Thursday, April 28, 2011

If I were an animal, I would choose to be a worm...

Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I will help you, says the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.
The main point of this text is that the people of God should not be a fearful people. We should not be a people who are anxious or troubled or worried or fretful about things that threaten our life and happiness: economic adversity, hostile people, satanic opposition, guilt-laden consciences, deteriorating health, and death. The mark of God's people is not incapacitating fear, but rather contrite courageous confidence in God. That's the main point of Isaiah 41:14.
Then there are two subordinate points which clarify for us this experience of fearlessness. First, God's people are in the condition of a worm: "Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel." Second, the source of our fearlessness is the promise that God will help us: "Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I will help you, says the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel." In other words, freedom from fretting comes not because we are not in the condition of a worm but because God engages all his forces on behalf of worms who take refuge in him.

Satan's Schemes and the Gospel of Self-Esteem

These truths are very important today for three reasons: 1) There are as many temptations to fear today as there were in the 8th century BC. 2) The secular and religious culture in which we live tries to teach us all day long that we are not in the condition of a worm and that all the problems of our life come from thinking that we are. 3) There aren't many segments of the church today where the grace of God is causing tears of joy that the Holy One of Israel should choose to take up residence in sinners like us. Satan has master-minded a phenomenal victory in the American church. By teaching us through a thousand lectures and articles and books that we are too valuable to be called worms, he has made it impossible for us to sing "Amazing Grace" with truly amazed hearts. The more beautiful and valuable man is made to appear, the less amazing it is that God should love him and help him. The gospel of self-esteem is healing our wounds very lightly. The wings of self-worth that carry us briefly out of fear will quickly weary and drop us in despair some day. For, as John Newton said in his hymn, "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved." Where the glory of God's free and sovereign grace pales in the shadow of human self-esteem, there will one day be a great shudder of fear when the Holy One of Israel rouses himself to get glory over the nations in the vindication of his worm Jacob. So the Word of God to his people in Isaiah 41:14 is a remarkably relevant and necessary word for our day. "Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel. For I will help you."
Let's focus in turn on these three points: 1) God's people are in the condition of a worm. 2) Nevertheless, they should not be gripped by fear but enjoy great confidence in God. 3) For God, in his free grace toward sinners, will always help those who trust him.

Israel as a Worm

First, then, God's people are in the condition of a worm: "Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel!" What did God mean when he called his servant, his chosen one, his beloved, a worm? There are two other places in the Bible where this word refers to man. In Job 25:4–6 Bildad says to Job, "How can man be righteous before God? How can he who is born of woman be clean? Behold, even the moon is not bright and the stars not clean in his sight; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!" The least we can say from this passage is that one meaning the term "worm" has when applied to man is that he is unclean, unrighteous, unacceptable to God. The image is used probably because worms are dirty not only on the outside, but they are filled with dirt. The other passage is Psalm 22:6 where the psalmist cries out, "I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people." Here the focus is not on the condition of filth but on the way worms are treated: they are scorned by men and despised.
Now when we look at our own text (Isaiah 41:14), there is evidence that both these meanings are in view when God calls Israel a worm. On the one hand, Israel is presently being trodden down in captivity by his enemies. Israel is despised and scorned, but God is going to reverse that situation according to verses 15 and 16. He's going to make the worm a victorious threshing sledge (v. 15). On the other hand, if we ask why Israel is being treated like a worm in captivity, the answer is that Israel acted like a worm in uncleanness. Isaiah 59:1–8 says,
Your iniquities have made a separation between you and God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. No one enters suit justly, no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity. They hatch adders' eggs, they weave the spider's web; he who eats their eggs dies, and from one which is crushed a viper is hatched. Their webs will not serve as clothing; men will not cover themselves with what they make. Their works are works of iniquity, and deeds of violence are in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, desolation and destruction are in their highways. The way of peace they know not, and there is no justice in their paths; they have made their roads crooked, no one who goes in them knows peace.
The reason God gave Israel over to captivity to be treated like a worm was because Israel was a worm in his heart. When Isaiah saw the Holy One of Israel, he said (6:5), "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." The heart of Israel was corrupt to the core with pride and arrogance and self-exaltation. The most religious people on earth were an abomination to God because of their haughtiness. Isaiah warns the people in 2:11–17,
The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the pride of men shall be humbled; and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up and high; against all the cedars of Lebanon lofty and lifted up; against all the oaks of Bashan, against all the high mountains, and against all the lofty hills; against every high tower, and against every fortified wall, against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft. And the haughtiness of men shall be humbled, and the pride of men shall be brought low; and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.
Once you begin to see that God is God, that it is he that made us, that he alone is to be honored and lifted up in the world, that the magnificence of his power is ten million times greater than spaceship Columbia, that his right and authority over all things is absolute—once you begin to see that God is God, then it becomes very hard to overstate the wickedness of the human heart in which there is one peep of rebellion against the Almighty. It is not an exaggeration when God calls Israel a worm. On the contrary, God must settle for inadequate words to describe the enormity of Israel's sin.

