You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

Jesus Christ (John 5:39-47)  

By Ravi Zacharias 

By William Lane Craig
This video lasts 5:39

 

By Matt Slick 

Christianity is a religion based upon the teachings and miracles of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ. The word “christ” means anointed one.  Christ is not Jesus’ last name.  Jesus is the anointed one from God the Father who came to this world, fulfilled the Old Testament laws and prophecies, died on the cross, and rose from the dead physically. He performed many miracles which were recorded in the Gospels by the eyewitnesses.  He is divine in nature as well as human.  Thus, He has two natures and is worthy of worship and prayer.

Christianity teaches that there is only one God in all existence, that God made the universe, the Earth, and created Adam and Eve. God created man in His image. This does not mean that God has a body of flesh and bones.  Image means the likeness of God’s character, rationality, etc.  Because we are made in the image of God, every person is worthy of respect and honor.  Furthermore, this means that we did not evolve through random processes from a single celled organism into rational, emotional beings.

God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden and gave them the freedom to choose between right and wrong. They chose to sin. Sin is doing that which is contrary to the nature and will of God.  For example, God cannot lie; therefore, lying is sin.  The sin of disobeying God that Adam and Eve committed resulted in them being expelled from the Garden of Eden as well as suffering the effect of death.

As a result of their sin, their children and all of us inherited a sinful nature.  In other words, our offspring are not perfect in nature — we don’t have to teach children to be selfish.  They know it naturally.  That which is sinful cannot produce that which is not sinful.

Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not three Gods), that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead physically, that all people are under the righteous judgment of God because all people have sinned against God.  It teaches that Jesus is the only way to be saved from the coming judgment of God and that salvation is received by faith in the work of Christ on the cross and not by anything that we can do to please God.

Where all other religions in the world teach that we must do some sort of good in cooperation with God in order to achieve the right to be in God’s presence, Christianity is the only religion that teaches salvation by grace.  This means that we are not made right before God by our efforts, sincerity, or works.  Instead, we are made right before God by faith in what Christ did on the cross.

Christianity further teaches that once a person is “born again” (becomes saved) that the Holy Spirit lives in that person and the person is changed:  “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come,” (2 Corinthians 5:17).  This means that God actually lives in the person and the Christian then experiences a true and living relationship with God.

Therefore, “What is Christianity?” is best answered by saying that it is a relationship with the true and living God through the person of Jesus Christ by whom we are forgiven of our sins and escape the righteous judgment of God.

Recommended books:

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
Know Why You Believe, by Paul Little

 

By Michael Gleghorn 

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that “apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like,” there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him “great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life.”{2} He concludes his letter by asking, “Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?”{3} The answer to this question is, “Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Click here for the full article and active footnotes.

 

By Peter Kreeft 

Asking questions about Heaven may seem like asking questions about Katmandu, Kuala Lumpur, or some other exotic place you are unlikely to see firsthand—an occasion for speculation. But writing about Heaven is not really like writing about faraway places with strange-sounding names, for writing about Heaven is really writing about God.

A creation reflects a Creator and the laws of a kingdom, the ideals of the King. So asking whether we will have sex in Heaven or whether our pets will be there is really asking what kind of God we serve and what his best intentions are for our eternity.

Philosopher Peter Kreeft agreed to write this chapter because Christianity Today still capitalized Heaven (which it usually doesn’t) “as if it were a real place like Boston” (which it is) “rather than a wispy abstraction like “wellness.” In this essay, Kreeft addresses (often whimsically) 35 frequently asked questions about Heaven (and here Christianity Today capitalizes Heaven).

In this brief chapter I would like to attempt the impossible: to answer the 35 most frequently asked questions about Heaven. Obviously, it would take more than an article, more than a lifetime, and more than human wisdom to answer any one of these questions adequately. But “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

More seriously, sometimes a taste can whet the appetite for more complete consumption later on, and perhaps these samples will at least suggest ways to think about the subject.

1. How do we know anything about Heaven, anyway?

If we had no “inside information,” we could only speculate. Fortunately, we have some solid data to build on: divine revelation. I think God wants us to use our reason and also our imagination (for why should we neglect any God-given faculty) to explore the treasure of tantalizing hints in Scripture. To be indifferent to it is to be like the unprofitable servant who hid his master’s talent in the ground.

In having this data, we are in a position very different from that of the unbeliever (or rather, the difference lies in our believing the data, for the whole human race has it; it is public). We are like the sighted compared to the blind, who can only speculate about things visible. We can do more than speculate about things invisible.

“What do you know about Heaven, anyway? Have you ever been there?” We can answer this challenge: “No, but I have a very good Friend who has. He came here and told us about it and showed it to us. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

2. Why won’t we be bored in Heaven?

I suspect this question subconsciously bothers most of us more than we like to admit. I can remember having something of a crisis of faith as a child: I thought I didn’t want to go to Heaven since the popular pictures of it seemed pretty boring to me.

