Rss

  • youtube

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part III

The second area that must be examined to determine if there is hope for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity is love. If there are fundamental differences in the concepts and practices of love between Islam and Christianity, then love cannot provide a common ground.

Are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same?

As they did in addressing questions presented in Part II, the Yale Covenant authors point to the difficulties in identifying the similarities between the Islamic and Christian understandings of love. These difficulties include several issues. A major difference noted was whether God’s love was conditional or non-conditional. The Bible says that God’s love is unconditional whereas in the Quran it appears that Allah’s love is conditional. Another concern raised by the covenant authors was the difficulty of translating the meaning of words between Arabic and other languages which leads to difficulty in comparing the conceptions of love in the two religions. Other areas identified for further study and discussion were the meanings of the names for God with respect to love and whether God’s love is self-giving. The authors provide no answers to these questions but once again stress the need “for conversations and interactions on these crucial matters of love of God and of neighbor.[1]

Here again the covenant authors get caught up in details (important though they may be) but step away from the fundamental question as to the natures of the two Gods revealed by the Bible and the Quran. However, answers will not come from mere discussions about God’s titles, translations, interpretations, and definitions of love. Answers can be found only in an examination of the fundamental natures of the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran in relation to love and its application between God and man and man to man. Put another way, are the understandings and practices of love expressed by the nature of God described in the Bible and the Quran essentially the same or radically different?

The Christian’s God is love, not just a loving God (John 4:8). God’s love is unconditional which is revealed throughout the great meta-narrative of the creation, the Fall, and redemption. For the Christian, we must again return to the Trinity. In the Christian worldview, God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. It was a sacrificial love because rebellious man did not deserve it. But man’s rebellion was not a surprise to God for He knew the cost of His supreme love before he created man (see Revelation 13:8). No man was worthy or deserving of God’s love or capable of doing anything to gain His love. Therefore, God sent His incarnate Son to die on a Roman cross that made possible the redemption of mankind. God willingly gave his begotten Son’s life so that all of mankind through their individual freewill would have the opportunity to accept the gift of forgiveness and redemption.

God’s nature is love, and He commanded His followers to unconditionally reflect His love to others in this world. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” [Luke 6:35-36, RSV]

Contrast the love of the Christian’s God with Allah’s love as described in the Quran. The Quran states that God is Al-Wadud meaning that he is full of loving kindness. This loving kindness is well-demonstrated by many Muslims in the loving way they treat their children and in the great hospitality and kindness bestowed on those that visit their homes. But Allah’s loving kindness is limited to only a part of mankind. Islam does not love its enemies nor does it love the unlovable, and the Quran is very specific in its directives as to the harsh and violent treatment of infidels, the disobedient, and evil-doers. The Quran[2] specifically states in numerous verses that Allah’s love is restricted to those that deserve it, a concept that mirrors the very human reaction to love only those who love us.[3] Listed below are just three examples.

Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [Sura 2:276. Quran]

Say: “obey Allah and His Apostle”: but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. [Sura 3:32. Quran]

As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong. [Sura 3:57. Quran]

A personal or an impersonal God?

As important is our understanding the different natures of God and Allah with regard to love, we must take one step beyond to determine the reasons for the differences and why those reasons matter to mankind.

In Islam, it is not possible to separate or differentiate Allah’s mind, will, and actions. He is described as absolute oneness in his nature and personhood. The distinguishing characteristic of Islam is the unity of Allah.[4] One of the most revered chapters in the Quran is Sura 112 which commands, “Say: He is Allah, the One, the Only; The Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”

When Mohammad was asked to describe Allah, Sura 112 was supposedly given to him by Allah. Islamic tradition states that Mohammad considered Sura 112 as worth one-third of the entire Quran. The verses weld together two fundamental doctrines of Islam: (1) Allah is an absolute, undifferentiated unity and (2) “in his unity, is utterly independent of anything. He is self-subsisting and self-sufficient.” But this conception of Allah’s greatness makes it impossible for man to relate to him and impossible for the human heart and mind to understand anything about him apart from the superficial. Allah is personal in that he is described as a conscious being with a will, but his personality is hidden and cannot be known to any meaningful degree by mankind. Therefore, it is not possible for his followers to have a personal, loving relationship with him.[5]

Because of this description of Allah as a self-subsisting and self-sufficient entity absolutely independent of anything, it is impossible for Allah to express or give love because his nature will not allow such. Therefore, Allah is unipersonal and his ultra-unified, self-contained, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and self-centered being removes any hope of love flowing from his nature in spite of Mohammad’s claims in the Quran. Given Allah’s self-described nature in the Quran as an absolute oneness and independence from anything, to say that Allah loves or does not love is an oxymoron at best or a false claim shrouded in an incomprehensible, unexplainable enigma that demands blind faith from his followers.