All Are Worms Before God

Now what does that have to do with us? The first thing to stress is that Israel is a lesson book for all the nations. Paul said in Romans 3:19 that the law speaks to those under the law, "so that every mouth might be stopped, and the whole world might be held accountable before God." God has illustrated clearly in the case of Israel what is true with all of us. None is righteous, no not one (Romans 3:10). All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (3:23). Everyone is without excuse because God has revealed to all that he alone is to be thanked and glorified (1:20f.). Yet none of us offers God the gratitude and admiration and affection and obedience of which he is worthy. The insult to God of our half-hearted, lukewarm, fickle allegiance is so great when measured against what an infinitely wise and powerful and just and merciful God deserves, that there only remains a "fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire" (Hebrews 10:27). Brothers and sisters, if we felt a tiny fraction of how filthy and loathsome our sinful hearts are to the Holy One of Israel, we could not begin to feel indignant when we are called a worm.
What, then, shall we say about our own day and the dominance of the gospel of self-esteem—the teaching that traces our problems back to the fundamental cause that we don't regard ourselves highly enough? What can you say to the American church where by and large the ultimate sin is no longer failure to honor God but the failure to esteem oneself; where self-abasement not God-abasement is the ultimate evil; and the cry of deliverance from this evil is not, "O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me?" but rather, "O worthy man that I am, would that I could only see it better"? What shall we say?
The first thing I would say is this: Jacob is a worm. And until God has completed the miraculous work of our sanctification and made us perfect, we will still have in us enough of our old corruption to keep us poor in spirit and walking in all lowliness. I do not dispute that Christ has paid for our redemption and that the Holy Spirit has entered our lives and begun to transform us. But what needs to be emphasized is that to take this unimaginable divine condescension, this utterly free and unmerited grace by which God exalts his all-sufficiency, and to turn it into a story whose theme is my worthiness is a travesty of biblical revelation. What's more, it is not a contradiction of the atonement when I, a child of God, feel like a rotten worm for sinning against the God who died for me. I ask you, what should I think about myself when I sin? How should I regard my heart when it does not love mercy, is not aflame with righteousness, feels no compassion for the lost, takes no delight in the Word, recoils from prayer, harbors lustful thoughts, cherishes the praise of men? What adjectives shall I use to describe this heart?
You may say to me: Call it forgiven. And I answer: I do. O, I do. I do. But listen, forgiveness will not cause a ripple in the pool of my emotions unless I smell the stench of corruption in my heart. What is missing in the gospel of self-esteem is a vivid and horrid portrayal of the corruption remaining even in the Christian heart. C.S. Lewis said, "When a man is getting better, he understands more clearly the evil that is still in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less." And John Murray wrote, "As long as sin remains there must be consciousness of it, and thus conviction of our own sinfulness will contain self-abhorrence, confession and the plea of forgiveness and cleansing." I think these men are absolutely right. And therefore the only way that I know how to account for the ease with which Christians accept the summons to self-esteem is that their sin has ceased to be hideous and revolting in the eyes of their hearts. And sin has ceased to be hideous because God is no longer God. He is not the free, all-glorious, sovereign Judge of history whose eyes are too pure to look on evil. Instead he is a vague, sentimental granddaddy who somehow functions to help us find self-worth. When God is dethroned as the Holy One of Israel, the repugnance we once felt at pride is replaced by the repugnance we now feel at being called a worm. But O that God might be God at Bethlehem!

Fear Not

Does this mean that God aims for us to cower before him and be incapacitated by guilt and depression and fear? No. (And this is the second point from our text.) "Fear not, you worm Jacob!" It does mean that we will be broken and contrite in spirit. And this brokenness will permeate and humble all that we do. But it is not the enemy of joy and courage. Jonathan Edwards, in one of my favorite portions, wrote,
All gracious affections that are a sweet odor to Christ, and that fill the soul of a Christian with a heavenly sweetness and fragrancy, are broken-hearted affections. A truly Christian love, either to God or men, is an humble broken-hearted love. The desires of the saints, however earnest, are humble desires: their hope is an humble hope; and their joy, even when it is unspeakable and full of glory, is an humble, brokenhearted joy, and leaves the Christian more poor in spirit, and more like a little child, and more disposed to an universal lowliness of behavior.
To know that there is corruption left in our hearts and that our feeble affections dishonor the God who loved us does not mean we lie still, wallowing in the mud of guilt. It means we flee to Christ and cling to the cross and take refuge like little chicks under the wings of divine mercy. And there we gain courage to love, not because we regard ourselves highly, but because we regard grace as our all-sufficient supply. The word to worms who will admit their corruption, humble themselves, and take refuge in Jesus is, "Fear not, you worm Jacob."
And the final point of the text gives the reason why, even though we are a worm, we need not fear: "I will help you, says the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel." The good news of the Bible is not that we are not worms, but that God helps worms who trust him. Yes, he is working to take away our corruption. But how far has any of us come? The greatest thing about being a Christian pastor is that what I have to offer people is not steps to a positive self-image, but the gracious help of the Holy One of Israel.
The saddest thing of all about the gospel of self-esteem is how small and insipid it makes everything. It takes gospel truths that for centuries have stunned the saints and made them speechless with awe, and reduces them to psychological devices in the service of our puny self-image. I know that the Christians who promote the gospel of self-esteem say the grace of God is the foundation stone. But I ask, is it the pinnacle as well? Is it exalted and lifted up and magnified? Does the gospel of self-esteem leave you exulting and glorifying in the unspeakable riches of God's sovereign grace to sinners like us? Or does it leave you exulting in the discovery that you are really somebody?
My prayer for Bethlehem and my goal in preaching is that we might be a people who humbly and broken-heartedly acknowledge the worm-like corruption remaining in our hearts; but who trust with all our heart that in his grace God is for us because Jesus died for our sins; and who, therefore, are fearless and courageous in the proclamation and demonstration of God's grace in the world.