Freud, who occasionally comes up with nuggets of wisdom sandwiched between mountains of nonsense, says that everyone needs two things to make life worth living: love and work. The two are really one, for love is a work and work is a love. Love is a work, for it is something you do, not something you just feel or fall into. And work must be a love, for if not, it is threatening and boring. What love-work will we do in Heaven, then?

We will complete the very love-works we are meant to do on Earth. There are only six things that never get boring on Earth, six things that never come to an end: knowing and loving yourself, your neighbor, and God. Since persons are subjects and not objects, they are not exhaustible; they are like magic cows that give fresh milk forever.

Click here for the full article.

 

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Apostle John (John 1:14) 

_____________________________________________________ 

There are two views concerning the date of John’s Gospel:

1) The traditional view places the writing of John around A.D. 85 or later. This view is supported by a statement from Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the other Gospel accounts. This would place his writings later in the first-century, considering the traditional view that the other Gospel writers wrote before A.D. 70. It is also argued that John’s theology appears more developed, giving suspicion for a later date.

2) Recently, interpreters have suggested an earlier date, somewhere around A.D. 50 but no later than A.D. 70. It is argued that this view does not contradict Clement’s statement. Furthermore, a more developed theology does not imply a later date. For example, the theology of Romans is very developed, nevertheless it is dated around A.D. 57. Lastly, attention is given to John 5:2 where John uses “is” rather than “was” concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This may suggest a time before 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Hat tip to Theopedia.com

 

By Larry Taunton

Traffic and the weather were terrible.  Worse, I was in a hurry.  Pulling my car into the service bay at a local dealership, I gave the keys to a young man who promptly put a card on the front dash reading “repair: roof leak” and drove off.   

“Can someone give me a ride?  I have a meeting in thirty minutes,” I inquired of another uniformed fellow. 

“Sure.  Speak to that guy over there.  He’s our shuttle driver.  He’ll take you wherever you need to go.” 

A man wearing jeans and a John Deere ball cap stood at the bay entrance.  With a broad gesture he pointed me to a van designated for such purposes.  Getting in, he asked where I was going and then drove us off in the unhurried manner that often characterizes older men. 

Up close, it was clear that he was well beyond retirement age.  I reasoned that this had not been his career, but served to occupy his time and supplement a pension. 

After telling a joke or two—the sort that men tell only in the company of other men—he turned the conversation to current events.  “What do you think of that story of the man who murdered his wife?  Don’t you think he deserves the death penalty?” 

“Yeah, sure,” I said, only half listening. My mind was already focused on other tasks. 

After a pensive silence he declared evenly “Many years ago someone murdered my daughter.”  The words were spoken casually, but they jarred me out of my conversational slumber. 

My mind was reeling.  What?  What do I say to that?  

It is natural in these moments to resort to trite, stock responses like, “I know how you feel” or “I’m sorry to hear that”—sincere, but otherwise useless replies.  Immediately, silently, I began to pray Matthew 10:20.  Lord, give me the words!   

“By God’s grace I have been given three fine, healthy boys,” I began.  “I hope to never know the pain that you have suffered.”  The thought of it ached. 

“Oh, well, that was a long time ago and I’ve dealt with that.”  He was convincing.  So much so, that I believed him and wondered at how calmly he spoke of it.  “She was about your age,” he added.  But then something like a cloud rolled over him and his profile darkened ominously leading me to withdraw my initial assessment.   

Through clenched teeth he continued, “But I’ll tell you this, if that (expletive) who murdered my daughter was standing in front of this van right now I would drive over him and feel not the slightest remorse.  I know I could kill him!  Sixty years ago today I was fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and I killed Germans who never did me—me personally—any harm.  So I know I could kill a man who murdered my daughter.” 

I wasn’t sure if he was conversing with me or simply working out a private thought, so I said nothing, opting for respectful silence instead of a banal quip. 

For a moment he sat lost in his own thoughts and then, just as suddenly as it had come upon him, the cloud dissipated and he brightened.  Changing the subject, for the remaining ten minutes or so of my ride he chatted about sports and the weather.  My mind, however, remained no less fixed upon his early remarks.  Give me the words, Lord, I prayed again. 

Arriving, he pulled the big van up to the curb to drop me off, his face showing no signs of its former—how does one describe it?—agony and rage.  Indeed, a grandfatherly smile hung naturally upon his face as he bid me a good day. 

I turned to him resolutely and said, “Sir, I am a Christian minister of sorts and, if you’d permit me, I’d like to pray for you.”  In apparent confusion, he nodded his consent and bowed his head with mine. 

“Father,” I began, “I do not know the depths of the anger and sorrow that this man has suffered, but you do. I ask you to heal his broken heart and to give him the grace to endure.  Let him know that you love him.  Amen.” 