In Christianity, the central theme of the entire Bible focuses on relationship and confirms the importance of His Trinitarian nature. Perichoresis is a word used to describe the triune relationship between the members of the Godhead. It explains the close inter-relatedness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of which is clearly distinct but at the same time “…one in their own eternal and intense love for each other.”[6] Expressed another way, it is one heart beating within three persons.

Perichoresis shares its etymological roots with the word “choreography.”[7] With this in mind, Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, wonderfully adds to our understanding of this relationship which he calls the Dance of God. The dance is about love and relationship which implies constant movement or flowing in which a “…self-giving love is the dynamic currency of the Trinitarian life of God. Three persons within God exalt, commune with, and defer to one another…a dynamic pulsating activity, a life, a kind of drama…a kind of dance…”[8]

And God has allowed man to share in this Trinitarian relationship. How can we know this? John’s gospel gives us the answer in Christ’s own words: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one.” [John 17: 22-23a. RSV] Historian George Marsden summarized Jonathan Edwards’s explanation of this passage. “The ultimate reason that God creates, said Edwards, is not to remedy some lack in God, but to extend that perfect internal communication of the triune God’s goodness and love…” Keller refines Edward’s statement when he said, “God did not create us to get the cosmic, infinite joy of mutual love and glorification, but to share it. [9] [emphasis added]

Is there common ground between Islam and Christianity with regard to love and relationship between man and God and man to man? When we examine the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, the answer is an indisputably no. In the areas of love and relationships, the differences between the unipersonal Allah of the Quran and the loving, personal God of the Bible are enormous and provide no basis for common ground between Islam and Christianity.

In the first three parts of this series we have discussed the end time apostasy that is engulfing many in the evangelical church, the Yale Covenant, and two areas identified as supposedly providing a basis for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity. In Part IV we shall examine how this modern apostasy of attempting to find common ground between Islam and Christianity has been embraced and promoted by some leaders in the evangelical church.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[3] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), pp. 231-232.
[4] Ibid., p. 159.
[5] Ibid., pp. 159-161.
[6] Glenn T. Stanton and Leon C. Wirth, The Family Project, (Coral Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2014), pp. 82-83.
[7] Ibid., p. 82.
[8] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (New York: Dutton, 2008), pp. 214-215.
[9] Ibid., pp. 218-219.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part II

The Muslim scholars in their 2007 open letter to the Christian world (“A Common Word between Us and You”) and the response (the Yale Covenant) signed by three hundred Christian leaders identified two areas that were supposed to be common ground between Muslims and Christians: the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbor.[1] However, the truth or falsity of this claimed common ground can only be determined after a thoughtful examination of the nature of the Islam’s Allah and the Christian God of the Bible and their respective teachings and commandments with regard to love.

In other words, the evidence of any common ground between the two religions must ultimately be found in the natures of the respective Gods. If there are essential similarities in the most important aspects of the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, it would appear that there may be areas of common ground in the religions of Islam and Christianity. Likewise, if their natures are radically different, no common ground can exist.

Muslims claim that what can be known of Allah is found in the Quran written by Mohammad in the seventh century. Christians claim that God revealed himself through the divinely inspired writings of a number of men in both the Old and New Testaments recorded over a 1600-year period. Christians also claim that God can be known through His creation and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men and women. However, the written record of the Quran and the Bible will serve as our basis for determining the existence of common ground.

In examining the nature of God and the meaning and application of love as expressed by these natures, two questions must be answered in the affirmative if we are to determine there is common ground between Islam and Christianity. First, do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Second, are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same? The second question will be addressed in Part III.

