Just what is so special about grace anyways? Every Christian believes in it, all people want to be recipients of it, yet what is it all about? Defining grace and understanding its meaning is not always that simple. Extreme views are inherent on both sides of this theological issue. One perspective is that we can live however we want, because in the final analysis, God will demonstrate His grace towards us. The other extreme position is that while grace is necessary, it is not ultimately sufficient in saving sinners. The danger with the former is that it can easily lead to passivity and to careless living, while the latter introduces extra-biblical concepts. From this perspective, God does not operate upon the human soul directly while working salvation, but rather, has established external means or instruments by which His saving grace is communicated. A number of doctrines are perverted in this view, everything from justification and regeneration to sanctification and glorification. In the final analysis, both ends of the spectrum distort what grace means in a scriptural context—but how many people recognize this, or even care?

If I have learned anything over the years while interacting with Christians from a variety of theological persuasions it is this: Evangelicals are often confused about the nature and meaning of biblical grace. Part of the problem can be traced to the fact that the Bible uses grace in a number of ways. Combine this with the reality that relatively few Christians have given serious consideration to the importance of this Christian distinctive, and it is no wonder why a tidal wave of confusion and contradiction has swept through our churches. Rarely does it seem as if believers consider the importance of grace in the life of the saved. New Christians—and mature ones as well—do not adequately understand the extent of God’s role in saving sinners nor do they fully grasp the ramifications of their commitments to their theological presuppositions. I am reminded of the saying "a mist in the pulpit, is a fog in the pew." We have never before had so much mist in the church and fog in the mind of the believer when it comes to the doctrine of God’s grace. Properly understanding the essential nature of grace, therefore, is paramount to our efforts in embracing the faith that was delivered once for all the saints and communicating it clearly to an unbelieving world. Without a firm grasp of Christian truths, we will not be fully equipped to give people hope for a brighter future in union with God. Misunderstanding or misapplying grace also brings a watered down version of the gospel and impedes the message we are trying to present. A spurious view of grace distorts the truth of the gospel and only hampers our evangelistic efforts.

I am convinced that if more people understood grace from a biblical and historical perspective many of the current theological divides among Evangelicals would abate. If only the majority of Christians would simply take the time to think through what it means to embrace sola gratia, unity would be closer than many realize. Confusion is perhaps the best way to characterize the current evangelical thinking when it comes to discussing God’s grace as it relates to His absolute sovereignty and role He takes in the salvation of His creation. Therefore, it is important we start from the beginning by providing a brief definition of the topic now under consideration.

The word "grace" used in the English language does not necessarily carry the exact biblical meaning of the term. Oftentimes we hear of people using grace in a manner that suggests some sort of human virtue or character of attractiveness. While this is arguably one aspect of the word, it is not the clearest or best definition to bring to the Bible when trying to reconcile our understanding of grace with the apostolic usage. So it is easy to understand how people can become confused and possess a rather hazy or vague idea of grace in Scripture.

The same probably holds true for believers who were raised in the Christian faith from an early age and attended Sunday school. They might have learned the little acrostic: God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense. While this is indeed another side of grace, it does not sufficiently tell us what grace is. Rather, this definition explains to us what we get from grace, that is, God’s riches. Someone else might offer the pithiest of all definitions—"unmerited favor". And that would be truest in the most basic sense. Simply put, biblical grace is God’s unmerited favor towards us—favor that is unmeritable. Meaning not only is grace granted without deference to the recipient, but also that it cannot be relationally tied to any sort of human effort. Time and again Scripture presents grace as God’s favor bestowed upon the undeserving. Paul recognizes this about his own conversion experience. The apostle recorded, "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles" (Gal 1:15–16).

Notice the events surrounding his spiritual transformation. Foundational to Paul’s conversion and call to the ministry was based solely upon the good pleasure of God and His grace. The words "set me apart…and who called me by his grace" form an incomparable truth that links together the sovereign pleasure and God’s love to the undeserving—and in this instance, Paul. In his case the time of setting the apostle apart was accomplished prior to his physical birth, before he had the opportunity to show any inclination or approbation before God. The language Paul employs indicates that God did not express His love and grace upon him because he possessed something intrinsically pleasing or because he acted agreeably in the sight of God. Rather, God set him apart and called him by grace before he had done anything good or bad. The reason for his calling was solely God’s own pleasure. That God ordained Paul’s apostleship prior to his birth and in spite of his zealous persecution makes the decision all the more glorious. Some of the greatest crimes perpetrated against the church were not seen as too great or evil for the Lord to forgive. The iniquities committed by Paul, the "chief of all sinners," were not counted against him because of God’s grace. Indeed, the calling of Paul brings to light the reality of the beauty of what the word actually means, but it is not the only verse.

In fact, the topic of the grace of God is a subject that is contained on nearly every page of Holy Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. From the first reference of grace in Genesis 6:8, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (KJV), until the final reference in the concluding words of Scripture in Revelation 22:21, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all," this theme dominates the entirety of God’s Word. No other topic is so clearly and abundantly expressed as grace. I would submit to you that grace is the sum and substance of the gospel message. It is, at its core, the essence of the Christian faith. Consider for a moment another Scriptural definition of grace from the epistle to Titus. "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy…" (Titus 3:4–5). The words of Paul stand on their own. Sinners are spared from being eternally separated from God because God saved them on the basis of His own love, and nothing more.

Everything about this word "grace" in the New Testament Greek demonstrates that it is enriching and ennobling, a term that can ascend no higher peak, a word that can convey no more magnanimity in its conception—truly a term that attest to the blessings of a thrice-holy God upon sinners. This revolutionary concept in many ways, however, is radically more plentiful than the usage of charis from the earliest times.

The classical word rendered as grace originally conveyed a wide range of meaning from charm to elegance, loveliness to attractiveness, and pleasure to joy, either in some thing or movement. In Hellenistic Greek, charis retained all of the earlier classical forms, but the greatest departure was the referencing as an attribute of deity, not merely to earthly sovereigns. In the New Testament, however, charis ascends to a meaning greater than any previous held definition of favor that is freely performed, without any sense of obligation and expectation of something in response. Aristotle defined the term as "something that is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver." Building upon these concepts, the New Testament writers gave charis an even healthier meaning and more profound significance. That is, grace is to be understood in light of the singular event which completely altered the course of human history and gave man a radically different outlook on life—the Incarnation. Out of a sheer love, God sent His Son to redeem His people, a special favor that was not based upon any human merit. God Himself, therefore, is the basis of charis and is not rooted in the fulfillment of any divine commands. Jesus Christ is the actualization of grace. Romans 5:15, "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

So, the special sense of charis in the New Testament is the reference to God’s action that is revealed and fulfilled through His Son, Jesus Christ. He loves those who are naturally hostile towards Him (Rom 8:7). Remember that in Greek culture charis expressed favor manifested towards friends, but Paul uses grace in a higher sense as found in Romans 5:6–10. He writes that, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (v. 8)." In this manner, God bestowed a blessing, not to a friend, but to an enemy. God demonstrated His eternal love and unmerited favor towards those who were at enmity with Him. John, likewise, recognizes that divine grace transcends mere human grace when he writes, "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are" (1 John 3:1).

Grace, consequently, is that unmerited favor manifested towards the undeserving, those who have no right to demand the goodness of God. The wellspring of all benefits that humans receive comes via grace, the greatest of which is salvation. This too must be free because as Paul argues, "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6)." Here we find yet another example where "grace" is unmistakable. Again we see that it is an attitude on God’s part that proceeds entirely from Him and apart from any external influences or factors. Salvation is wholly given upon the basis of His love, mercy, and kindness that He expresses—and not as a payment of debt. Indeed, it is in fact God actively working. That is to say, it is God loving the unlovely, pardoning the guilty, and saving the lost—all of which is charis, biblical grace.