- Desiring God (John Piper)

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Sermon Notes 4/24/2011

Resurrection Day
April 24, 2011
Scripture Reading: Hebrews 9:1-28
Text: Leviticus 16
Title: Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)

Today, “Easter” is not what we celebrate. Today we celebrate the miraculous resurrection of our Lord, which is rooted in our understanding of His sacrificial death.
Leviticus 16 was written nearly 1400 years before Jesus’ birth.
Yom Kippur is also known as the Day of Atonement (meaning of Yom Kippur), which is the climax of the Old Testament sacrificial system and is the most solemn day on the Jewish calendar. It was a day of great bloodshed and a day on which the gravity of humanity’s sin could be seen visibly. The purpose of this day is stated at the conclusion of Leviticus 16, “And this shall be a statue forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16, 19, 34).
Leviticus 16:1-5 (time and way in vv. 2-3)
1)      We are to approach God in His appointed TIME and in His prescribed WAY
a)      Lev. 16:1 is referencing Leviticus 10:1-2
b)      Lev. 16:2-3a - You approach the LORD at the specific time and in the specific way He requires, not casually or as you wish.
c)       Lev. 16:4 - For all other occasions, the priest was only required to bathe his hands and feet. Also, Exodus 28 and Leviticus 8 show that Leviticus 16 required specific and very unique garments to be worn on behalf of the priest

Leviticus 16:6-28

2)      The specific instructions for sacrifice and the abundance of bloodshed were to teach Israel that sin (Lev. 16:19) makes life COMPLICATED, always has great COSTS, and brings great CONDEMNATION to the sinner.
3)       Sin is a PERSONAL offense against God and for God to be a good God, He must take sin PERSONALLY.
a)      Leviticus 16:6 – As Leviticus 16:16, 19, 34 reiterate, the purpose for this Day, was “atonement” (Heb. Kafeir) – to make reconciliation, to make payment
b)      Leviticus 16:7
·         “LORD” personal name for God signifies the personal nature of the sin and sacrifice
c)       Leviticus 16:8-10 The Two Goats
·         Leviticus 16:8, 10 “Azazel” is the combination of two Hebrew words:
Az – goat
Azel – go away
We have chosen to translate this word into English as scapegoat or Escape Goat
·         “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through His own blood” (Hebrews 13:11-12).
d)      Leviticus 16:12 – Aaron was to go inside the veil (common area; Holy place; Holy of Holies). The veil represented the unapproachability of God due to our sinfulness and His holiness (Hebrews 9:8).
·         “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51a).
e)      Leviticus 16:13-15 - Atonement
·         The mercy seat was a slab of pure gold that served as a lid for the ark. The ark contained the two stone tablets of the law (Deuteronomy 10:1-5). We know the stories of the Israelites and Uzzah who looked inside the ark of the Lord when there was no lid (1 Samuel 6; 2 Samuel 6).
·         Blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat (propitiation). The Word in the New Testament for “mercy seat” is “propitiation.” “For there is no distinction: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (mercy seat) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:22b-26) – parenthesis after “propitiation” is my clarification.
f)       Leviticus 16:16-19 – Restate points 2-3 above
g)      Leviticus 16:20-22 brings us to point of Expiation
4) The atonement was not made without the second goat. If you are not moving progressively and consistently away from the PRACTICE of SIN, you have not been atoned for.
·         “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, IN ORDER THAT, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him IN ORDER THAT the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin” (Romans 6:1-6).
·         Turn and Read Luke 24:1-5 – Why do you seek the living among the dead?
h)      Further instructions in Leviticus 16:23-28

Leviticus 16:29-34

5)       The two goats of atonement and expiation are appropriated by a moment by moment HUMBLE DEPENDENCE on the work and power of Christ that always bears the fruit of freedom from guilt and sin.
a)      Leviticus 16:29-31
·         “You shall afflict yourselves.” “Afflict” is translated from the Hebrew word “anah” meaning: to be occupied, be busied with to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, and be bowed down.
Today is about Christ. The Scripture is about Christ. Jesus is the Temple, High Priest, Blood, Mercy Seat, Ten Commandments, Bull, Linen Garments, both goats – and He came out. Today is about “it is finished.”
Transition into the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:26-28
Notice that in the midst of the disciples celebrating this time with their LORD, those far from Him are plotting to betray Him (Matthew 26:1-5); those who seem to be closest to Him are plotting to betray Him (Matthew 26:14-16).