Having finished, I looked up.  He sat gripping the steering wheel with both hands.  His body convulsed as tears poured down his face.  “Thank you, thank you,” he said sobbing. 

Not wishing to compound an already awkward moment—with men, such moments are always awkward—I prepared to get out.  Placing my hand on his shoulder I said, “God’s grace is sufficient even in circumstances like this.”  He didn’t move, but held fast to the steering wheel and wept.  It was like an exorcism had been performed where all the hatred and anguish that had tormented his soul fled before the light of God’s grace.   

As I got out he repeated the refrain “thank you” over and over again.  I gave a weak smile and then sprinted through the rain into the building that had been my objective. 

Gathering myself, I walked to a nearby window and looked out.  From my vantage point I could see that the van was still there.  After a lengthy interval, he released a hand from the steering wheel, put the Dodge in gear, and drove away until I could no longer see him through the downpour.

---

Shortly before this occurred, I had been studying John chapter 4 and the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.  Somewhat ancillary to the story (I am aware of no commentary that speaks of it) is a fact of some interest to me: the apparent inconsequential nature of this profoundly significant encounter.  Jesus was, after all, traveling from Judea to Galilee. Samaria was no more his ultimate objective than the dealership was mine.  It was merely a rest stop; a place in between two points of ministry.  Yet Jesus used it to reveal his divine identity to this woman in terms more explicit than any theretofore.  As a consequence, she and many in her village believed in him.  After reflecting on this, I prayed that God would help me to see the people “in between”—that is, the people between “ministry” points—that I might otherwise overlook.  I asked Him to use me in their lives.  It was only a short time later that he put me in a van with a gentleman with whom my contact seemed insignificant.  God had a plan for him that day.  That he used me to accomplish it is, really, the only insignificant part of the story.  He could have used anybody or, for that matter, no one at all.  But he wants to use us, imperfect creatures, to fulfill his perfect plan.   

Let us ask God to open our eyes to all of the hurting people sandwiched in between the “important” events that choke our calendars.  I think you’ll be surprised by the results. 

 

By Chuck Missler, Ph.D.

One of Christianity’s most controversial issues - and one of our most frequently asked questions - involves the concept of Eternal Security. There are good scholars on all sides of this issue, yet we felt it would be useful to explain our own views on this highly charged subject.We believe that the root problem stems from a lack of precision in our definitions. Earl Rademacher brings this to light when he declares that, “I have been saved; I am being saved; and, I will be saved.” He is simply highlighting the three tenses of “salvation.”

1. We have been saved: positionally from the penalty of sin (Ephesians 2:8, 9). This is often called justification salvation.
2. We are being saved: from the power of sin, operationally, by the Holy Spirit, moment by moment (Romans 6). This is usually called sanctification.
3. We shall be saved: from the presence of sin; after the resurrection, often called glorification, or “the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23).

Can a man (or a woman) lose his salvation? Yes! If it depends on him (or her).

The Arminian denies that the true child of God is eternally secure. The Calvinist (i.e., “Experimental Predestinarian”) insists that, if he does not persevere in holiness, he was never regenerate in the first place. It seems that 400 years of doctrinal disputes - with outstanding scholars on both sides of this continuing issue - appears to be the result of a failure to adequately distinguish between justification salvation and the possibility of several different kinds of inheritances or rewards.

There is an alternative view which lies between these two extremes. The Partaker, the metachoi, as a true child of God, is “obligated” to persevere (Paul’s word, Romans 8:12), but he might not. If he does not, he does not forfeit salvation but faces divine discipline in time and the loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). (We’ll take up some of these issues in subsequent articles.)

Click here for the full article.

 

Review by John Fernandez 

In The Barbarian Way, Erwin McManus explains that a vibrant Christian faith is not evidenced by a quiet, protected life, but rather by a life of risk living on the edge in a foreign land, complete with danger, trials and troubles. McManus points out that the contemporary church has become harmfully domesticated, and because of this it lacks appeal to the unsaved. Those who enjoyed John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart and Waking the Dead will love this book.

Here are a few quotes:

“The claim to believe is simply not enough. The call of Jesus is one to action.” p.5

“Perhaps the tragedy of our time is that such an overwhelming number of us who declare Jesus as Lord have become domesticated - or, if you will, civilized. We have lost the simplicity of our early faith. Beyond that, we have lost the passion and power of that raw, untamed, and primal faith.” p.12

“When you join the barbarian tribe, you begin to live your life with your eyes and heart wide open. When the spirit of God envelops your soul, your spirit comes alive, and everything changes for you. You are no longer the same.” p.69

About the Author

Erwin Raphael McManus is a native of El Salvador. His family immigrated to the United States when he was very young. McManus earned a Bachelors degree from the University of North Carolina and a Masters of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas. He currently pastors Mosaic Church in Los Angeles.