Recently a reader asked whether or not Constantine should be recognized as a Christian since there is evidence he mixed paganism with Christianity and implemented anti-Semitic policies towards the Jewish peoples. Below was my response that might serve useful for you as well.

*********** 

Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337), is known to many in English as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or Saint Constantine. He served as the Roman Emperor from 306, but did not gain sole rulership until 324 where he ruled singularly until his death in 337. Constantine is best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor.

The Byzantine liturgical calendar, observed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine rite, lists both Constantine and his mother Helena as saints. Although he is not included in the Latin Church’s list, he is honored with the title "The Great" for his many contributions to the advancement of the Christian religion.

The evidence supporting some change in nature in his view of Jesus Christ and the church is reflected in his actions as ruler. That is to say, he reversed the trend of persecuting Christians for which his predecessor, Diocletian, is well known. Furthermore, he issued the Edict of Milan in 313, with co-emperor Licinius, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire and was baptized a Christian on his deathbed.

Some critics of Constantine doubt he was truly converted to Christ and insist that he be condemned and damned. Evidence to support this claim is rooted in the fact that Constantine merged paganism with Christianity and that he was an anti-Semite.

In a short history of the church, it is impossible to detail all the arguments for the possible genuine conversion of Constantine and his importance in the history and life of the church, or to explore all the objections to counting him among the saints.

Mixing pagan traditions with Christianity, excessive cruelty, and anti-Semitism are charges that have been leveled not only against Constantine, but the church as a whole many times over by her critics due to official church policies and practices over the centuries, reflected in part by the Inquisition and Crusades. The Protestants are not excluded from the same general accusations. The Anabaptist were drowned, others were tortured for not holding certain religious beliefs regarding freedom of worship, and Jews were often looked down upon.

For example, in 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." Again, "They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." Luther argues why it is proper that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."

Initially, Luther seemed to be sympathetic to the Jews, especially in their resistance to the Roman Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:

"The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew."

However, when the Jews refused to convert to Christianity and embrace the Protestant movement, he turned violently against them. Luther’s writing against what should be done to the peasants is equally disturbing. In a tract, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants (1525), Luther encouraged the nobility to visit swift and bloody punishment upon the peasants. The German princes were advised to "crush, stab, smite, slay all you can; you will win heaven more easily by bloodshed than prayer."

We can move on throughout history and question the true conversion of other important figures such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. There is controversy surrounding whether or not Washington took communion, or gave a public testimony of his personal faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. From The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284 comes this interesting document.

"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article in their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice…. " I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did"

Lincoln’s law partner and biographer was William Herndon (December 25, 1818, Kentucky - March 18, 1891, Springfield, Illinois). Following the president’s death, Mr. Herndon gave public lectures on Mr. Lincoln’s skepticism of the Christian faith. The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio, and edited by Francis E. Abbott: "Mr. Abbott: Some time since I promised you that I would send you a letter in relation to Mr. Lincoln's religion. I do so now. Before entering on that question, one or two preliminary remarks will help us to understand why he disagreed with the Christian world in its principles as well as in its theology". Herndon follows with a lengthy discussion of Mr. Lincoln’s beliefs.

And what shall we say of John Calvin and his rule in Geneva resulting in the death of many citizens at the hands of the state—over which he had great influence? The death of Servetus in 1553 is but one famous example. Servetus had been warned not to come to Geneva. In a letter to a friend, Calvin warned: Servetus lately wrote to me and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies...He would like to come here if it is agreeable to me. But I do not wish to pledge my word for his safety. For, if he comes, I will never let him depart alive, if I have any authority..."

I do not mean to cast aspersions upon Luther, Calvin, Washington, or Lincoln. What I do mean is that only God knows the heart. The good a person does can often be countered by the evil [injury] they do to self and others, and cause others to question their sincerity.

Regarding Constantine in particular, however, I know the question of his conversion is controversial and is open to concern, and so at the time of writing I tried to be fair and balanced in the text.

"Constantine believed he had won the battle because he had received help from the God of the Christians. He too would become a Christian and worship the true Light of the world. Whether or not Constantine was indeed converted has been a subject of great debate. Certainly he was very tolerant toward Christians." Etc.

I would leave the matter at that without drawing any ultimate conclusions for if the narrative of the church teaches anything it reminds us that, "the best of men are at best men."

It is easy to sit in the comfort and security of a twenty-first century, Western cultural perspective and pass judgment upon people and events that took place long ago, without understanding the society in which they lived, or the dynamics that shaped their personalities. My own counsel is to be more cautious, and as gracious as possible, in judging the ultimate destiny of individuals.

We are all in the hands of God.

I hope these thoughts help.

The apostle Paul lived a large part of his life under the constant threat of danger. He was a marked man for destruction by many groups. Zealous Jews thought Paul was a traitor to his heritage. He who once persecuted the Christians was now preaching Christ crucified and resurrected. Rome believed that Paul was an insurrectionist because riots would often break out when the gospel was preached in a city. Paul was arrested by Roman officials and placed into a prison.

With the end of his life constantly before his eyes, Paul had a keen sense of the urgency of time. For this apostle, time was precious. It was more valuable than gold. There was so much to do and so little time. On one level, most of us can identify with the struggle to find time.

There are so many opportunities in life that it is easy to become frustrated by not achieving all that we want to do or feel we need to accomplish. There is even less time when we subtract that which is need for sleeping, eating, dressing, traveling, and daily work.

All the modern conveniences have not freed up our time, as it was once thought. Just a few decades ago many predicted a normal retirement age of 39, a four-day work-week, and that boredom would be the norm because of modern technology. The reality, however, is that many people work twice as long, and some have two or even three jobs.

The realization comes, that, since time is so limited, we must learn to use it wisely. Part of using time wisely is to determine what is important and what is not. Christians are under a holy injunction to redeem the time. We are not our own. We have been bought by the precious blood of Christ. Therefore, we are:

• to present our bodies a living sacrifice to God and;
• we are to live under the direction of God the Holy Spirit so that in all we say and in all that we do we can redeem the time.

Because of the holy command that is given to the church, observe some practical ways that we as the people of God can redeem or purchase time so that at the end of life there will be no regrets.

First, redeem the time by being in the presence of God. A.W. Tozer reminds us that, "It is well that we accept the hard truth now: the man [person] who would know God must give time to Him. He must count no time wasted which is spent in the cultivation of His acquaintance. He must give himself to meditation and prayer hours on end." The Psalmist said, "Be still and know that I am God."

What is the problem with modern man? He is too busy. He runs here and he runs there. There is this breathless hurry. It is reflected in our relationships. We encounter someone and immediately sense that we have interrupted the rush to something. So we dare not stop and visit even for a moment. There is no time. Someone has said, "Blessed are those who are so busy others do not know it."

If we have very little time for each other, the evidence is now in that we have even less for God. He cannot get through to us. Other thoughts, other people, other projects have crowded Him out. Is it any wonder that from time to time God will slam a person down and say in effect, "Now, we will have some time together. Now we will talk. I have some things I want to say to you."

This lack of time for God is not only rude, it causes us to stop loving Him. The nature of love demands nourishment. The nature of love demands time together. Distance does not make the heart grow fonder if enough time passes. It makes the heart forget.

History records that the church of Ephesus did not take seriously enough the command of the apostle Paul. They did not redeem the time and they stopped loving God. The sad truth is recorded in Revelation 2:4. The Lord said to the church of Ephesus, "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."

The people of Ephesus set aside the sweetness of fellowshipping with the Lord. The passion of personal possession died down until only cold embers of religious life were left. The longing to be with the Lord and with His people was lost. What happened to cause the love for God and for the church to slip away? The answer in part is that the church became involved with too many good works. "I know thy works," said the Lord, "and thy labor.... Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee. Thou hast left they first love."