Friday, April 22, 2011

Evidence for the Resurrection in a Nutshell

Just as we test the historicity of any event, not through emotional conviction, but with historical evidence, I would like to devote some time to laying out a brief historical case for the Resurrection of Christ, the central issue of the Christian faith. If Christ rose from the grave, it is all true and we just have to work out the details. If Christ did not raise from the grave, Christians are to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:13-19).
Here is what we need:
1. Internal Evidence: Evidence coming from within the primary witness documents.
In this case, the primary witness documents are the twenty-seven works that make up the corpus that Christianity has traditionally called the New Testament. These works stand or fall individually from an historical standpoint. Therefore, they provide twenty-seven sources of documentation, not one.
2. External Evidence: Collaborative evidence coming from outside the primary witness documents.
Some may include the non-Gospel works of the New Testament in this category. However, since most of the works suppose to come from eye-witnesses of the event in question, it is proper to keep them primary.
Internal Evidence:
  • Honesty
  • Irrelevant Details
  • Harmony
  • Public Extraordinary Claims
  • Lack of Motivation for Fabrication
Honesty:
A hallmark of embellishments and fabrications is that they display people in a positive light, normally only bringing to light their successes and triumphs. True history, on the other hand, will contain accounts that might cause some embarrassment.
The entire Bible records both successes and failures of the heroes. I have always been impressed by this. It never paints the glorious picture that you would expect from legendary material, but shows them in all their worst moments. The Israelites whined, David murdered, Peter denied, the apostles abandoned Christ in fear, Moses became angry, Jacob deceived, Noah got drunk, Adam and Eve disobeyed, Paul persecuted, Solomon worshiped idols, Abraham was a bigamist, Lot committed incest, John the Baptist doubted, Abraham doubted, Sarah doubted, Nicodemus doubted, Thomas doubted, Jonah ran, Samson self-served, and John, at the very end of the story, when he should have had it all figured out, worshiped an angel (Rev 22:8). I love it!
And these are the Jews who wrote the Bible!
In addition, the most faithful are seen as suffering the most (Joseph, Job, and Lazarus), while the wicked are seen as prospering (the rich man). In the case of the Gospels, the disciples who recorded it claimed to have abandoned Christ and did not believe in His resurrection when told. Even after the resurrection, they still present themselves as completely ignorant of God’s plan (Acts 1:6-7). Women are the first to witness the resurrection which has an element of self-incrimination since a woman’s testimony was not worth anything in the first century. If someone were making this up, why include such an incriminating detail? (I am glad they did—what an Easter message this is for us today!)
(The primary departure from this, although in the OT, is 1 and 2 Chronicles which does hide some of King David’s failures. But, even then, the accounts are not promising for Israel as a whole).
One last thing that I think belongs in this category: None of the Gospel writers give their names. In other words, the reason why we believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (two disciples and two colleagues of the disciples) wrote the Gospels is due to early tradition. Even John simply refers to himself as “the one whom Jesus loved.” Initial reaction is one of skepticism (even though the traditions are very early). Why didn’t they include their names? However, from another historical perspective, this is a significant mark of genuineness. The MO of the day was to write pseudopigrapha. Pseudopigrapha are writings that seek to gain credibility by falsely attributing their work to another of more prominent stature. It would be like me writing a book and saying it was by Chuck Swindoll in order for it to sell more copies. Pseudopigrapha normally came late (hundreds of years) after the death of the supposed author. However, since the Gospel writers did not include their name, it demonstrates that they were not following this model of fabrication. This actually adds another mark of historical credibility. Why would they leave their names out if it was a fabrication? If these works were not really by them, they would have no hope of acceptance.
Irrelevant Details:
The Gospel writers (especially John) include many elements to their story that are really irrelevant to the big picture. Normally, when someone is making up a story, they include only the details that contribute to the fabrication. Irrelevant details are a mark of genuineness in all situations.
Notice this small segment of the Gospel of John 20:1-8 (adapted from Gregory Boyd):
“Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one who Jesus loved (John’s modest way of referring to himself—another mark of genuineness) and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they have taken him!” (note her self-incriminating lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple out ran Peter and reached the tomb first (who cares who won the race? a completely irrelevant detail). He bent over (irrelevant, but the tomb entrance was low—a detail which is historically accurate of wealthy people of the time—the kind we know Jesus was buried in) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb (Peter’s boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head (irrelevant and unexpected detail—what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen (somewhat irrelevant and unusual. Jesus folded one part of his wrapping before he left!). Finally the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about what exact order they went in?)
The best example I can think of is the polar bear. What? Okay, only those of you who watched the television series Lost will get this. In the first season, there was a polar bear in the show. We all wondered why it was there on the island. How did it get there? What is the meaning of the polar bear? How is it going to fit into the big picture of the story? These are all legitimate questions that many of us sat on the edge of our seat for five seasons waiting to get the answers to. However, the polar bear (along with so many other incidentals) were never explained. There was a great outcry because there were so many questions left unanswered. So many irrelevant details that remained irrelevant. The reason why the outcry was legitimate was because in fictional (or fabricated) stories, details are never irrelevant. They are written into the script and have a purpose that supports the whole of the fictional story. However, if the show Lost were not fictional but historical, the irrelevant details would be expected. True history does not have to work itself out into a paradigm of the story arch. When irrelevant details are present, while not conclusive, it does speak to the historicity of the story.
Harmony:
The four Gospel writers claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ. The same is the case for most of the other writers of the NT. The four Gospel writers all write of the same event from differing perspectives. Although they differ in details, they are completely harmonious to the main events surrounding the resurrection, and all claim that it is an historical event.
Many people are disturbed by the seeming disharmony among the Gospels since the Gospel writers do not include all the same details. However, this is actually a mark of historicity since if they all said exactly the same thing, it would be a sign that they made it up and collaborated together. However, the Gospel writers contain just enough disharmony to give it a mark of genuine historicity.
Public Extraordinary Claims:
The Bible records that the resurrection of Christ happened and gives the time, place, people involved, and it names many of the witnesses. In other words, the extraordinary claims were not done in secret as would be the case if it were fabricated. Look to all the ancient myths and you will see how obscure the mythology has to be in order to claim historicity. Why? Because if you give too many details of times, people, and places it can be easily disproven. If it was a fabrication, the author should have said only one person knew about it. He should have said it happened in a cave or a place no one has ever heard of. We have those type of stories that start religions.
I made this graphic last month that caused quite a bit of a stir. It is appropriate to post it here:



As Paul says to King Agrippa, “For the king knows about these matters [concerning the resurrection of Christ], and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. (Act 26:26)
Lack of Motive for Fabrication:
There is no reasonable explanation as to why the Apostles (or anyone for that matter) would have made up such a story. They had no popularity, power, or riches to gain from it if it was a lie. They were in constant persecution because of their confession, and finally, most met a terrible death, sealing their testimony in blood.
Beyond this, it was culturally unacceptable at all levels to have a crucified and resurrected Messiah. The Jews certainly were not expecting their Messiah to be crucified. The Greek world would have nothing but disdain for the idea of a bodily resurrection since, from their perspective, the material body was something from which we desire to escape. Therefore, for this idea to arise as a fabrication at this time in history would have been about the most counterproductive story anyone could have made up!
It could not have been an illusion, for illusions do not happen in mass over time. It could not have been a case of mistaken identity (i.e., they merely thought they saw Christ), since it is impossible to explain how this many witnesses could be mistaken about seeing someone dead and buried, and then seeing the same person alive three days later. It could not be that Christ did not really die, since the Romans were expert executioners, and many people helped in the burial process, wrapping Christ in burial cloths as was their custom. It is very unlikely that it could not have been made up since all the objectors (and there were plenty of them) had to do was to produce a body.
External Evidence
While the internal evidence looks to the evidence coming from within the primary witness documents, the external evidence seeks to find collaborative evidence coming from outside the primary witness documents.
For the resurrection of Christ, I submit this line of external evidence:
  • Preservation of the Documents
  • Archeology
  • Extra-biblical Attestation
  • Survival in a Hostile Environment
Preservation of the Documents:
This has to do with the manuscript evidence of the New Testament, the primary source documents concerning the resurrection. While we don’t have any of the originals in our possession (nor should we expect to), the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is very strong. According to top text critic Daniel Wallace, “We have an embarrassment of riches.” Not only do we have hundreds of manuscripts that date before the fifth century (some into the second and third), we also have many quotations from the early church fathers that alone could be used to reconstruct most of the New Testament. All of this tells us that the accounts that we read are essentially the same as the accounts that were originally given. While there are some differences among the manuscripts, even Bart Erhman, former Fundamentalist, text critic, and critic of Christianity, says that no major doctrine is effected by the differences and that most are very insignificant.
In addition, and very significantly, the manuscript evidence tells us that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection were all written within a generation of the events which they record, giving evidence for their claims of eye-witness testimony. Therefore, there is not enough time for legendary material to arise.
Archeology:
The witness of archeology has continually confirmed the scriptural data. When there has been doubt in the past about the Gospel accounts (e.g., date of the Gospel of John, etc.), later archaeological and historical finds seem to always confirm the Scriptures to be historically accurate.
Jewish Archaeologist Nelson Glueck says this about the Bible: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” (Nelson Glueck Rivers in the Desert; History of Negev [Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969], 31).
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. As an atheist, he set out to dis-prove the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. However, after researching the writings of Luke (Luke-Acts), he changed his mind. He became a firm defender of Christianity and the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts. About Luke he wrote: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.”
As well, it cannot be overlooked that Christ’s remains were never found. This is an issue of archeology. Combined with the understanding that Christianity arose very early under the claim of Christ’s resurrection and that there were many detractors, the archaeological evidence of the historically empty tomb is important. Those who denied the resurrection in the first century could not produce a body (much less can those who deny it today). This is a necessary precondition to collaborate the evidence of such a belief.
Extra-Biblical Attestation:
Over 39 extra-biblical sources attest to more than 100 facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. Besides all of the early Apostolic Fathers (whose witness cannot be dismissed simply because they believed that Christ was the Messiah) are the Jewish and Roman historians.
There are numerous first and second-century extra-biblical writings that witness to the fact that Christians believed that Christ did extraordinary things, died on a cross, and rose from the grave: Josephus, Clement, Papias, Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria.
In reality though, “extra-biblical attestation” is not really the best word for this line of evidence. Really, it should be “collaborative attestation” since it is not attestation that is outside the Bible or even the New Testament that we are looking for, but collaborative evidence outside the respective document that is under historical investigation. Therefore, the New Testament itself provides more than enough collaborative support for the events of the resurrection since each of the twenty-seven documents must be seen as pieces of individual evidence that stand on their own. There is no reason, at this point, as I said at the beginning, to put them together in a single corpus called “The New Testament” and say that the corpus must find its own collaborative support. Mark supports Luke. John supports Matthew. Paul supports Acts. The point is that every New Testament book individually provides very strong collaborative evidence for the historicity of the resurrection.
As a side note, I am often humored by those who say that Christians must produce “secular” support for the resurrection, defining “secular” as those who are not believers. It is as if those who believed in the resurrection have less credit than those who did not believe in it. It would be like saying that in order for me to believe in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I have to have evidence from those who do not believe that he was assassinated and that those who do not believe it are more credible than those who do. However, as in the case of the resurrection, if it truly happened, then we would expect the closest people to the evidence to believe it rather than not believe it. Therefore, to deem “secular” or “skeptical” support as necessary and more trustworthy evidences is a bias that is too bent to come to objective conclusions.
Survival in a Hostile Environment:
The very fact that Christianity could have survived with such public and extraordinary truth claims is offered as a line of external evidence. That Christianity had its hostile objectors is supported by all the evidence, internal and external. The objectors of Christianity had every opportunity to expose the fabrication of the resurrection if it were truly a fabrication. The fact that those who were hostile to Christianity did not put forth a substantial or unified case against it adds to its historicity.
According to Gregory Boyd,
“Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus—if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century saw Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do—if the ‘cult’ had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all. In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded. . . . Even those who remained opposed to Christianity did not deny that Jesus did miracles, and did not deny that His tomb was empty.” (Gregory Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic [Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries, 2003], 85-86).
Conclusion
Considering the internal and external arguments for the resurrection of Christ, I don’t ask anyone to look to one of these lines of evidence alone, but to consider the cumulative case. It is very impressive. If the resurrection indeed occurred, it would be hard to expect more evidence. In fact, what we would expect is exactly what we have.
Of course, alternatives to each one of these could be and have been offered. Alternatives to many well established historical events have been offered as well, including the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, and the death of Elvis. However, in most cases the alternatives go against the obvious. In the end, all other alternatives for the resurrection, while possible, are completely improbable and take a greater leap of faith than believing that Christ rose from the grave. The simplest explanation is always the best. The simplest explanation to the data here is that Christ did rise from the grave. Those who deny the resurrection do so not on the basis of the evidence, but because they have other presuppositions that won’t allow them to believe. The historical evidence is simply too strong.
I believe that any objective historian must look to the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and concluded that he is indeed risen.
Happy Easter.

- by Michael C. Patton

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The Allurement of Christ

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15).

Thomas Chalmers' sermon "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection" has proven to be extremely helpful to Christians who are eager to overcome sinful desires. In it, Chalmers suggests that all men live in a state of constant desire. It is impossible not to desire something for even a single second. In our fallen condition, the object of our hearts' desires will always be the sinful allurements of the world. 
We may come to know the vanity of these things, but we will inevitably turn from one empty desire to another until a power outside of us enables us to desire God as the object of supreme value.

Chalmers illustrates this with the picture of a boy running after the childish desire of pleasure until he grows discontented. He turns from pleasure to run after the more sophisticated desire for money. Having grown disillusioned with the emptiness of riches, he sets his heart on the quest for power. In this endless transition from one desire to another, the heart is empty.

