- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Gauntlet Has Been Thrown
- Next Post »A La Carte (05/24)
Transformation
- 05/23/06
- 26
With the volume of books I read and review, I’ve found it valuable to be intentional about reading. Before I begin a book, I generally skim the endorsements, chapter titles and, if possible, the chapter divisions. I also usually skim the endnotes and bibliography, for these elements of the book often speak volumes about the book’s content. They can help me understand the book even before I begin the first chapter. Of course a potential problem with this practice is that it can lead me to form judgments about a book before I have even begun reading it. In the case of Transformation, a new book by Bob Roberts, here are the elements that stuck out in my mind based on my initial screening:
- Proprietary language. As soon as I see newly-created words and terms, I know that a book is going to introduce either a new program or a new model of something. In this case, two of the books three sections were headed by such a word: T-Life and T-World.
- The bibliography reads like a who’s who of popular influencers among emerging, missional church leaders. Among those listed are Dallas Willard, George Barna, Richard Foster, Mother Teresa, Soren Kierkegaard and G.K. Chesterton.
- The final chapter is entitled “What Do You Get When a Church Combines Billy Graham with Mother Teresa?.
- The book is endorsed by many of the leaders of the more conservative wing of the emerging church and some who are far into all things emergent. Among the endorsers are Ed Young, Leighton Ford, Bub Buford, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, Andrew Jones and Brian McLaren.
Having skimmed the book, I buckled down and worked my way through it, doing plenty of underlining and jotting down all sorts of little notes. What Roberts is calling for is a transformation (in case you didn’t understand that from the title!) in two spheres that are different, yet intimately connected: what he calls T-Life and T-World, which together comprise the T-Model. Or, in laymen’s terms, a transformed life which leads to a transformed world. Sound familiar? It should, in many respects, as Roberts is not the first person to call for just this type of revolution. The bridge that connects a transformed life to a transformed world, in Roberts’ model, is a person’s vocation. The age of the vocational missionary has largely passed and it is now time for individuals to do the work of spreading the gospel within their vocational contexts both at home and abroad. These locations are equally the mission field.
The book begins, as many do, with a chapter explaining the trouble with the contemporary church. Roberts seems to believe that the church has utterly failed in its mission. “Where is the church today speaking to justice and mercy? Where is the church today serving the poor and hurting? Where is the church today serving as a prophet to society?” (18). He feels that we cannot expect people to respond to the gospel if we don’t deal with issues at this level. Beside this section I wrote “Oh, come on!” That view is patently unfair. Sure the church may not be doing all she could do and we certainly fail in many ways, but to pretend that the church is doing so little for justice and mercy and poverty is to deny the work of many, if not most good churches. Roberts goes on to suggest that the church in the East is far more healthy and biblical than the church of the West. This is a view that is commonly touted, but one which I have never had proven to my satisfaction. Still, on the whole he does a fair job of assessing the church and of suggesting how she lost her way. He discusses pragmatism, consumerism, worldly standards of success and endless bureaucracies. He quickly shows, though, his Arminian understanding of the gospel. He also begins to slip into a problem that continues throughout the book: he makes sweeping statements without providing any sources or proof. He says, for example, that people who desire to be leaders are dangerous. This is his understanding based on the fact that Moses didn’t want to be a leader while Pharaoh did and that David didn’t want to be a leader while Saul did. That is not convincing proof as it is entirely possible that a man can desire to be a leader and not be at all dangerous! He also makes a potentially troubling statement when he begins to discount theological knowledge. “Merely believing the right things does not ensure Christlike behavior” (32). I don’t know of anyone who would hold such a view, but it could be equally dangerous to deny that beliefs inform behavior.
Roberts then asks how the church fits into God’s plan for the world. “The church is at is best when we are not a force outside the culture but when we are entrenched within the culture” (47). He presents a model based on concentric circles which shows how people are to be brought into the church and into relationship with God and then sent out again into kingdom service. He introduces the importance of missional service. Next up is a discussion of evangelism which focuses not on the message (and actually, the message is assumed in this book and never explicitly stated) but on making the gospel clear in our practice of evangelism. In other words, we need to appear as transformed people if our message is to be heard.
This brings us to the heart of the book, first a section discussing T-Life and then T-World. The T-Life model has three core elements: interactive relationship with God (reading the Bible, praying, journaling), transparent connections (authentic fellowship with other believers) and glocal impact (the bridge between a person’s vocation and ministry that spans community development locally and globally). He discusses the importance of community to the Christian life and shows that, while personal, this life can never be private, for connecting in community allows us to serve together. He asks “what if the church were the missionary?” What if it was the local church that understood itself to be responsible for missions? This, he feels, is the ultimate convergence between a person’s vocation and his ministry. He then introduces T-World, a vision of “every believer and every church engaging the world with the purpose of making a lasting difference” (122). It has three components: community development, church multiplication and nation building. As I indicated earlier, the book culminates in the question of “What Do You Get When a Church Combines Billy Graham with Mother Teresa?” T-World is “a marriage between the two. It is serving and boldly proclaiming. It is loving for love’s sake, whether they follow Christ or not, not using the gospel as some sort of religious bait. It is the unrestrained outward expression of the kingdom inside of us” (157). Of course this seems to present the gospel as action more than declaration, something I’m not sure the Scripture supports. Roberts feels, though, that this is how missions must be done in the twenty-first century. “It’s not about preaching; it’s about his kingdom. We’re primarily there to sweep floors and find connections for our laypeople to use their gifts and contacts with corporations” (156).