The church people did not lose their first love, they left it. Consciously, deliberately, the people left their first love. The life of every church is littered with the testimony of individuals who have left their first love. They have left the corporate place of prayer. That which was once desired and longed for is now sadly neglected. The obituary of Mrs. Prayer meeting says its it well:

"Mrs. Prayer Meeting died recently at the
First Neglected Church, on Worldly Avenue.
Born many years ago in the midst of great
revivals, she was a strong, healthy child,
fed largely on testimony and bible study,
soon growing into world wide prominence,
and was one of the most influential members
of the famous Church family.

For the past several years Mrs. Prayer Meeting
has been failing in health, gradually wasting
away until rendered helpless by stiffness of
knees, coldness of heart, inactivity and
weakness of purpose and will power. At the
last she was but a shadow of her former happy
self. Her last whisper words were inquiries
concerning the strange absence of her loved one
now busy in the marts of trade and places of
worldly amusements.

Experts, including Dr. Works, Dr. Reform
and Dr. Joiner, disagreed as to the cause
of her fatal illness, administering large
doses of organization, socials, contests,
and movies but to no avail. A post mortem
showed that a deficiency of spiritual food
coupled with the lack of faith, heartfelt
religion and general support, were contributing
causes. Only a few were present at her death,
sobbing over memories of her past beauty and power.

In Honor of her going, the church doors will be
closed on Wednesday nights, save the third
Wednesday night of each month, with the Ladies Pink
Lemonade Society serves refreshments to the men's
handball team."

This little satire has more truth than humor for it is possible for people to simply leave their first love of seeking to commune with God. There are too many others works to perform. And these other works are not necessarily bad either. They just robe the heart of time with God.

Again, it is possible for people to make a conscious and deliberate decision to leave being in the company of the committed to which God has called them to serve. The apostle John wrote. "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death" (1 John 3:14).

Love for the church is a characteristic of the normal Christian life. After conversion there is an initial desire to be in the company of the committed. David so loved the church of the Old Testament that he wrote, "I was glad when they said unto me let US go into the house of the Lord." The prophet Malachi said, "Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it" (Malachi 3:16).

However, it is possible to leave the sphere of fellowship to which the providence of God has directed. But it does not have to happen. When the church meets, the saints can be glad when so many others also come to the house of the Lord. When the church meets, we can speak often one to another because so many are present. The Lord looks and He sees His people together and He is honored. The Lord listens and He hears the sound of the songs of Zion being sung. Where there should be praise, there are open lips. Where there should be holy tears, eyes are wet with weeping knowing that those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. Where there should be instruction in righteousness, there are open bibles and tablets of flesh to write the Law upon. What has happened?

It is a simple truth that when a group of people are committed to personal and family support of the worship services, a spiritual dynamic is created. People sing better; people give better; people talk more. The company of the committed has met.

There is excitement and joy in the company of the committed. But what causes such joy? Two factors. First there must be that decision to be committed. The little chorus says,

"I have decided to follow Jesus.
I have decided to follow Jesus.

I have decided to follow Jesus.
No turning back. No turning back.

Though none go with me, still I will follow.
Though none go with me, still I will follow.

Though none go with me, still I will follow.
No turning back. No turning back."

Someone has written, "When faithfulness to Christ is most difficult, it is the most necessary."

Second, a consciousness of fellowshipping with Christ must be present for spiritual excitement and joy. The solemn delight which those early disciples knew sprang straight from the conviction that there was One in the midst of them. They knew that the Majesty in the heavens was confronting them on earth: they were in the very Presence of God. And the power of that conviction to arrest attention and hold it for a lifetime, to elevate, to transform, to fill with uncontrollable moral happiness, to send men singing to prison and to death, has been one of the wonders of history and a marvel of the world. It was A. W. Tozer who noted, "It is not easy to be in the company of the committed but it is far better than leaving one's first love."

There is something to be said about participating in and protecting the time the church has set apart for worship on Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday night. There is something to be said about taking part in the special services. There is something to be said about being there for people who are hurting in order to minister to them. Frank Sweet once wrote:

"If you have a tender message,
Or a loving word to say,
Do not wait till you forget it,
But whisper it today;
The tender word unspoken,
The letter never sent,
The long forgotten messages,
The wealth of love unspent
For these some hearts are breaking,
For these some loved ones wait;
So show them that you care for them
Before it is too late."

There is something to be said about using the spiritual and natural gifts God has given to help the corporate body of the fellowship. A life given to seeking out God in the company of the committed will not go unrecognized by the Lord.

"For years each day at six AM,
He went to church bowed his knee,
And meekly prayed, ‘Dear God, it's Jim.’
And when he'd leave we all could see,
The Presence came and walked with him.
As Jim grew old the chastening rod,
Of years left him so ill and drawn,
His path to church is now untrod;
But in his room each day at dawn,
He hears a voice, "’Dear Jim, it's God.’"

There is no good argument that can be made for substituting entertainment for church time. There is no good rational for disassociate from the fellowship after being convinced that this particular church is where the Lord would have work and worship to take place. But there are good arguments for service, and suffering, and sacrificing for the Saviour. Martin Luther said, "A religion that gives nothing, costs nothing, and suffers nothing, is worth nothing."

As we redeem the time by being in the presence of God, as we redeem the time by being part of the company of the committed, let us also redeem the time by finding ways to present the gospel.

One very simple way is to distribute tracts. Simply take religious material and leave it somewhere, anywhere, everywhere. On the back table are many tracks ready for distribution. A pamphlet writing on Galatians fell into the hands of John Bunyan and led to his conversion to Christ.

A young Frenchman, wounded in battle, was in the hospital when a tract that lay on the cover of his bed, caught his eye. He read it and was converted. That was Admiral Coligny, one of the leaders of the Reformation in France.

George Muller was won to the Lord through a tract. It has been said that, "A drop of ink can make a million think."

Our own government recognizes the value of the printed words. For several days now, leaflets have been dropped upon Hattie telling of the coming invasion. Psalms 126:6 says, "He that goeth forth, and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."

Redeem the time by being a gospel witness. The apostle Paul tells us why we are to redeem the time. "Because the days are evil." Satan is at work to disrupt and destroy God's creation. The world is hard at work to undermine all that is decent and holy. The Christian community must work all the harder to rescue perishing souls and to build the kingdom of God. But our labors must not be energized by the flesh. Charles Spurgeon remarked, "We must give up the idea that everything can be produced and organized. There are things that can only grow and they take their God-destined time to grow and God Himself to cause them to grow."

What we must do is give ourselves afresh to God. That is my exhortation. We do not need arguments against coming together for Bible study and prayer. We do not need arguments against being part of the company of those who are committed to assemble. We need to redeem the time. We need to see the gifts that God has given us are to be used first and foremost. Therefore, "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying" (1 Cor. 14:26). Redeem the time. The days are evil. Redeem the time by being in the presence of God. Redeem the time by being part of the company of the committed of fellowship to which God has called you. Seek opportunity to serve the Lord and be found faithful. Redeem the time by spreading the gospel by life, by lip, by tract. Redeem the time!

Since prevenient grace is generally defined as the work that God does for everybody and that it is sufficient for allowing sinners to choose Christ, then why does it not always produce the desired effect God intends? Why does the gift of prevenient grace work effectually in the lives of some and not all in light of the teaching that this grace is a divine act? These perennial questions offered against the Arminian view of grace remain unanswered and will continue to be without adequate explanation for good reason—it is a sub-biblical doctrine that cannot be supported by Scripture or consistent reasoning when followed through to its ultimate consequences. The reality of these simple inquiries exposes this Achilles heel of the synergistic view of prevenient grace in that it ultimately displays the weakness inherent in the Arminian position.

Consider for a moment just what this position is really advocating. If every single person receives the same amount of divine influencing why do some sinners choose to cooperate with this grace over against others whom willfully remain obstinate? What is so special about the ones that ultimately choose Christ?