Nevertheless, the boy -- now a man -- is still left with desire. He cannot simply stop desiring.

Chalmers then writes, "The love of the world cannot be expunged by a mere demonstration of the world's worthlessness. But may it not be supplanted by that which is more worthy than itself?"

Proverbs 7 is one of the ten father-to-son talks found in the book. A father counsels his son with respect to the danger of going after the adulterous woman. Interpreters have sometimes understood this to be a warning against adultery and sometimes as a warning against evil in general. The latter interpretation is supported by the fact, that in Proverbs 8, wisdom is personified as a woman who calls out to young men, in contrast with the adulterous woman of Proverbs 7. 
Whether the adulterous woman of Proverbs 7 is understood to be a specific sin or evil in general makes little difference; the same warning is being sounded. There is something attractive about sin, but in the end it is deadly. One of the striking features of this talk is that in counseling his son about the dangers of the adulterous woman, the father goes to great lengths to describe the attraction of sin. 

We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that sin is not attractive. We can speak about it as if it had no power to draw our hearts after it. But the testimony of Scripture is that there is a very real pleasure to sin, though it is a passing pleasure. If sin were not pleasurable, we would not run after it.

The father warns his son of the subtle way in which the woman allures the young man. He walks his son through the steps by which she seeks to draw him into her bed of sin. She dresses to attract, makes herself accessible, allures with a kiss, and even presents herself as religious (vv. 9-14). The allurement is summed up when the finally says, "I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love till morning; let us delight ourselves with love" (vv. 17-18).

While there is a very real attraction, the consequences are devastating. The father explains that the young man "does not know that it will cost him his life" (v. 23). He exhorts his sons to listen to him. He encourages them to turn away from their paths. He finally reminds them that many strong men have been slain by her; that her house is going down to the chambers of death (v. 27). But is this alone enough to keep them from her?

It is likely that King Solomon wrote Proverbs 7. It may have been something his father, King David, taught him when he was a boy. sadly, both David and Solomon fell into adulterous relationships. But there is a significant connection between the language of Proverbs 7:17 and the language of Psalms 45. Psalm 45 is a messianic psalm of David. It is a meditation on the glory and beauty of Jesus. 

Hebrews 1:8-9 explicitly links Psalm 45 to Christ. At the height of the meditation, the psalmist writes, "All Your garments are scented with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon." This is the exact language used in Proverbs 7:17 to highlight the allurement of the adulterous woman. Jesus Christ allures His people with beauty. He is the only One who can draw our hearts away from sin. 

We avoid the dangerous pleasures of this world by turning to Jesus. When we are tempted to sin, we must remember that there is another who is altogether lovely. When we have experienced Him, we will find that we have experienced the expulsive power of a new affection.

by Nicholas Batzig




Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Why the Easter Bunny?

How in the world did the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, the most sacred and central event in Christianity, come to be represented by a fluffy bunny who mysteriously has colored eggs and gives out cheap candy to kids?
The Easter Bunny is a commercialized cultural commonplace around the world (though it may be losing ground to the Easter Bilby in Australia), yet for all its familiarity, the Easter Bunny's true origins are a mystery.


Eggs and Bunnies

Eggs and rabbits have been used as traditional symbols of springtime fertility and rebirth by various cultures throughout history. Eggs symbolize new life about to emerge, while hares and rabbits are conspicuous in the spring because they breed... like rabbits. The hare's association with Easter may be a holdover from the ancient pagan spring festivals of Europe. According to Bede, an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon church historian, the British pagans used to celebrate a spring feast in honor of the goddess Eostre, who was represented by the hare.

Eostre and the Hare

When Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) sent missionaries to the British Isles, he instructed them to adapt the existing religious places and festivals for Christian use. He wrote, "Since the people are accustomed, when they assemble for sacrifice, to kill many oxen in sacrifice to the devils, it seems reasonable to appoint a festival for the people by way of exchange. The people must learn to slay their cattle not in honor of the devil, but in honor of God and for their own food…" Because the celebration of the Resurrection replaced the old spring feast of Eostre, the Christian holiday came to be called Easter, and Eostre's pet animal the hare apparently came along for the ride.

Osterhase

The first known mention of the actual Easter Bunny comes from Germany in the 1600s, where the cute little guy was known as the Osterhase, or "Oschter Haws." German immigrants came to America with a tradition in which the kids would build nests around the house out of hats and bonnets, and if they had been good children, Osterhase would leave brightly-colored eggs in the nests. The tradition grew and spread over time, and eventually Osterhase turned into the Easter Bunny and began giving out chocolate and candy as well as eggs.

The Resurrection

Easter is still celebrated as a major holiday all around the globe, but the truth of Jesus' gory crucifixion and glorious resurrection is often obscured by the garish cartoon bunny in the stores and the gaudy displays of springtime fashion among the religious. Traditions of cute bunnies, marshmallowy creatures, colored eggs, and little girls in pink dresses are harmless enough, but at the same time we must not let anything obstruct our view of the earth-shattering reality represented by Easter. There's nothing cute or cuddly about the fact that we killed God. When we were his enemies, he came to us, suffered in our place through the horror that was Good Friday, and rose from his grave on Easter Sunday so that we will one day rise from ours. The curse is broken, and we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus because we know we will one day experience it (1 Cor. 15:20-23). Let's be joyful, let's never shrink from speaking about Jesus' death and resurrection, and let's never trivialize it.

