in the same account, introduced Abraham by name. Perhaps all His parables are actual incidents. Our Lord follows these two men from this life through the doorway of death and gives a record from the other side — after death.
Chapter 17 — Luke alone records the two parables here: the brief story of dedicated service that belongs to the master, and the healing of the 10 lepers with the attendant thanklessness of the 9.
Chapter 18 — The parable of the unjust judge is another teach- ing on prayer by contrast. God is not an unjust judge who has to be prodded into action by the insistent pleadings of a widow who makes herself a nuisance.
The parable of the Pharisee and publican who went up to the temple to pray shows the different attitudes of people when they pray.
Chapter 19 — Jesus detours through Jericho to reach a man in a
sycamore tree. Luke alone records this account of Zacchaeus, the
publican of Jericho. (See author’s booklet, The Fruit of the
Sycamore Tree.)
Chapter 20 — Luke records the incident (as do Matthew and Mark) of the encounter of Jesus with the religious rulers in the tem- ple area in Jerusalem.
Chapter 21 — Luke records the answer to the first of the three questions asked by the disciples, “When shall these things be?” (v. 7).
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its desolation is near. (Luke 21:20)
This section was fulfilled when Titus, the Roman, besieged and destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Chapter 22 — Luke records the Passover, Garden of Gethsemane betrayal, arrest and trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and the denial of Simon Peter. (See notes on Matthew and Mark regarding these events.)
Chapter 23 — Luke follows the other synoptic Gospels in giving the account of Jesus before Pilate, the crucifixion and burial of Jesus (see notes on Matthew and Mark). Luke alone includes the record of Jesus being sent to Herod by Pilate. Jesus’ silence before Herod is startling. Jesus is the final issue of Jacob; Herod is the final issue of Esau. Jesus had no word for Herod. He formerly had called him “that old fox” (see Luke 13:32).
Chapter 24 — Luke records the resurrection of Jesus as Matthew, Mark, and John do. But Luke alone records the journey of the resurrected Jesus down the Emmaus road and His encounter with two disciples. Although Jesus is in a glorified body, He is still human. He walked with these two down a dusty road and ate with them.
Jesus also appears to His disciples in an upper room and eats with them. He is still human, though glorified.
Chapter 20 — Luke records the incident (as do Matthew and Mark) of the encounter of Jesus with the religious rulers in the tem- ple area in Jerusalem.
Chapter 21 — Luke records the answer to the first of the three questions asked by the disciples, “When shall these things be?” (v. 7).
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its desolation is near. (Luke 21:20)
This section was fulfilled when Titus, the Roman, besieged and destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Chapter 22 — Luke records the Passover, Garden of Gethsemane betrayal, arrest and trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and the denial of Simon Peter. (See notes on Matthew and Mark regarding these events.)
Chapter 23 — Luke follows the other synoptic Gospels in giving the account of Jesus before Pilate, the crucifixion and burial of Jesus (see notes on Matthew and Mark). Luke alone includes the record of Jesus being sent to Herod by Pilate. Jesus’ silence before Herod is startling. Jesus is the final issue of Jacob; Herod is the final issue of Esau. Jesus had no word for Herod. He formerly had called him “that old fox” (see Luke 13:32).
Chapter 24 — Luke records the resurrection of Jesus as Matthew, Mark, and John do. But Luke alone records the journey of the resurrected Jesus down the Emmaus road and His encounter with two disciples. Although Jesus is in a glorified body, He is still human. He walked with these two down a dusty road and ate with them.
Jesus also appears to His disciples in an upper room and eats with them. He is still human, though glorified.
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle
me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye
see me have.... And they gave him a piece of a broiled
fish, and an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat
before them. (Luke 24:39, 42, 43)
The most important highlight in both instances is His reference to the Scriptures to substantiate His death and resurrection.
OUTLINE:
I. Birth of the Perfect Man and His family, Chapters 1 — 3
The most important highlight in both instances is His reference to the Scriptures to substantiate His death and resurrection.