Perhaps it would be better to think of prevenient grace in personal terms that might help to reinforce what is being asked. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not. So why, then, is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes with the support of prevenient grace while others rejected it? Were you more spiritual, wiser, more intelligent, or more discerning in understanding your desperate plight than was your neighbor? If so, then you have something to boast about. Was that heightened sense of needing righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. However, if the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

No one in his right mind would ever boast of a spiritual, intellectual, or whatever else superiority ultimately served as the reason the sinner was saved. Christians are no better than anyone else. They are not saved because they possessed some superior quality over against their neighbors. So they can never point to some trait or characteristic as the foundation of their salvation. This is exactly the point with the questions for the Arminian who believes in prevenient grace. Granted, no Christian would ever respond in the affirmative to any one of the questions, but it should give the Arminian pause. If the logical conclusion to one’s system of belief stands at open variance to Paul’s words in Ephesians—"so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:9)—then he, at the very least, should reevaluate his position.

Someone might respond this way: "I chose God. That’s why I am saved." After all, that sounds more humble, does it not? But I would submit to you that even this answer is an insufficient response to the question because the heart of the matter has never really been addressed. That is: "What was the ultimate and deciding factor in your chosing the God of Chrisitanity over against any number of the myriad of other gods imaginable? How was it that you recognized your desperate plight and need for the God of the Old and New Testaments while your neighbor did not?" The only consistent answer is unavoidable. Remaining in harmony with his own line of reasoning, the one who responds honestly will be compelled to say out of necessity: "I am saved, because I did something"—an answer that is sadly far removed from the biblical portrayal of salvation that is granted solely by free grace alone.

Prevenient grace is a philosophically derived concept more than it is a solid conclusion from sound scriptural exegesis. It is a concept that is born out of an emotional appeal to protect the character of God and the volition of free will creatures, but in reality, it impugns the sovereign nature of God and belittles His own autonomous free will. Echoing these sentiments, Millard Erickson rightly concluded in his Christian theology: "The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement. The theory, appealing though it is in many ways, simply is not taught explicitly in the Bible."

As appealing as prevenient grace might appear on the surface level, it cannot rightly be vindicated from sound exegesis. This extra-biblical concept of grace leaves too many questions unanswered and fails to respond adequately to the numerous objections raised against it. One theologian pointed out that if prevenient grace is rejected, then all people everywhere remain in bondage to sin. They will never be able to turn to God because they do not possess the innate desire to do so. How, then, will they ever be saved? The answer to that thorny problem is that it is God who foreknows His people, and predestines them, and calls them, and glorifies them. It is God’s libertarian free will that is behind our salvation—so that we have no room for boasting. In the final analysis, we love God because He first loved us. The Protestant Reformers were consistent with their soteriology and faithfully carried each step to its logical conclusion to ensure they allowed God to remain sovereign in every aspect of salvation. In like manner, we must return to the simplicity of allowing God to sit upon His throne and reign supreme in the lives of His creation and rightly conclude with the prophet Jonah that "salvation belongs to the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).

With all that said, however, the greatest practical problem that I see with prevenient grace is that the gift of salvation can ultimately be lost after having received it from Christ. That is, one must continue doing works of righteousness in order to ensure that this gift of salvation is not destroyed or lost before one exits this world. One then can never have the surety of salvation that John spoke of in his epistle. This leaves the Christian in the same position as the Roman Catholic—never knowing whether he will commit an egregious sin and lose the divine gift of eternal life. How is this different principally than the Roman Catholic who trusts in his own works of righteousness to merit his way to heaven? In the final analysis, the Arminian will lay on his deathbed and hope that he has performed enough righteous deeds—or at least not have committed a grace-destroying sin—to ensure his entrance into paradise.

Does prevenient grace, therefore, consistently allow the Christian to trust only in the righteousness of Christ Jesus? Does this view of grace bring the peace of which Paul talked about in Romans 5:1? Is the gospel message of free grace upheld through belief in a universal enablement prior to salvation? I would submit to you that prevenient grace, as well intentioned as it might be, destroys the very fabric of the gospel message of grace and denies the heart of Christianity’s most distinctive doctrine. The stakes are too high and the consequences are too great to take this issue lightly. We must clearly see how our doctrines impact the teaching of grace and must always be ready to test our beliefs in light of Scripture and reform as necessary. We cannot ignore the harmful ramifications of believing something contrary to God’s Word. When doctrine and truth separate, the issue becomes that much more important in seeking to recover the purity of the apostolic message—just as the sixteenth century Evangelical Christians attempted to do while a part of the Roman Church.

It has been said that those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The wisdom of this saying is being demonstrated on the stage of world history in the present hour. Osama bin Laden has called America’s response to September 11, a "new crusade and Jewish campaign led by the big crusader Bush under the flag of the cross." His meaning is clear. Osama bin Laden is linking the present military campaign to Europeans that took place over a thousand years ago during which time Christian warriors attacked Islamic strongholds in and around Palestine and in other Muslim lands.

By making this connection bin Laden is sharing with the Western world that a large part of the Middle East is psychologically living in a far distant century not only politically but socially. Whatever modern day advances in science, technology and social freedoms (especially for women) that have been made can be and should be reversed according to Shariah Law. My concern is that the Western world still is not taking war with Islam seriously for several reasons.

First, ignorance of history.

Second, ignorance of the Koran.

Third, an unwillingness to believe that humans could be as brutal as the rhetoric and reality says they are. In short the Islamic community is fighting a real war to a real death in order to advance the Islamic faith.

A large part of the world once refused to believe the rhetoric and the writings of a man named Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (My Struggles) despite the reality of his aggressive movements into the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. History is repeating itself in so far as people are not reading the Koran and believing its contents are serious despite the reality of aggression in the Middle East and here in America on 9/11. When a person bothers to study the history of Muhammad and the Koran, even on a surface level, several startling facts emerge.

A Man Named Muhammad

Muhammad came from the Quraysh tribe, which traced its origins back to Ishmael, the son of Abraham. They were a wealthy and powerful tribe which controlled the Kaba but were given to idolatry. Muhammad was born c. 570 AD. He was an orphan and worked for his uncle, who was a caravan trader. At age 25, Muhammad married a wealthy widow named Kadija who was ten to fifteen years older than he was. His new financial freedom gave Muhammad time for leisure and meditation. While visiting a cave near Mecca, Muhammad announced at age 40 that the angel Gabriel had appeared to him with the first of many revelations that would continue for the next twenty two years. The message Muhammad was given to proclaim was that of monotheism meaning a belief in one God apart from a Trinitarian concept.

At first the message was not well received and Muhammad was persecuted. In the year AD 619 at age 49 Muhammad claimed he was transported to Jerusalem on a winged horse having the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock and then to the seventh heaven.

In the year AD 622 at age 52 Muhammad and followers moved to Medina. This event is called the "Hijrah" and the beginning of the Muslim calendar. In Medina, Muhammad was received as an honored ruler by many but not by the Jews. In retaliation, Muhammad arrested 600 wealthy Jewish men and cut off their heads, sold their wives and children into slavery and confiscated their property. With the proceeds from these atrocities he was able to equip an army for conquest of other villages in Arabia. The blood bath would not end even with the re-conquest of Mecca in AD 630.

In the year AD 632 the prophet died suddenly in the arms of his favorite wife Aisha. Muhammad was 52 and Aisha was only 9 (nine) years old when they married and sexually consummated their marriage. Aisha was the youngest of Muhammad’s eleven wives.

The death of Muhammad would be honored and his cause advanced in the Koran. The cause was simple: kill the Christians and the Jews and make Islam the supreme religion of the world with all nations bowing down to five pillars of faith.

The Creed of the Koran

The creed of Islam states: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet."

Profession (Shahadah). A profession of faith is numbered among the "five pillars of Islam".

Prayer (Salah). It is said Muhammad referred to prayer as the "pillar of religion, the key to Paradise, and that which causes a man to be a true believer."

Giving alms (Zakat). Alms are given in order to purify the rest of a Muslim’s property and to gain blessing and merit from God. It is mentioned at least 82 times in the Koran.