Sermon Notes 4/17/2011

Orange Park Bible Church
(15) Genesis 2:25-3:7
“The Fall of Man”
Introduction:
We now find ourselves at what John MacArthur, A.W. Pink, and R.C. Sproul Jr. call the most important chapter in the Bible. “Moses unfolds more in that chapter than all mankind would have been capable of finding out of themselves though they had studied to all eternity” (George Whitefield).
An Overview of Genesis
Who was the author of Genesis? Moses (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46; Joshua 1:7-8; 2 Chronicles 25:4, 35:12; Ezra 3:2, 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; etc.).
Who was the original audience of Genesis? Although it is arguable that different sections of Genesis were written at different times (by Moses), the primary audience of Genesis were the Israelites as they were about to enter the Promised Land:
Evidence suggests that Genesis was written after Israel received God’s Laws at Sinai, for specific Sinaitic laws have made their way into Genesis. For example, Israel’s week of six days of work and one day of rest are reflected in the creation account. Further, Noah distinguishes between clean and unclean animals, works on a seven-day cycle and presumably keeps the Sabbath. Later the LORD says to Isaac that ‘Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws’ (Genesis 26:5). These are indications that Genesis was written to Israel AFTER God gave His law at Sinai (hundreds of years after the events recorded in Genesis). It becomes clear as one reads through the second half of the Pentateuch that it was not written primarily to the generation that came out of Egypt. Its readership was specifically the generation of Israelites that was about to go into the Promised Land.
Try to imagine: Before Genesis, the Israelites had no clue where they came from…
Accordingly, we should probably see the original addressees of the book of Genesis as Israel in Moab, soon to enter the land of Canaan. Israel had tried to enter the land earlier but failed miserably because of their great fear: ‘Our kindred (the spies) have made our hearts melt by reporting, ‘The people are stronger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified up to heaven!’” (Deuteronomy 1:28). God punished their lack of faith with a forty-year desert journey marked with graves: everyone in that generation died in the desert, except Moses, Caleb, and Joshua. Now Israel still fears to enter the land, as we see in Joshua 1 with its repeated command, ‘Be strong and Courageous’ (Joshua 1:6-7, 9).
Also, the use of the term “LORD” (Yahweh) shows Moses is writing to Israel.
(Italics are to be cited as “Preaching Christ from Genesis” by Sidney Greuidanus)
·         Before entering Canaan, Israel had to understand who they were, how they originated, and what purpose they were to serve as the covenant people of Yahweh.
·         The two main aims of Genesis are to help Israel  “back then” and to help the Church by helping them to see Christ “now.”
Genesis is divided into two distinct parts:
·         Primeval History (Genesis 1:1-11:26)
·         Patriarchal History (Genesis 11:27-50:26)
·         God gives milestones throughout the book by beginning Ten Distinct Sections with “these are the generations of; these are the descendants of). Genesis 1:1-2:3 was the preface. The first of ten sections formally begins in 2:4.
Moses’ aim was to show the Israelites how they became a people and how they got to Egypt. This is precisely why the story of Abraham and Joseph demand so much attention in Genesis.
Covenant is made with Adam, Noah, and Abraham and is renewed with Isaac, Jacob, and all of Israel.
At the end of the “fall,” God promises a seed. Abel is killed (4:8); Sarai is barren (11:30); Rebekah is barren (25:12); Rachel is barren (29:31); Jacob and his family almost starve in Canaan (42:2). The first born Adam, Cain, Abel, Ishmael, and Esau all fail to keep covenant. The story of Genesis is about God’s plan of redemption as seen through Seth, to Noah, to Abram, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Joseph.
Israel is reading this book while suffering greatly and responding sinfully. Why is life so hard? Why all the suffering and pain? Why do we all die? Moses’ goal was to give hope and instruction to suffering Israel.
THE MESSAGE OF GENESIS: GOD RESPONDS TO HUMAN REBELLION WITH JUDGMENT AND GRACE. GOD’S RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT IS GREATLY TEMPERED BY HIS MARVELOUS GRACE.
Paul tells us that we will be outwitted by Satan if we are ignorant of his strategies (II Corinthians 2:11).
1)      The temptation at the tree should signify what God privileged them to do rather than what he prohibited them from doing:
Read Genesis 1:26-28
·         God’s probationary commandment allowed man to acknowledge that his own kingship was that of a vice-regent or steward.
·         “Good and evil may at times be used as legal terms used in pronouncing judgments (Isaiah 5:20, 23; Malachi 2:17). The reference is precisely to a king engaged in rendering judicial decisions (2 Samuel 14:17; I Kings 3:9, 28). Here man as priestly guardian of the sanctuary would be called upon to enforce the demands of God’s exclusive holiness against the unholy intruder. This is what it means to have dominion.” (Commentator). They were given dominion over the animals, and when this serpent began to question God’s Word, they should have quickly rebuked him.
·         “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” did not refer to some “special knowledge” that man might gain, but the application of the knowledge he had already gained from the mouth of God. We see the parallel to Genesis 3 in Luke 4 when Jesus is tempted in the wilderness and answers with only what is knowable from God’s Word. Applying the good God had told them to the evil that endangered them.
Shameless (Genesis 2:25) – The thought of being naked must have been astonishing for Israel, for they had a strong sense of shame, covering most of their bodies with long robes and scarves.
The word “shameless” in English and Hebrew are different. Hebrew: “Bush” – To be disconcerted, discontent or disappointed – “Genesis 2:25 reiterates the contentment of the couple with God’s provision” (Wenham).
2)      The call to holiness and obedience is an invitation to find true satisfaction in God alone.
Read Psalm 84 with an emphasis on 84:11b
“Satan is ever seeking to inject that poison into our hearts: to distrust God’s goodness especially in connection with His prohibitions and precepts. That is really what lies behind all evil lusting and disobedience: a discontentment with our position and portion, a craving for something which God has wisely withheld from us. Temptation is the attempt to question God’s love” (Pink).
***Note the name change from “LORD God” to “God” for the first time.
·         Explain the difference between the names of “God” and “LORD”
·         “God” is used exclusively 35 times in the first 34 verses of Genesis 1:1-2:3
·         “LORD God” is uses 20 times between 2:4-3:24 – notice the only uses of the solitary name “God” is in the interaction between Satan and Eve.
·         “LORD God” is only used 16 times in the entire Old Testament (following Genesis 2:4-3:24)
Serpent (3:1)
3)      The first step into sin is to allow Satan to entice us into questioning the truthfulness of God’s Word.
First, note that Satan chooses a very familiar vehicle (an animal) to incarnate himself into.  In our day, He uses things we are most familiar with (media, telephones, television). Notice, Adam is tempted with someone very dear to him (snake a symbol of healing); medical doctors today use the sign of a snake.
Notice:  the serpent focuses on God’s prohibition.
-       God’s gracious command, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden” (Genesis 2:16) is not mentioned.
God: My restrictions are the giving of my greatest gifts to you (He is the Greatest Gift).
Satan: God’s restrictions express the withholding or withdrawal of His greatest gifts from you.
·         “God” instead of “LORD God” happens today. Our problems are looked at prohibitions. We fall into the same snare when we allow our problems, suffering, and God’s prohibitions to increase the perceived distance between us and Him instead of allowing them to draw us closer (LORD God).
God’s most gracious provision is found in His prohibition (command not to sin). For Eve to keep herself from the tree was an invitation to feast on God.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Recommended Reading (Sunday Night Review)