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Many claim that Islam’s Allah and the Christian God are really the same God. As one well-known television talk show hostess infamously claimed, all roads lead to the same God. In addressing this question, the Yale Center for Faith and Culture responded to a number of questions and criticisms following the publication of the Yale Covenant. Their response to the question as to whether Allah and the Christian God are the same was presented in two parts.

First, the authors of the Yale Covenant assert that the God of the Bible may also be called “Allah” because it is merely the Arabic word for God. The second part of the response addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The signers of the Yale Covenant identify what they believe to be many similarities in the two religions’ views about God. Each claims to worship the one true God, that he is the creator of the heavens and the universe, is merciful and compassionate, rules the universe, and guides the affairs of mankind. They both believe that their God will judge all people at the end of history, that God sent prophets into the world to guide God’s people, and that both the Quran and the Bible were written by men who were divinely inspired. But the Yale Covenanters also acknowledge the two Gods are unlike with regard to the Trinity and the “Person of Jesus Christ whom Christians see as God’s ultimate self-revelation.”[2]

Ultimately, the Yale Covenant’s responders do not answer the question as to whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, they claim that in spite of important differences, those differences are “similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and few Christians today would assert that Jews are worshipping a different god or an idol.”[3] But to compare the differences between Islam and Christianity as being similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity is ludicrous. Christians almost universally do not view the Old Testament as hostile to the teachings of the New Testament which is a record of the completion of story of God’s plan for mankind following the creation and the Fall found in the Old Testament. The Bible and the Quran could never be bound together as one book because they describe two completely different Gods and two different blueprints for mankind on this earth and in eternity.

The God of the Quran and the God of the Bible are superficially similar in certain ways but vastly different in the most fundamental and important aspects of their natures. Perhaps the most important differences are determined by an understanding of the very essence of who they say they are. The Bible reveals God in His Trinitarian form in the first chapter of Genesis, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” [Genesis 1:26. KJV] [emphasis added] Where verse 26 establishes the plurality of the Deity, verse 27 reinforces the unity of His divine essence. God is three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) but one divine being having a single divine nature. The Trinitarian nature of God will be discussed in greater detail in Part III.

Islam denies that God (Allah) is Triune but an “absolute unity, utterly without differentiation within himself” as such differentiation would diminish his greatness. In Islam, to suggest there is differentiation is to commit the greatest possible blasphemy.[4] “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”[5] [Sura 5:76, Quran]

Islam also denies that God became incarnate because Allah would never stoop to the level of his creation by becoming human.[6] Islam teaches that those who claim that God became incarnate are blasphemers. “They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins other gods with Allah,—Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.” [Sura 5:75] But the gospel of John states that, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6. KJV] In Islam, Jesus is not God but a prophet.

These verses from the Quran and the Bible have unquestionably presented a starkly different image of the true natures of the two Gods. If they have such vastly different natures, there can be no common ground of any significance between Islam and Christianity. One must be the ultimate Supreme Being that transcends all of creation and the other a false God, and the religion of the false God leads to pain and despair in this life and eternal damnation thereafter.

Yet, the Yale Covenanters state that, “We believe that Muslims and Christians share enough in their perspectives about God to serve as the foundation for a meaningful and constructive dialogue between them.” Apparently, the responders are not concerned with objective and eternal truth but merely “perspectives” that will lead to dialogue because “…we share enough common understanding of the true God to sit down at the table and discuss both our areas of agreement and disagreement in regard to God.”[7]

But we must look to the pithy writings of A. W. Tozer for wisdom and clarity regarding the motives and mindset of the defenders of the Yale Covenant. “When men believe God they speak boldly. When they doubt they confer. Much religious talk is but uncertainty rationalizing itself; and this they call “engaging in contemporary dialogue.”[8] [emphasis added]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), p. 166.
[5] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[6] Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, pp. 166-167.
[7] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
[8] A. W. Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), p. 126.