Fasting (Sawm). In the Muslim’s lunar calendar, in the month of Ramadan fasting is mandatory for all according to Sura 2:163-185. The purpose of Ramadan is to purify the soul and guard against evil.

Pilgrimage (Hajj). Unless too poor or too ill every adult Muslim is expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his lifetime.

The Teachings of the Koran (Quran)

This is the sacred book of Islam said to be revealed to Muhammad. Since Muhammad himself could not read or write he had to rely upon those who heard him speak to write without error what he was saying. There are 114 chapters (Suras) in the Koran of varying lengths. The Koran is treated with great respect. Devout Muslims will not touch it without ceremonial cleansing and will not hold it below the waist or allow it to touch the ground.

Faithful Muslims try to memorize the Koran and a teacher must memorize it entirely prior to being qualified to teach it. Muslims believe in the law of abrogation which means they believe later revelations cancel earlier ones in the Koran. The law of abrogation is the law which the Western world must take most seriously because it is that which allows for the violent Jihad and justifies killing in the name of God. In over one hundred passages in the Koran the wholesale slaughter of enemies is commanded. This command naturally extends to Jews and Christians as "infidels" and "unbelievers". A few examples should suffice to establish the violence of a faith that is more than willing to fight. 

• "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers" (Koran 2:191).

• The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom" (Koran 5:33).

• The Koran instructs its followers not to become friends with Jews and Christians. "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk" (Koran 5:51).

• "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (Koran 9:5).

• "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low"(Koran 9:29).

• "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end" (Koran 9: 73).

• "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)" (Koran 9:123).

• "These twins (the believers and disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Whereby that which is in their bellies, and the skins too will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron" (Koran 22:19-22)

Decapitating infidels is commanded in the name of Allah. "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterwards either grace or ransom till the wary lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain" (Koran 47:4).

These acts of terrorism are justified by saying that God [Allah] is really the one doing the killing and using Muslims as tools to carry out death and destruction. "Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer. Knower" (Koran 8:17). "Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers" (Koran 9:14).

The Muslims claim that Jihad is mandatory. "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, the truth hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end"(Koran 8:15-16).

It is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with pagans and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so. "And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligations to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve" (Koran 9:3). "If you go not forth [to Jihad] He [Allah] will afflict you with a painful doom, and will choose instead of you a folk other than you. Ye cannot harm Him at all. Allah is Able to do all things "(Koran 9:38-39).

The purpose of pointing out these basic facts is to alert Americans in general that this country is faced with a real enemy. The second purpose is to mobilize the church for the first weapon of defense against this enemy is not the military but prayer, faith and the power of the gospel of redeeming grace. Proverbs 24:20 says, "For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out." How is evil destroyed? How is the candle of wickedness put out? The church believes it is primarily put out through prayer and the exercise of Christian love, not bloodshed and violence. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:44-45).

While history teaches that national liberties and securities often come through military victories on fields of battle, history also teaches the power of the gospel of Christ to redeem the most violent of regimes be they political or religious in origin. Because of that the church has a weapon of warfare but it is spiritual in nature. 2 Corinthians 10:4, "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. The exhortation comes for the church to use her weapons in a new and effective way. When deployed the time will come sooner rather than later when nations "shall be able to beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Isaiah 2:4).

"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1–5).

Since Pat Robertson first made his controversial remarks concerning the horrid and devastating earthquake in Haiti being a judgment of God, and that the nation was worthy of such judgment, a firestorm of criticism has been leveled against him. The renowned televangelist and former presidential candidate said about Haiti: "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other." Regarding these remarks, Mr. Robertson has his defenders, to be sure, but most of the comments as recorded in the media have been viciously against him.

Whatever historical validity there might or might not be concerning national leaders making a literal pact with the devil, the present reality is that voodoo is an integral part of the culture of the country. "Roman Catholicism is the official religion of Haiti, but voodoo may be considered the country's national religion. The majority of Haitians believe in and practice at least some aspects of voodoo. Most voodooists believe that their religion can coexist with Catholicism" (Source: U.S. Library of Congress).

The practice of voodoo has spiritual consequences. What those specific consequences might be are forewarned in the Bible. What is not so certain is when, and where, and how God will judge a nation, and for that reason Mr. Roberton’s comments are intemperate. Unless he has divine information regarding this specific earthquake then Mr. Robertson should have been more prudent in discussing general biblical principles, rather than making a definitive application, especially in the immediate aftermath of so much pain and suffering. In this moderation Jesus Himself is the divine pattern.

One day, during the Lord’s earthly ministry, some people came to tell him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. There is no historical evidence for this event to date, but many people were convinced this happened, and perhaps it did. The Lord’s response to the situation was to deal with a great principle: God is holy and just. Individuals are not sinners above others for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Therefore, all need to repent.

America does not need to look to Haiti as a call to repentance for our own nation has experienced warnings of cataclysmic judgment in such tragedies as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the devastating earthquake that destroyed much of San Francisco in 1906, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005—just to name a few. The loss of life would have been as great in these events as in Haiti given the same poverty, over-crowding, and poor infrastructure. Therefore, regarding Haiti, for Mr. Robertson to speak definitive as to the cause and effect of this particular event, was not wise—though conceptually he is probably not totally wrong. God will not be mocked. Whatever a person, or a nation, sows, it will also reap, and so the gospel call is to repent and turn to Christ for salvation and ultimate safety. In the meantime, comfort, aid, and love to the Haitians should be extended and in this area American’s excel above and beyond any that of any other. And so does Pat Robertson through his organization, Operation Blessing.

Operation Blessing has provided nearly $500 million in aid—which includes Operation Blessing donations and matching funds from other organizations to assist nearly 130 million people in 50 states and 71 foreign countries. Perhaps the press should report that about Pat Robertson as widely as it has criticized him.

Tuesday afternoon, January 12th, the worst earthquake in more than two centuries, 7.0 in magnitude, struck in the Caribbean port city of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Following the devastating natural disaster were twelve aftershocks with a magnitude of greater than 5.0. Homes, businesses, and national landmarks were reduced to rubble in a matter of moments. Hundreds of thousands are feared dead, with the reality that many more will perish in the wake of the earthquake from disease, starvation, dehydration, and looting. Indeed, it is a tragic event that brings much sadness, but I am also reminded of another tragedy which touched me personally even though it happened more than fifteen years ago. This one, however, is memorable for a different reason, one that continues to stir my soul. Below are the remarks I made at the funeral of Paula Brown, one of my students while I was serving as an administrator.

***********

Little Paula Brown died October 27, 1994, in a tragic fire in North Vandergrift. She was only four years of age. Those of us who knew her, even briefly, perceived that Paula possessed maturity beyond her years. In the final moments of her life she vindicated that perception as she demonstrated the greatest virtues of a tender heart: wisdom, courage, compassion, and love.

Paula was the first to realize that something was terribly wrong. There was a fire in the house. She must tell grandfather. "Grandfather!" she cried aloud. "We must do something about this fire!" Her young voice pleading. Startled awake, her grandfather heard Paula’s warning and escaped the consuming flames.

In the flight from danger, there was no hope of rescuing the other children caught up in the sweeping inferno. Still, without thought for her own safety, Paula broke away from the security of her grandfather’s arms and returned into the house now ablaze. She was in search of her three younger sisters, Marissa and Alesesha, twins, age two and Claudia, age one. She knew her sisters were too young to flee from danger so she attempted to rescue them herself. 

In that single, desperate, heroic act—she perished. She laid down her life to save her grandfather and tried to save her sisters. Her charred remains were found the next day. We can all hope that Paula did not have to suffer long. I am confident that holy angels swept down to carry her soul, and that of her sisters, into the presence of the Creator.

While there is nothing that can really be said to ease the terrible suffering of the loss of one’s children, something should be said on behalf of a child who loved others more than herself. We at our own church and our own school, where Paula was attending pre-school, would like to honor her memory. She touched our lives and we will never forget her.