Discipleship Training: How to Help People Change part 2
Genesis 3:7
Transition into Sunday Night Discipleship Training:
“Once Adam and Eve declare their autonomy, they at once realize that each of them has the capability and the will to decide independently what is good and what is evil. Since the other person has chosen to defy God to advantage self, how can he or she be trusted not to abuse the other in self-interest? They cover themselves because a relationship cannot survive in an environment of distrust” (Waltke). Genesis 3 explains why we are so hesitant to be vulnerable and intimate with one another. We are driven into seclusion from shameless authentic accountability and discipleship with one another.
This manifest itself in abrasiveness, flamboyance, shyness, intellectualism, withdrawal. This is why discipleship relationships are so important.
Neither the Scripture nor Christ ever distinguished between being a Christian and being a Disciple.
“Our problem is that we have made peace with an unbiblical distinction. Christian leaders have sent the message that you can be a Christian without being a disciple. We expect that only a small percentage of Christians will ‘graduate’ into the category of discipleship” (Greg Oden in Discipleship Essentials).
To believe is to follow. For Jesus, Christianity is discipleship. Jesus never spoke of someone “believing” in Him, but always spoke of people “following” Him. Saving faith is synonymous with following Christ or discipleship.
God has told us to make disciples, yet the Church has settled primarily to a program approach. In addition to public teaching, Disciples are made in relationships, through personal, eyeball-to-eyeball invitation.
God created us for a relationship with himself and with one another. A small discipleship group is a place to learn how to grow and change through accountability, transparency, and interaction in a safe and consistent environment.
In large groups: Interaction is difficult; accountable and specific application is difficult; long-term focus is difficult (a specific habitual sin); transparency is very difficult.
Making Disciples Jesus’ Way
Disciple-Making is an intentional relationship in which we walk alongside other disciples in order to encourage, equip, and challenge one another in love to grow toward maturity in Christ. This includes equipping the disciple to teach others as well.
Jesus made disciples by selecting a few into whom He poured His life.
When Jesus commanded His disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), He instructed them to emulate what He had done during His three years of ministry.
Jesus, it must be remembered, restricted nine-tenths of His ministry to twelve Jews, because it was the only way to reach all Americans” (Eugene Peterson). Jesus’ commitment to isolate Himself aggressively to a few was His commitment to reach the world.
Hypothetically consider living for only 16 more years.
Keith Phillip’s chart compares the numeric difference between one person a day coming to Christ and one person a year being discipled to maturity.
Jesus’ massive vision to reach many lead to His “tiny” focus.
Year       Evangelist       Discipler
1               365                  2
2               730                  4
16            5840             65,536
The Family in Scripture
God envisioned an intergenerational chain of disciples linked together through personal investment.
Making Disciples Paul’s Way
“What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well” (II Timothy 2:2).
Discipleship is a relationship where we intentionally walk alongside a growing disciple or disciples in order to encourage, correct, and challenge them in love to grow toward maturity in Christ.
The Model: Relationships (vulnerability) – Truth (God’s Word) – Accountability (Application stated and measured).



Recommended Reading
For Those Searching or Questioning Their SalvationWhat is the Gospel?  by Greg Gilbert
The Book of I John
The Book of Matthew
General DiscipleshipThe Book of John
The Book of James
The Book of Philippians
Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands by Paul Tripp
Discipleship Essentials by Greg Ogden
Disciplines of a Godly Man by Hughes
The Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges
HumilityHumility by Mahaney
The Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges
Trusting God/God’s Sovereignty and Providence/How to Suffer for the Glory of GodTrusting God by Jerry Bridges
It’s Not Fair by Wayne Mack
Sexual PurityThe Way of Purity by Mike Cleveland
Overeating or Obesity/Self-ControlAt the Master’s Table by Mike Cleveland
LegalismThe Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges
The Prodigal God by Tim Keller
The Tale of Two Sons by John MacArthur
IdolatryThe Pleasures of God by John Piper
Desiring God by John Piper
Idols of the Heart Elyse Fitzpatrick
MarriageWhat Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage by Paul Tripp
When Sinners Say I Do by Dave Harvey
Strengthening Your Marriage by Wayne Mack
Reconciling God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
Our Accountability to God by A.W. Pink
Biblical WifeThe Excellent Wife by Martha Peace
Helper By Design by Carolyn Mahaney
Biblical HusbandsWhat Did You Expect? By Paul Tripp
ParentingAge of Opportunity by Paul Tripp
Don’t Make Me Count to Three by Ginger Plowman
Shepherding A Child’s Heart by Tripp
AngerThe Heart of Anger by Lou Priolo
Loneliness and DepressionOut of the Blues by Wayne Mack

Remember:
Consistency in Scheduled Meetings; Ask Specific Questions; Do More by Doing Less; Underline and Discuss; Specific, Measurable Action Steps