Growing Apostasy in the Last Days – Part I

The Apostle Paul’s second letter to Timothy speaks of the last days.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. [2 Timothy 3:1-5. KJV]

Before we discuss the growing apostasy of the church, we must place it in context with the end times. The last days spoken of by Paul include the entire Christian era that began with Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and the establishment of the Church. But at the end of the those last days (the church age) things will become ever-increasingly worse in the world including a rapid disintegration of moral standards and a great increase in false believers and churches within God’s kingdom.[1]

In the last days great numbers of the professing church will depart from biblical truth in both word and deed. This departure is called apostasy and means to “fall away” or abandonment and rebellion. Within the church, the apostasy will take two forms. The first is theological apostasy in which false leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. Under these false leaders and teachers, a false salvation and cheap grace will replace salvation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, repentance, turning from sin, and adherence to God’s standards of living. The false leaders and teachers will offer a gospel centered on the self and its needs and desires. The second type is moral apostasy in which one severs his relationship with Christ and embraces sin and immorality. Although proclaiming right doctrine and New Testament Christianity’s teachings, they will abandon the moral standards as taught by the New Testament in exchange for money, success, honor, and a large following.[2]

When this general apostasy (often called the Great Apostasy) will occur is described by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…[2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. KJV]

In his first letter, Paul had assured the Thessalonians that the true follower of Christ would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and be delivered from the coming wrath of God that was to fall upon the earth. Christians call this the rapture which also signals the beginning of the seven years of tribulation in which God’s wrath will be poured out upon the world. Paul’s continued assurances in the second letter were necessary because certain false teachers claimed that God had already begun to pour out His final wrath on the earth. Paul explained that before God’s final wrath would be loosed, two things must occur: there must be a specific falling away and the “man of sin” will be revealed. These two events signal that day when God’s wrath will be loosed. But we must remember that there is a sequence of events leading up to this time. During the entire church age, iniquity has been at work, but as the last days of the age draw to a close, evil becomes progressively worse. As the flood tide of evil swells as the end of the age nears, apostasy within the church will grow to startling proportions. Following the rapture of the true church, the Holy Spirit will no longer restrain the man of lawlessness (the Antichrist) who will then be revealed. Following the rapture of the true church, the remaining apostate church enters into a total rebellion against God and His Word.[3]

Evidence of a generalized apostasy within the church

Between 1870 and 1930 there was a great surge of apostasy within the church. Most of it was centered on the liberal church that eventually dominated the American church. Fundamentalists of the era who stayed true to New Testament Christianity were demeaned and marginalized. They had largely abandoned the culture until the mid to late 1940s when some fundamentalists emerged. Those fundamentalists became known as neo-evangelicals who once again engaged the culture while remaining true to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. But as America progressed through the remainder of the century and into the twenty-first century, a large portion of the evangelical church had succumbed to spirit of the age and slid into apostasy.

The apostasy that was embraced by the liberal church in the early part of the twentieth century has now entered much of the evangelical church in the last half of the twentieth century and first two decades of the twenty-first century. The extent to which this escalating apostasy has grown is evident in many quarters of the evangelical church and is symbolized by a recent occurrence of significant importance.

The Yale Covenant

On October 7, 2007, 138 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world, representing every major school of the Islamic faith, sent an open letter “to leaders of Christian churches, everywhere.” The Muslim scholars pointed to the common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. With reconciliation as their goal, the Muslim scholars proposed that these common grounds would serve as the basis for a dialogue between the two religious faiths. This invitation was titled “A Common Word between Us and You.” In response to the Muslim “Common Word,” the Reconciliation Program at Yale University and several members of the Yale Divinity School community responded on November 13, 2007 with a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. Titled “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’,” the Yale response was signed by 130 Christian leaders and scholars and subsequently by an additional 180 prominent signatories.[4] This response has become known as the Yale Covenant.

The Yale response to the Muslim’s “A Common Word” contained a preamble, statements about world peace and religious peace, common ground, love of God, love of neighbor, and “The Task Before Us.” The document begins by asking Muslims to forgive Christians for their guilt in sinning against “our Muslim neighbors” in the past (the Crusades) and in the present (e.g., excesses of the “war on terror”).[5]

There are two essential questions that must be answered to determine the legitimacy of the Christian response to “A Common Word.” First, is Allah the same God that Christians worship? Second, is the Christian concept of love the same as that of Islam? If the answers to one or both of these questions is no, then it is apparent that no common ground exists and that those Christians who promote such commonality have departed from biblical truth and have become apostate.

In Parts II and III we shall examine the so-called common ground between Islam and Christianity as identified by the Muslim scholars and signers of the Yale Covenant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 500.
[2] Ibid., p. 478.
[3] Ibid., pp. 474-475.
[4] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[5] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).