OUTLINE:
I. Birth of the Perfect Man and His family, Chapters 1 — 3
-
Announcement of the births of John and Jesus; the birth
of John, Chapter 1
-
Purpose of Gospel, vv. 1-4 (Periodic sentence)
-
Gabriel appears to Zacharias and announces the birth
of John, vv. 5-25
-
Gabriel appears to Mary and announces the virgin
birth of Jesus, vv. 26-38
-
Mary visits Elisabeth, vv. 39-56 (Hail Mary and
Magnificat)
-
Birth of John (Zacharias’ Benedictus), vv. 57-80
-
Purpose of Gospel, vv. 1-4 (Periodic sentence)
-
Birth of Jesus; His reception; His circumcision; His jour-
ney to Jerusalem at twelve years of age, Chapter 2
-
Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem in a stable, vv. 1-7
-
Reception of Jesus: angels announce His birth to shep-
herds; shepherds visit stable, vv. 8-20
-
Circumcision of Jesus and purification of Mary,
vv. 21-24
-
Incident in temple concerning Simeon, vv. 25-35
(Nunc Dimittis, vv. 29-32)
-
Incident in temple concerning Anna; return to
Nazareth, vv. 36-40
-
Visit of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus to Jerusalem when
Jesus was twelve, vv. 41-52 (Dr. Luke says He was
growing normally in body, mind, and spirit — v. 52)
-
Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem in a stable, vv. 1-7
-
Ministry of John the Baptist; baptism of Jesus; genealogy
of Mary, Chapter 3
-
Ministry of John, vv. 1-20
-
Baptism of Jesus, vv. 21, 22 (Trinity — v. 22)
-
Ministry of John, vv. 1-20
3. Genealogy of Mary, vv. 23-38 (Mary was also
descended from David, v. 31 — see Matthew 1)
-
Testing of the Perfect Man; rejection by His hometown,
Chapter 4 (“Tempted like as we are,” Hebrews 4:15)
-
Temptation of Jesus, vv. 1-13
-
Jesus returns to Galilee and Nazareth; rejected by His
hometown, vv. 14-30 (Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2 in
v. 18)
-
Jesus moves His headquarters to Capernaum; continues
His ministry, vv. 31-44
-
Temptation of Jesus, vv. 1-13
-
Ministry of the Perfect Man in area of Galilee, Chapters
5— 9
-
Jesus calls disciples for the second time; cleanses lepers;
heals man with palsy; calls Matthew; gives parables on
new garment and wine skins, Chapter 5
-
Jesus defends disciples for plucking grain on sabbath;
heals paralyzed man on sabbath; chooses twelve; gives
Sermon on the Plain, Chapter 6
-
Jesus heals centurion’s servant; restores to life son of
widow of Nain; commends John the Baptist; goes to din-
ner at Pharisee’s house; gives parable of two debtors,
Chapter 7
-
Jesus gives parables: sower, lighted candle, personal rela-
tionships; stills storm; casts out demons at Gadara; heals
woman with issue of blood; restores to life daughter of
Jairus, Chapter 8
-
Jesus commissions and sends forth the twelve; feeds 5000;
announces death and resurrection; transfigured; casts out
demons from an only son; sets His face toward Jerusalem;
puts down test for discipleship, Chapter 9
-
Jesus calls disciples for the second time; cleanses lepers;
heals man with palsy; calls Matthew; gives parables on
new garment and wine skins, Chapter 5
-
Ministry of the Perfect Man on way to Jerusalem,
Chapters 10 — 18
-
Jesus sends forth the seventy; pronounces judgment on
Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; gives parable of Good Samaritan; enters home of Mary and Martha, Chapter 10
-
Jesus teaches disciples to pray by using parables of the
persistent friend and a good father; accused of casting out
-
Jesus sends forth the seventy; pronounces judgment on
demons by Beelzebub; gives parables — unclean spirit
leaving a man, sign of Jonah, lighted candle; denounces
Pharisees, Chapter 11
C. Jesus warns of leaven of Pharisees; gives parables of rich fool, return from wedding, testing of servants in light of coming of Christ; states He is a divider of men, Chapter 12
Chapters 19 — 21
C. Jesus warns of leaven of Pharisees; gives parables of rich fool, return from wedding, testing of servants in light of coming of Christ; states He is a divider of men, Chapter 12
-
Jesus teaches men not to judge but repent; gives parable
of fig tree; heals woman with infirmity; gives parables of
mustard seed and leaven; continues to teach as He goes
toward Jerusalem; weeps over Jerusalem, Chapter 13
-
Jesus goes to dinner at home of Pharisee; gives parables
of impolite guests, the great supper, building a tower, king
going to war, salt that loses its tang, Chapter 14
-
Jesus gives parable of lost sheep, lost coin, two lost sons
(prodigal son), Chapter 15 (The obedient Son is the One
giving the parable.)