We are living in a very violent society. The news each day is a steady diet of kidnapping, murder, rape, drive-by shootings, muggings and robberies. Little Paula reminds all of us that we don't have to hurt each other. We can care enough, not only to be kind, but also to give our lives so that others may live. Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

At four years of age, Paula Brown saved one life and then died trying to rescue others. This little child is worthy of our deepest respect. She was much like the Lord whom she loved.

"Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,
Look upon a little child;
Pity my simplicity,
Suffer me to come to Thee.

Lamb of God, I look to Thee:
Thou shalt my example be;
Thou art gentle, meek and mild;
Thou wast once a little child.

Fain I would be as Thou art;
Give me Thy obedient heart.
Thou art pitiful and kind,
Let me have Thy loving mind.

Loving Jesus, gentle Lamb,
In Thy gracious hands I am;
Make me, Saviour, what Thou art;
Live Thyself within my heart.

Let me above all fulfill,
God my heavenly Father's will;
Never His good Spirit grieve,
Only to His glory live.

I shall then show forth Thy praise;
Serve Thee all my happy days;
Then the world shall always see
Christ, the Holy child in me."

In Paula, the world can see Christ, the Holy Child. And that is why Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Peter Wehner, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center—he is not a theologian. I say this because Wehner has provided yet another illustration as to why theology matters. Writing in an article for National Review, Wehner posts a stinging rebuttal to Pat Robertson for his comments on the tragedy in Haiti. In his article, Wehner draws several theological conclusions, namely, (1) God does not punish nations for wicked behavior and (2) anyone who says otherwise is guilty of "warped and confused theology".

Wehner opines, "Set aside, too, the arbitrary foolishness of Robertson’s statement (why would God lash out at Haiti but not at Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or secular Europe?). And set aside the hardness of heart that would lead a man, at this moment, to see human misery on such a mass scale and blame an impoverished nation for bringing upon itself the judgment of the Almighty…"

I am left scratching my head and seriously wondering: Has this guy ever read the Old Testament? Is he at all aware of the holiness of God and what it means to break the law of the Sovereign of the universe? Is the Almighty not permitted to demonstrate His righteous indignation and absolute detestation for sin against those who break His law? The conclusion that I am forced to draw from Wehner’s statement is no.

Alas, there are far too many pop-theologians and wannabe exegetes who espouse a "gentle Jesus meek and mild" way of thinking, turning God into one who has nothing but compassion for His creation while simultaneously turning a blind eye at those who willfully and disdainfully violate His commands. Many loathe the thought of a God who is just in exercising condemnation towards those who are at enmity with Him, and some would go so far as to limit God by forbidding Him to demonstrate righteous indignation towards sinners.

Imagine for a moment that you return home from a long day of work, only to find that an intruder has breached your home and is attacking your family. What would be your initial reaction? Would you stand there paralyzed with nothing but love and compassion for the very intruder who is violating the sanctity of your house and family? Would you be so overcome with pity for and loves towards the assailant that you could only beg him to stop, incapable of exercising justice when given the chance? No, absolutely not. It is not only reasonable to assert that every one would express outrage at seeing such an act of injustice transpiring, it is almost a universal guarantee that one will inevitably act out of human nature to do what it took to rectify the situation and to bring the guilty to justice. The natural response would be to safeguard those loved ones who are being attacked and to protect the innocent. If ever there were one who failed to act because he had nothing but genuine compassion and love for the assailant, he would rightly be condemned by any that witnessed the act. No one would muster an iota of respect such a person. It is part and parcel of our human makeup to take drastic measures and in order to protect those whom we hold dearest.

Nature also testifies as a witness to altruism in animal behavior. Ethologists, scientists who study behavioral patterns in animals, readily attest to the fact of the innate desire of animals, especially in kin relationships, to protect their offspring from predators or anyone seeking to harm their own.

The normative principle for humans and animals is to protect others from injurious behavior and injustice, yet there are many today who will not allow God to express a righteous anger and deny Him the avenue to pour out his wrath upon those who have violated His law. In so doing, we are essentially making God less than man in that when we insist that God cannot demonstrate anger against those who have dishonored the sanctity of His rule we are placing the Sovereign of the universe in a category below mankind. It is permissible, and natural, for humans to react against great injustices and seek retribution so why should we not permit God to do the same? Why do we think God is less than man is in this capacity? It is a proverbial slap in face and a denigration of His character for someone to attempt to limit His ability to exercise His natural attributes.

While Robertson draws a direct correlation to an event that might or might not have happened in the 18th century to this particular earthquake, which is arguably dubious, there is no doubt from Scripture that God judges nations for abandoning His revealed will. Need proof? Just look to Sodom and Gomorrah, the antediluvians before the flood, the Babylonian captivity, etc. and you will find all the evidence you need to substantiate this axiom.

God will not be mocked, nor does he take sin lightly. A day of reckoning is coming for everyone in which every tongue will give an account. While some peoples might be judged in this world, there is no doubt that every individual will stand before the throne of righteousness where he or she will be judged. Wehner asked, "Why would God lash out at Haiti but not at Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or secular Europe?" But I’m afraid he misses the point on this one. There are myriad of ways God can judge a nation—just look around America and one will easily see this. God uses a variety of means to achieve His ends. Instead of condemning others for broaching the topic of the wrath of God, let’s use this horrific incident as a wake up call and realize we could be next—after all, what’s stopping God from doing the same thing or worse in this country or in another? Why has this nation been spared over against others? The answer: Nothing, save the grace of God. The time for repentance and turning to God is now—before He rightly pours out just condemnation on this country. The message for Haiti and the rest of the world is this: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28).

The Christian Science Monitor recently reported, "The killing of an abortion doctor in Kansas has set the stage for a closely watched trial that could affect how future abortion-related cases are tried. Scott Roeder has admitted to gunning down George Tiller in the vestibule of his church in May 2009. Mr. Roeder is charged with first-degree murder, but late last week, his defense lawyers persuaded the judge in the case, Warren Wilbert, to allow them to argue that their client’s actions warrant the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is applied in cases when a defendant acts believing that his or her actions are justified. Roeder has insisted his actions were justified because they prevented Dr. Tiller from performing further abortions. Some call this a ‘necessity defense’ argument."

While Scott Roeder is right to vigorously oppose abortion, his chosen method of murdering George Tiller cannot be justified on biblical grounds. Nor, might I add, is it necessary to murder other abortionists. There is one way, however, to stop the holocaust against the unborn and that is by forcing Americans to see for themselves what we are allowing our government to do. There is a historical precedent for forcing citizens to view sanctioned government killing of the innocent.

At the end of World War II, the Allied Forces liberated death camps throughout Eastern Europe. The first Nazi concentration camp freed from bondage was Ohrdruf—liberated by the U.S. Army’s 4th Armored Division and the 89th Infantry. This hellish place was a Nazi forced labor and extermination center located near Weimar, Germany and served as part of the Buchenwald concentration camp network.

One report recounts, "When the soldiers of the 4th Armored Division entered the camp, they discovered piles of bodies, some covered with lime, and others partially incinerated on pyres. The ghastly nature of their discovery led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, to visit the camp on April 12, with Generals George S. Patton and OmarBradley.

After his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, describing his trip to Ohrdruf:

". . .the most interesting--although horrible--sight that I encountered during the trip was a visit to a German internment camp near Gotha. The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’"

When Eisenhower was informed that local citizens protested in saying that they had no knowledge of the atrocities committed at the death camps, he ordered the citizens to be forced to view what they had allowed their government to do.

It is time for Americans to be forced to view the slaughter of the innocent. You can begin by viewing The Silent Scream on the web. It will stop abortions.

It is no mystery as to how the Lord wants Christians to treat one another. However, humility and honesty are essential for spiritual maturity.

1. Christians are to love one another.

• John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

2. Christians are to prefer one another.

• Romans 12:10, "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another."

3. Christians are to have the same mind.

• Romans 12:16, "Be of the same mind one toward another."