The American Church – 36 – Restoring New Testament Christianity

If the church (the body of Christ) desires to restore New Testament Christianity, it must first understand what the term encompasses and requires. Where better to find that understanding than the New Testament itself. The history of Christianity begins with the life of Jesus and His ministry as recorded in the four gospels. The history of the church begins with Christ’s ascension and the beginning of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Luke, the beloved physician, gave an account of the former in the Gospel of Luke and the latter in the Acts of the Apostles. What better account than that of a close friend and traveling companion of Paul. With precision, clarity, and thoroughness befitting an educated man of medicine, Luke’s inspired account spans the broad panoply of the beginnings of Christianity and the early church, both Jewish and gentile, and whether in Jerusalem or in the far reaches of most of the known world. From Luke’s writings we gain a comprehensive understanding of New Testament Christianity that appears at odds with the teachings and practices of many evangelical churches of today. Although we must not neglect nor subordinate the other books of the New Testament, many Christians consider Luke’s two long books (approximately 28% of the New Testament) are the most comprehensive and understandable presentation of New Testament Christianity.

Luke’s writings in the Acts of the Apostles present two major themes. First, Luke reveals that the gospel had spread far beyond its origins in a tiny outpost of the Roman Empire and its Jewish religion and had done so in spite of severe opposition and persecution of its messengers. Second, even a cursory reading of the Acts of the Apostles reveals the centrality and importance of the Holy Spirit and His empowerment of the early church.[1] These two themes were evident at the close of Luke’s gospel.

And [Jesus] said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to Suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. [Luke 24: 46-49. KJV]

The words later written in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles echo those written at the end of Luke’s gospel. Those dual themes ripple not only throughout the Acts of the Apostles but the remainder of the New Testament.

But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. [Acts 1:8. KJV]

The essence of the entire book of Acts (and New Testament Christianity) is found in this single verse. The theological message was that His disciples were to continue to do and teach all that Jesus did while on the earth, but their witness could only be accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through them. The geographical location of their witnessing was to be the entire world.[2] Jesus instructed His followers to wait and not begin their ministry until they had received the promise of the Father. This promise was fulfilled at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The assignment that Jesus had given to these mortal men and women could not be accomplished in the natural realm. But with the arrival of the promised supernatural power from on high they would accomplish all that Jesus commanded.

As these themes guided those first century Christians whose lives and works were recorded by the inspired writers of the New Testament, we gain a comprehensive and integrated understanding of New Testament Christianity. In light of this understanding, we can determine the critical departures from New Testament Christianity by many in modern evangelicalism.

Hallmarks of New Testament Christianity

There are several norms or hallmarks that give shape, definition, and context to New Testament Christianity. All of its distinguishing elements that were found in the early church (except for the writing of the New Testament Scripture) are available to the twenty-first century church. But they are only attainable when the church moves and operates in the full power of the Holy Spirit.[3]

Several of these hallmarks are no longer found in many evangelical churches. The following is a summary of the more significant observations and findings with regard to the modern evangelical church in America. These are not meant to be an all-inclusive list and are certainly not a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the evangelical church. But correction must be preceded by recognition of those missing elements which have led to a most wintry season in evangelicalism at a time when American culture is in desperate need of a clear, authoritative, truthful, and Holy Spirit-directed response from the church.

• Ignoring the presence and work of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 26)

The Holy Spirit will not allow Himself to be merely an item on a church’s agenda. He is either the center, or He will have no part of the program. Christ instructed His disciples to first “tarry” and then after they had been endued with power from the Holy Spirit they would be ready to do the work of the church. Many modern churches have dispensed with the irreplaceable power and presence of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of church life which accounts for their powerlessness, spiritual poverty, and shallowness.

As a result there are millions of Christians in America that long for the deeper spiritual life found in the pages of the New Testament. To address this hunger, many in the body of Christ and well-intentioned church leaders assemble various ingredients, measure, and then mix them in the prescribed quantities, much as one would do in baking a cake, in an effort to replicate the deeper life found in New Testament Christianity. Because many in the body of Christ and its leaders are more interested in doing church than being the church, they fail to wait upon the Holy Spirit and His enduement of power. His absence is the missing ingredient that leaves the church’s efforts a dry and tasteless imitation of the real thing.