-
Jesus gives parable about unjust steward; answers cov-
etous Pharisees; speaks on divorce; recounts incident of
rich man and Lazarus (poor man), Chapter 16
-
Jesus instructs His disciples on forgiveness, faithful ser-
vice; heals ten lepers (one Samaritan returns to give
thanks); speaks on spiritual nature of kingdom and His
coming again, Chapter 17
-
Jesus gives two parables on prayer; blesses little children;
confronts rich young ruler with five of Ten Command-
ments; heals blind man on entering Jericho, Chapter 18
Chapters 19 — 21
-
Jesus enters Jericho and home of Zacchaeus; conversion
of Zacchaeus; gives parable of ten pounds; enters
Jerusalem; weeps over city; cleanses temple, Chapter 19
-
Jesus’ authority challenged; gives parable of vineyard;
questioned about paying tribute to Caesar; silences
Sadducees about resurrection; questions scribes, Chapter 20
-
Jesus notes how people give, commends widow; answers
question in Olivet Discourse, “When shall these things be?” Chapter 21
-
Betrayal, trial, and death of the Perfect Man, Chapters
22, 23 (Our Kinsman-Redeemer)
-
Judas plots with chief priests to betray Jesus; Jesus plans
for last Passover and institutes Lord’s Supper; announces His betrayal, position of apostles in future kingdom; Peter’s denial; warns disciples of future; goes to Gethsemane; betrayed by Judas; arrested and led to high priest’s house; denied by Peter; mocked, beaten, brought before Sanhedrin, Chapter 22
-
Jesus brought before Pilate and Herod; Barabbas released;
Jesus foretells destruction of Jerusalem and prays for His
enemies; Jesus crucified; mocked by rulers, soldiers, one
thief; other thief turns to Jesus and is accepted by Him;
dismisses His spirit; placed in new tomb of Joseph of
Arimathaea, Chapter 23
-
Judas plots with chief priests to betray Jesus; Jesus plans
-
Resurrection of the Perfect Man, Chapter 24:1-48
-
Jesus raised from the dead; leaves Joseph’s tomb, vv. 1-12
-
Jesus goes down road to Emmaus, reveals Himself to two
disciples, vv. 13-34
-
Jesus goes to the assembled disciples, reveals Himself to
the eleven; gives commission to go, vv. 35-48 (He is still
a man; emphasizes the importance of the Word of God)
-
Jesus raised from the dead; leaves Joseph’s tomb, vv. 1-12
-
Ascension of the Perfect Man, Chapter 24:49-53 (Jesus
promises to send Holy Spirit; ascends to heaven in attitude of
blessing His own)
RECOMMENDED BOOKS
Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978. (Very comprehensive.)
Ironside, H. A. Addresses on the Gospel of Luke. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947.
Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. Addison, Illinois: Bible Truth Publishers, n.d.
Luck, G. Coleman. Luke. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, n.d. (Concise survey.)
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Luke. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1981.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies in the Gospel of St. Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.
Van Ryn, August. Meditations in Luke. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.
Vos, Howard F. Beginnings in the Life of Christ. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1975.
Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978. (Very comprehensive.)
Ironside, H. A. Addresses on the Gospel of Luke. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947.
Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. Addison, Illinois: Bible Truth Publishers, n.d.
Luck, G. Coleman. Luke. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, n.d. (Concise survey.)
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Luke. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1981.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies in the Gospel of St. Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.
Van Ryn, August. Meditations in Luke. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.
Vos, Howard F. Beginnings in the Life of Christ. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1975.
These notes, prepared by J. Vernon McGee, are for the purpose of giving
assistance to the listeners of the THRU THE BIBLE RADIO program.
They are to be used with the Bible and will be more meaningful as you
look up all the Scripture references. Due to the necessary brevity of both
notes and broadcasts, a list of recommended books is included for those
wanting a more detailed study. These books may be obtained from a
Christian library or bookstore or ordered from the publishers.
THRU THE BIBLE RADIO NETWORK
Taking the whole Word to the whole world for over 60 years!
U.S. Address: Box 7100, Pasadena, California 91109-7100 Phone: (800) 65-BIBLE Fax: (626) 449-4430
Website: www.ttb.org
Taking the whole Word to the whole world for over 60 years!
U.S. Address: Box 7100, Pasadena, California 91109-7100 Phone: (800) 65-BIBLE Fax: (626) 449-4430
Website: www.ttb.org
(16203-3/10)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Man Awakens After 12 Years in a “Vegetative State,” Says “I Was Aware of Everything”
Man Awakens After 12 Years in a “Vegetative State,” Says “I Was Aware of Everything” National | Sarah Zagorski | Jan 12, 2015 | ...
-
Snatched Away October 28, 2019 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archa...
-
World Religions and Cults Volume 1 Buy Book Answers in Genesis Answers ...