4. Christians are not to judge one another.

• Romans 14:13, "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

5. Christians are to receive one another.

• Romans 15:7, "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God."

6. Christians are to admonish one another.

• Romans 15:14, "And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to ADMONISH ONE ANOTHER."

7. Christians are to salute one another.

• Romans 16:16, "Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."

8. Christians are to be courteous.

• 1 Corinthians 11:33, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another."

Roman Catholics are quick to point to Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53–57 as scriptural proof for transubstantiation. Many argue that Evangelicals are being inconsistent with their own hermeneutical principles of a literal interpretation of the Bible when they do not allow Jesus to mean what He said when he took the bread in his hand and said, "this is my body" (Matt 26:26). The problem with this line of reasoning is that it misses the fundamental point of Protestant interpretation in that we are not hyper-realists, but that we actually allow for authorial intent and permit the verses to be read and interpreted in their own context. Just as we do not call for a literal interpretation of phrases such as, "I am the living bread" (John 6:51), "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), "I am the door" (John 10:9), "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11), and "I am the true vine" (John 15:1), we allow Jesus to use metaphors when talking to His disciples. No serious exegete would dare suggest that Jesus was to be taken literally in the above passages, yet some then turn around and insist that Matthew 26:26 and John 6 be taken in the sense that the bread is actually the body of Christ and the wine is the actual blood of Jesus.

Imagine the confusion that would have come over the apostles if they themselves believed Jesus to be holding His own body and drinking His own blood. The lack of confusion should demonstrate that they understood the bread and wine to be symbolic of Christ. The apostles would have naturally assumed Jesus’ words were not to be taken literally, just as we do not take the words of others literally when they are spoken of in a context that demands a symbolic interpretation in order to make any sense at all.

On the night of May 2, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was mistakenly shot in the arm by his own men. Jackson was taken to a safe place behind enemy lines to recuperate. Round-the-clock care was administered to the wounded General, but insufficient medical treatment cost Jackson his left arm. The Presbyterian General’s chaplain, B. Tucker Lacy, recounted the loss to General Robert E. Lee who replied, "He has lost his left arm, but I have lost my right arm." Clearly the context leaves little room for doubt that General Lee simply meant he lost a valuable soldier and friend, not that he literally lost his right limb from the tragic news. In like manner, the passages alluded to are little evidence to support the idea that Jesus’ audience would have interpreted His words in a literal manner, because a literal manner would not be a clear manner. That is, the literal interpretation of the bread and wine transubstantiating into the body and blood of Christ creates more confusion and misunderstanding than would a different, more plausible, interpretation of the text.

One practical problem with a hyper-literal interpretation of Jesus’ words is that it contradicts the Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus. Those councils combined opposed the heresies of Apollinarianism, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism—heresies which taught a singular nature of Christ, with the latter teaching that Christ is two persons. However, the councils affirmed the dual natures of Christ, that being His human nature and His divine nature. The councils openly rejected any attempt to deify the humanity of Christ. Augustine echoed the decisions of the councils when he wrote: "Since, then, Christ is God and man…we must take account of both these nature in Him…When we say that Christ is the Son of God we do not separate His humanity from Him, nor when we say that the same Christ is the Son of man do we lose sight of His divinity. For, as man He was on earth, not in heaven where He is now…we are not to think that He is everywhere present. We must beware of so building up the divinity of the man that we destroy the reality of His body."

Yet, the reality of the doctrine of transubstantiation is that it remains at open variance to the conclusions reached at the fifth century ecumenical councils. In the Eucharist, the human nature of Christ is deified and presented with the attribute of omnipresence. Hundreds of thousands of churches worldwide celebrate the sacrifice, many of which are at the same time, so Christ is corporeally present in a church in South America at the same time He is said to be present is Europe, Asia, North America, or anywhere else the Mass is celebrated. The point of the councils was to deny the idea that Jesus’ physical body could be in more than one place at a time—the very notion the Eucharist demands.

So how, then, are the words of Jesus to be interpreted? What did He intend His hearers to believe when they heard Him say, "this is my body" (Matt 26:26) and, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:53)? It must first be pointed out that John 6 transpired before the institution of the Eucharist in the synoptics, so the disciples would have remembered back to these words following the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus said, "this is my body". The Eucharist, therefore, must be seen in the context of being interpreted in light of John 6 and not the other way around.

Remember that on the day following the miracle of the feeding of five thousand the people were comparing the work of Jesus with the provisions given to Israel when in the wilderness. Beginning in verse thirty-two of chapter six, Jesus tells His listener’s that they needed the "true bread from heaven". Unsure what this "true bread" was, the crowd demanded that He give them some to which Jesus responded, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35). The crowd understood that Moses provided provision for physical sustainment, but here, Jesus was attempting to tell the crowd He provides the necessity for eternal life through the analogy of bread—the very thing that proved to be at the forefront of their minds.

"Eating" and "drinking" are synonymous with "coming" and "believing" in Him. This is evident in the words of Jesus when He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life" (John 6:47). This belief = eternal life equation is followed up with, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die" (John 6:48–50). Jesus equated "belief" in verse 47 with "eternal life" in verses 48–50. This truism is demonstrated again just one verse later when Jesus again uses the analogy of bread to convey spiritual truths of eternal consequences. "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51). Physical food gives nothing more than physical life, whereas heavenly bread gives spiritual life—life that does not end.

We would also do well to remember another metaphor Jesus found useful when attempting to convey such weighty matters. Just two chapter earlier, the story is recorded of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. We read: "A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink.’ (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?’ (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, ‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.’ The woman said to him, ‘Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water’" (John 4:7–15).

The similarities in this passage to John 6 are striking. Jesus was using the interest of His hearers in each case and presented the gospel in each situation. In the case of the woman at the well, she was interested in physical water, but Jesus told her about the living water. After the feeding of the five thousand, the crowd was interested in physical bread, but Jesus introduced them to the living bread. In both instances, His hearers mistakenly took the metaphor literally, which created confusion and made no sense out of the message. Rome tells us that we must interpret John 6 literally, but they fail to demand the same standard be applied to John 4. If the Roman Catholic applied a standard method of exegesis, then he has no basis for rejecting a literal interpretation of drinking physical water in John 4 in order to gain eternal life

Returning, now, to the Last Supper. The apostles had just celebrated the Passover, a meal that was steeped in symbolism. Each item present on the table was a reminder of some greater truth and a remembrance of the escape from Egypt. The entire context of the final gathering before the crucifixion illustrated deliverance by the hand of God. So when Jesus takes the bread and says, "this is my body," the apostles know they have heard this metaphor before. They remember back to the aftermath of the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus proclaimed that He was the living bread that gives eternal life over against the manna that only sustained the Israelites for a short period. No one in that upper room was confused about what He meant. No one looked around in disbelief at His words, because they understood what He meant. Surely no one would seriously argue that Jesus had just transubstantiated the bread into the same substance that stood before His disciples. And after those words He said that the wine was His blood, the blood of a new covenant, blood that would be understood to be significant just as it had always been. The audience that night recognized what blood means. They would have understood it against the backdrop of a sacrifice, how blood was sprinkled upon the people to ratify a covenant, in the same manner it had been done centuries previous. The blood that Jesus was referring to was the blood shed for the new covenant, from a sacrificial victim. At this time, however, no one had died so it is preposterous to think the blood to which Jesus was referring was actually His blood.

Christ used the elements directly before Him as He done on previous occasions. The bread was symbolic of His broken body and wine represented the blood of the New Covenant. These symbols pointed towards the great Sacrifice that He was about to make on behalf of His people. The Cross was still in the future when He uttered those words; His body was not yet broken, and His blood had yet to be shed. The entire event pointed the apostles towards the reality of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ Jesus and our completed redemption in and through the atoning work of our Savior at Calvary.