• The message of the new cross (Chapter 29)

The cross upon which the Son of God was crucified stands at the crossroads of history and the story of mankind. Its stark and demanding message is an irritant in the soul of sinful man. For many its message is too confrontational, an agitant, inconvenient, an offense, something to be mocked or shunned. In modern times the way in which the cross is perceived by many who profess allegiance to Christ has also changed. The message of the cross has been muted if not altogether silenced to minimize its offensiveness in churches filled with people trying to decide if Christianity is right for them. Others have rewritten its message to smooth its abrasiveness and soften its demands by making it a thing of comfort and beauty instead of an instrument of death to self and hope of life eternal. The old message, having been modernized and adapted, seamlessly blends with the world’s fascination with humanistic concepts of self-esteem instead of the reality of the fallen nature of man. The new cross at its core rests on ego and selfishness and is the great enemy of the old cross of Christ.

The message of the cross found in Matthew’s gospel has reverberated across two thousand years of Christianity and still means today what those words meant when first written. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV] Beginning at Pentecost, a small group of Jesus’ followers believed this message, preached the cross, and turned the world upside down.

• The doctrine of divided Christ (Chapter 28)

New Testament Christianity’s concepts of sin and salvation have been replaced in many modern churches by the discredited doctrine of a divided Christ—Christ the Savior and Christ the Lord. According to this doctrine, a sinner may accept Jesus Christ as Savior without surrendering to Him as Lord.[4] But even without acceptance of Christ as Lord, this freewill acceptance of Christ as Savior often degenerates to a man-centered “making a decision for or commitment to Christ” as though man chooses the time, place, and manner of his salvation.

To highlight the fallacy of a divided Christ, the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer bear repeating.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment… The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[5]

The sinner who accepts Christ as Savior and walks away without accepting Christ as Lord perseveres in his sin. Many evangelical preachers may rightly deny their adherence to the doctrine of a divided Christ, but the practices of some say otherwise in their words or actions. They emphasize the acceptance of Christ as Savior and de-emphasize acceptance of Him as Lord. For many, the “Lord” part of one’s commitment to Christ comes later but before church membership because it is a process that takes time. In other words, the “saved” Christian must at some point also decide to make Jesus Christ the Lord of his life. But Tozer states that, “It is altogether doubtful whether any man can be saved who comes to Christ for His help but with no intention to obey Him.”[6]

Some will counter that the newly saved often don’t know enough about the Bible and the Christian life to make an informed decision as to His Lordship. But it is through this doctrine of the divided Christ that the church is filling its pews with half-covenant Christians. Paul said, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…” [Romans 10:9. KJV] [emphasis added] He must always be both Lord and Savior. Therefore, Christians must not lead a sinner to believe that he is saved by committing to Christ as Savior and then allow him to subsequently consider the matter of Christ’s Lordship over his life when he is more informed or it is more convenient or he has had time to calculate the cost.

• Nonjudgmental love without repentance (Chapters 28 and 32)

The fallacious doctrine of a divided Christ is aggravated if not promoted by many in the church because of a misunderstanding or misapplication of Christ’s nonjudgmental love. This occurs because the world’s definitions of love and tolerance have invaded the church and compromised the gospel message. As a result the message of many churches is that God’s nonjudgmental love is so vast that He will overlook sin for a season if not altogether ignore it if one will only acknowledge Him. The new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[7] But the world’s definitions of love and tolerance are contrary to the very nature of God because He cannot tolerate sin. God is both loving and just, and if His love is conformed to the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance, then He is cannot be both loving and just.

Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love. But cheap grace does not transform by washing away one’s sin but merely provides a transparent, temporal, and defective covering for man’s sin which stands in sharp contrast to the words of an old hymn: “What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”[8] Cheap grace attempts to hide sin or redefine it as a disease, but it does not eradicate it. Rather, it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. Cheap grace makes the shedding of His blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

A person who willfully continues in his sin cannot be excused for their heart remains unconverted and they are not open to growing in virtue. If the church does not make this distinction clear, it is guilty of misleading people as to their eternal destination.