Brit Hume of "Fox News Sunday" recently ignited a firestorm of controversy when he weighed in on the Tiger Woods scandal: 

"He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

A large portion of the secularist media joined in a chorus of protests against Hume because he dared to suggest something called objective truth and further claimed that objective truth is found only in the Christian religion. Hume, however, was accurate in his assessment. There is no redemption and forgiveness within Buddhism, because it directs one to look inwardly for enlightment, yet the Bible tells us that, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it" (Jer 17:9)? Turning inward, therefore, will accomplish nothing other than feeding the sinful nature inherent in all of us and misleading us apart from a divine intervention.

With that said, however, many of us have probably never encountered Buddhism or any other of the eastern religions for that matter. So here are a few quick facts about the religion that 350 million people worldwide embrace.

• Buddhism was founded in Northern India by the Buddha, a royal prince named Siddhartha Gautama.

• He was born circa 563 B.C. in Lumbini which is in modern-day Nepal and died in his early 80’s c. 483.

• At the age of 29, he left his wife, children and political involvements in order to seek truth.

• It was an accepted practice at the time for some men to leave their family and lead the life of an ascetic.

• c.535 BC he attained enlightenment and assumed the title Buddha (one who has awakened).

• He concluded that life is nothing but an experience plagued by sorrow.

• He promoted The Middle Way, rejecting both extremes of the mortification of the flesh and of hedonism as paths toward the state of Nirvana.

• Nirvana means litterally, "to cease blowing" (as when a candle flame ceases to flicker) and/or extinguishing (that is, of the passions).
  
  
• He had many disciples and accumulated a large public following by the time of his death in his early 80's in 483 BC.

• Two and a half centuries later, a council of Buddhist monks collected his teachings and the oral traditions of the faith into written form, called the Tripitaka.

• This included a very large collection of commentaries and traditions; most are called Sutras (discourses).

• All of the Buddha's teachings, collectively called the dharma, deal with one basic goal - how to escape samsara.

• Samsara is the cycle of rebirths that is known more commonly as reincarnation.

• Freedom from samsara leads to nirvana, which is commonly thought of as a state of complete deliverance from pain and sorrow, a state of bliss - the Eastern equivalent of heaven.

• The goal of each Buddhist is the attainment of the state of nirvana.

• This can be done by embracing the Four Noble Truths and Following the Eight fold Noble Path.

The Four Noble Truths

• that suffering is an inherent part of existence;

• that the origin of suffering is ignorance;

• and the main symptoms of that ignorance are attachment and craving;

• that attachment and craving can be ceased; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path will lead to the cessation of attachment and craving and therefore suffering.

The Noble Eightfold Path

• right understanding
• right thought
• right speech
• right action
• right livelihood
• right effort
• right mindfulness
• and right concentration.

1. The historic position of the church has embraced:

1. the visible bodily return of Christ
2. the general resurrection of all men and
3. the general judgment of all men

2. In addition to these basic unifying beliefs the Scriptures teach other truths about the Second Coming.

1. There is to be but one more coming of Christ and not in phases or stages for such concept renders the term SECOND COMING meaningless (Heb. 9:28).
2. No one will be able to know the chronology of the future (chronos, Acts 1:7; Matt. 24:36; 1 Thess. 5:1) or the seasons.
3. The kingdom of Christ is:

• a present reality (Matt. 4:17; 5:3; 16:19; Mark 9:1).

• spiritual and invisible, not worldly and material (Luke 17:20; John 3:3; 18:36; 1 Thess. 2:12; Col. 1:13).

• everlasting (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pet. 1:11).
  
  
• not the possession of Israel alone. The kingdom has been given to the nations (Luke12:32; Rev.11:15).
  
  
• to come to an end "when He shall have delivered up the kingdom of God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and authority and power. For He must reign, TILL He hath put all things under His feet...and when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him" (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
  
  
• The Kingdom of Christ will have a final form (2 Tim. 4:1; Matt. 26:29) but it will simply be a continuation of the same kingdom that now is.

3. The Second Advent of Christ will be without warning (Matt. 24:36-39,42) just as the great flood in the days of Noah came without warning.

4. Christ will call all men from their graves when He comes (John 5:28,29; Acts 24:15).

5. In that day the heavens and earth will pass away with fervent heat (2 Pet. 3:10).

6. Since these are the last days (Heb. 1:2; John 6:39; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; 1 John 2:18) and the earth as we know it will pass away, there is no need to hold to another period of history in the world after these days and the return of Christ.

7. The great apostasy that precedes the Second Advent is not wholly future since Paul stated that "the mystery of iniquity" which causes the apostasy was already at work in His day (2 Thess. 2:7; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3).

8. There will never be a period of "good without evil" or the separation of the righteous from the wicked prior to the end of this age as Jesus taught (Matt. 13:40,41; 13:49).

9. The last enemy Christ shall destroy is death. Death defeated comes by the general resurrection when world history comes to an end.

Grace. Grace is the expression of God’s knowledge and wisdom in any given situation. 2 Peter 3:18, "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen."

Knowledge. Knowledge refers to the intake of biblical truth.

Wisdom. Wisdom is the application of biblical knowledge.

Faith. Faith is the constant and steady belief in God’s faithfulness.

Spiritual fruit. Spiritual fruit is produced in the life of the believer by the Holy Spirit. Galatians 5:22-23, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Over the course of the next few days millions of people will set personal goals and resolve to make 2010 a better year. Some will determine to shed those extra pounds, others save for retirement, and still more to read more books or finish those lingering projects. However, while those are undoubtedly worthy endeavors the Christian should also keep in mind seven principles that will help to make 2010 a better year spiritually.

1. Demonstrate a commitment to Christ by consciously establishing spiritual priorities.

• Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

2. Display a commitment to the kingdom of God by keeping holy habits or customs. The parents of Jesus had holy habits which were instilled in the Christ child.

• The Parents. Luke 2:27, "And he [Simeon] came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law."
  
  
• The Christ child. Luke 2:42, "And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast."

3. Unless providentially hindered redeem spiritual time by leading others to Sunday School, worship and prayer and let no one keep you from doing what is right including visiting friends, family or neighbors (and we will not even mention sports for then someone might think we have stopped preaching and teaching and gone to meddling).

• Ephesians 5:16, "Redeeming the time, because the days are evil."
  
  
• Psalms 122:1 I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD.
  
  
• 1 John 2:15-17, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

4. Ask not only WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) but WWTHSD (What Would the Holy Spirit Do?). Offer the Holy Spirit what you consume and ask Him to bless what you say and where you go.

• 1 Corinthians 10:31, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

5. Do not ascribe to people motives they may not have.

• 1 Corinthians 13:5, "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil."

6. In a given situation, before becoming angry do not purport or claim to know a matter before understanding the situation fully. Most anger will subside when all the facts are known. False rumors will also be dispelled which is good because God HATES them as per Proverbs 6:16-19 because they sow discord among the brethren.

• Proverbs 18:13, "He that answereth [responds to] a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

7. Love the local church of God’s choosing for you by not entertaining thoughts of leaving it unless the same conditions are present which would drive the Lord Himself away. Those conditions are set forth in the seven churches of Revelation 2:1-3:22.

• In the church of Ephesus there was a loss of love for Christ. A congregation really can grow to love other things (Rev. 2: 4-5).

• In the church of Smyrna there was a loss of faith so that the congregation is more characterized as a synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9). Good works became fleshly works. (Buildings, projects)

• In the church of Pergamos there was a movement towards false doctrine (Rev. 2: 14-15, 16).

• In the church of Thyatira. strong willed individuals not called of God were dominating the congregation (Rev. 2: 20, 23). There was an acceptance of the doctrines of Satan by calling wrong, right.

• In the church of Sardis normal Christian ministries were neglected (Rev. 3:2).

• In the church of Philadelphia individuals were turning from the historic faith.

• In the church of Laodiceans there was indifference to worship and Christian living. Spiritual neutrality characterized the congregation. There was no holy passion (Rev. 3:15, 16).