• Doctrinal heresies (Chapters 27 and 32)

Paul warned of a time when many in the church would not endure sound doctrine but seek teachers of fables instead of truth (See 2 Timothy 4:3-4). As a result doctrinal heresy occurs because the truth of the Scriptures and its meaning have been diminished or abandoned by many in the church. Over the centuries, attempts to corrupt the Bible have occurred in three ways: adding to, taking away, and the corruption of meaning. The liberal church is guilty of all three.

For the last several decades many in American evangelical churches have tampered with the meaning of scripture. One source of this doctrinal corruption is the pervasive and careless use of unfaithful translations and even less reliable paraphrases. Also, the corruption of the meaning of scriptures is worsened by stringing together various Scripture verses found in several translations and paraphrases.

With the demise of serious expository preaching, doctrinal mischief is encouraged by an over-reliance on topical messages that tend to cherry-pick verses which are inappropriately divorced from the larger meaning and context of the biblical passages in which they are found in order to “prove” a point or prop up man’s opinion.

Also, many evangelical churches ignore serious preaching of major themes of the Bible (e.g., prophecy and end time events) that are seen as not being culture-friendly and therefore a hindrance in growing the church. As a result large portions of the Bible are not included in their preaching and teaching—a form of taking away.

The belief that the Bible is infallible and inerrant arises from our understanding that the scriptures are God-breathed, that is, written by human hands but under the inspiration of God. Without this unalterable foundation, New Testament Christianity is a myth.

• Accommodating the spirit of the world (Chapters 25 and 32)

At the close of the Last Supper with His disciples, Jesus prayed for them.

I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. [John 17:14-18. RSV]

This is the dynamic tension in which the individual Christian and the church must live—being in the world but not of it. We cannot avoid this tension for it is an inherent part of every Christian’s walk and every church’s ministry. To attempt to lessen the tension is to fall into the ditch of worldliness or to disobey Christ’s command to share His message by separating ourselves from the world. In spite of the best of motives, many in the modern evangelical church appear to have fallen into the ditch of worldliness because they have accommodated the spirit of the world within the church. When the world’s value system invades the church, the church becomes worldly.

There is an old adage that the church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for the hurting. This sentiment has an element of truth but is often abused. In its effort to reach out to the sinner, the modern church too often has replaced both the museum and hospital and made it a cruise ship for the saint and sinner alike. The sinner is made comfortable and enjoys the perks of Christianity in congenial fellowship with a good and solicitous people. His hosts are never so rude as to ask him to check his worldly baggage at the door and change his ways. With enough time the sinner will see the value of making a decision for Christ. Unfortunately, this analogy fits a great many evangelical churches in America.

Never hearing a truthful presentation of sin and their eternal damnation, a large number of sinners inhabit the church and over time bring corruption to that which they inhabit. As a result, differences between the lives of those who profess to be Christians and those that are unrepentant sinners become indistinguishable because the church was left unprotected from the spirit of the world. This was the great sin of the church at Thyatira. It contained many wicked people who caused many of God’s people to be drawn into sin (see Revelation 2:18-29).

The great tragedy is not only that a great many sinners are left in their sin, the church itself is left unprotected. This occurs because many churches have incorporated questionable methods in their scramble to survive in a rapidly changing and increasingly hostile culture. By doing so they have also gradually and subtly changed and softened the Bible’s message as well. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with sound doctrine and teachings of the Bible.

• Failure to adequately and effectively proclaim the gospel (Chapter 26)

“It is the chief function of the sermon to unleash the word of the Lord in the midst of his people. It is the chief means by which the Lord directs, rebukes, sustains and invigorates his people.”[9] [emphasis added] As discussed in Chapter 26, the foolishness of preaching is the fundamental means by which the Word of God is declared to a gathering of His people. Through those gatherings Christians encounter Jesus and fellowship with Him through His word.

If the chief function of preaching is to unleash the word, then we should be concerned with how that word is to be unleashed. The most important means is the prayerful expounding of the word itself (expository preaching). Topical preaching, polemical (disputation) preaching, historical preaching, and other forms of preaching have their rightful places. But these (especially topical preaching) have replaced expounding the Word of God to a substantial degree in many of today’s evangelical churches and has greatly contributed to a rapidly growing biblical illiteracy within the church. The message of the Bible has been dumbed down and therefore is made a husk without the life sustaining core from which the Christian finds spiritual nourishment. But such is foolish preaching and also inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, both the minister and the sinner are utterly powerless to change the sinner’s condition from death to life.

• Yoked with the world (Chapters 25 and 32)

Under duress from a culture heavily saturated with humanistic concepts of relativism, tolerance, and inclusion, many evangelical leaders and Christian organizations have embraced an ecumenicalism that reaches beyond the boundaries of the Christian faith. In their efforts to be ecumenical and culturally relevant, they have attempted to find common ground with organizations and false religions that stand in opposition to God’s word.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16a, the Apostle Paul cautions that Christians should not be mismatched with unbelievers. In his commentary, Matthew Henry expounds on Paul’s admonition.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane…We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers…Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion can these have together?[10]

When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, individual Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in the hope of sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ.[11]

Paul’s charge to not be mismatched with unbelievers does not prevent a Christian from speaking to groups and organizations which are non-Christian when presenting the message of Christ. Here we follow the examples of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke publicly against Nazism and Paul himself when he spoke to the Greeks at Mars Hill. This type of encounter is essential to engage the culture as discussed in Chapter 35, and it is not the same as being in communion with unbelievers and false religions.

The evangelical church and the end of the age

Because the term “evangelical” has such a broad usage and has become so inclusive, it has been rendered meaningless as an identifier of truth and has produced an evangelical winter. As a result there is occurring in American evangelicalism a fundamental realignment among evangelicals as the various players coalesce around either a mainstream secularism or return to evangelicalism’s roots found in New Testament Christianity. This realignment will divide the evangelical church whose two branches are symbolized by the ancient churches at Laodicea and Philadelphia.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians with regard to this division in which a great number of the once faithful will renounce, desert, or become traitors to their faith (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). The rebellion of many in the church is called the Great Apostasy. But Paul told us that this must come. Those that remain true to the faith should not be shaken in mind, distraught, or troubled. Even as the Great Apostasy spreads and engulfs many of the once faithful, there is also a corresponding general cultural decline caused by the abandonment of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built, the ascendance of humanistic and secularized influence over the institutions of American life, and the general decline of morality within Western culture. But the inevitability of the trials facing the church and the culture within which it resides does not release the church from Christ’s mandate to share the gospel until the end the age when He shall return.

Many Christians are praying for a national spiritual awakening similar to the one God conditionally promised Solomon. “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Notice that God required His people to turn from their wicked ways, not the culture at large. This promise was to Israel, not to America. But it is a biblical principle that, when adhered to, has been proven to dramatically change the course of cultures and mankind’s history for the better. It was proven in America with the birth of evangelicalism in the First Great Awakening during the early and mid-1700s as well as in two subsequent Great Awakenings. Whether or not America will receive a healing of its land we cannot say.

No person can predict the end of the age and Christ’s return, but the signs of the times speak loudly of His soon coming. For some decades America has been incessantly drawn toward the center of the spiraling vortex of world-wide wickedness during the last days as described by the Apostle Paul. Given the rapid ascendance of secularism and growing hostility to Christianity, America may already be at the brink of plunging into that vortex. As this occurs, the branch of the American evangelical church that embraces New Testament Christianity will become part of the suffering church which has been the symbol of a faithful Christian witness for two thousand years. But the suffering church’s consolation and hope lies in the words of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Introduction: Acts,” The Full Life Study Bible, King James Version, The New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 239.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p. 240.
[4] A. W. Tozer, “No Saviorhood without Lordship,” The Root of the Righteous,” (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1955, 2006), p. 95.
[5] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[6] Tozer, “No Saviorhood without Lordship,” The Root of the Righteous, pp. 96-97.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV,” culturewarrior.net, January 9, 2015. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/09/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-iv/
[8] Robert Lowry, “Nothing but the Blood,” Hymns of Glorious Praise, (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1969), p. 208.
[9] Peter F. Jensen, “A Vision for Preachers,” Doing Theology for the People of God, (Eds., Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 219.
[10] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[11] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part III,” culturewarrior.net, January 2, 2015. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2015/01/02/strange-fire-the-churchs-quest-for-cultural-relevance-part-iii/