Woven throughout the book is a biographical thread of information which tells Roberts’ story and how he came from a typical Southern Baptist family and church and arrived at this new understanding of the church’s mission and there is much we can learn from his journey. His passion for this topic and his love of God is evident on almost every page. Thankfully, the book introduces a model more than a program or structure, for the last thing the church needs is another cookie-cutter program. While the book has much to offer, Roberts sometimes shows a lack of discernment that is cause for concern, sometimes turning to other undiscerning sources and expressing that he has enjoyed Roman Catholic worship. The book is premised on an understanding of the mission of the church and a non-proclamatory gospel that I simply don’t feel the Scriptures can support. There is much wisdom to glean, but the premise of the book simply doesn’t hold.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (26)
Tim quoted: ““Where is the church today speaking to justice and mercy? Where is the church today serving the poor and hurting? Where is the church today serving as a prophet to society?””
Whooop Whooop Whooop, Danger Will Robinson!!
I smell the “social gospel” here. Take cover…
“Oh come on” is right. Such sweeping accusations are commonplace from the liberal wing of the church. You have much more tolerance than me. I would have tossed the book on the “donate to the library” pile right there.
——bill
Two thoughts:
1) Would it be unfair to say that I kept thinking “Derek Webb” as I read this (esp toward the end)?
2) You quoted one part of the book:
Merely believing the right things does not ensure Christlike behavior
and then said “I don’t know of anyone who would hold such a view”.
Good for you, but I do. But even if I didn’t, it’s fairly plain that they exist. There are those that put an extremely low value on theological knowledge, so it follows that there would be those who place too high a value on it. Every pendulum (unfortuantely) swings both ways.
Endorsements from Ed Young and Brian McClaren should tell you everything you need to know. As a lifelong SBC church attender it’s tragic that so many come out of my tradition thoroughly bankrupt on any concrete Biblical foundation. No surprise then that they invent the “next big Thing.”
The church that Bob Roberts’ pastors does not endorse a social gospel. Instead they see cultural engagement through mercy ministries as a way to build bridges to the gospel for people who will not just show up on Sunday.
Also to the question on whether churches in the East are more healthy- have we been there to see them and interact with them? I am not sure how much health they would need to be healthier than 90% of churches in North America.
tim - smells like the SOCIAL gospel to me also:Bob says “I shall take the transforming power of the gospel to the whole world”and we say “SO SHALL we!”
[just had to add that … sorry]
Bob is a highly respected Baptist leader and is leading the way forward for many into a more fuller walk with Jesus saturated in Luke 4.
the issues he brings up are crucial- the church needs to think like a missionary - this is the heart of missional thinking and a lifesaver for churches in an urban and complex environment- vocation in missions is a huge shift. Some of the movements we are seeing here (overseas where i now live as a missionary) are led by doctors and business people rather than the traditional missionary types like myself . .. [if i can be considered traditional]
and much more. Transformation as a target takes us out of ecclesiocentrism and measuring our churches by numbers (pragmatism) or just what happens on Sunday morning (nostalgia for 1640)
i do think your readers should take Bob’s challenge seriously.and maybe you should read the book again without sitting in the shadow of the 1920’s liberal argument.
Cody said they see cultural engagement through mercy ministries as a way to build bridges to the gospel for people who will not just show up on Sunday.
And there is nothing wrong with “cultural engagement,” provided it’s done in a way that’s Christ-honoring.
andrew said the church needs to think like a missionary - this is the heart of missional thinking and a lifesaver for churches in an urban and complex environment
I’ve yet to be a part of a church that does NOT go into the community and serve; I think that the non-EC world is not as devoid of “thinking like a missionary” as some would contend.
The suspicion that arises from what Tim wrote arises not just from the original quote I cited that smacks of social gospel, but is connected to his subsequent quote from Mr. Roberts’ book: ““It’s not about preaching; it’s about his kingdom. We’re primarily there to sweep floors and find connections for our laypeople to use their gifts and contacts with corporations””. He needs to inject the word “just” between “not” and “about”, because acts of service are nothing more than nice acts unless they are accompanied by a clear message that demonstrates why one is performing those acts. Non-Christians can be “nice” also. But we do these things because of our love for others that is placed in our hearts through Jesus and our desire for others to know Him, not so we can reach the next level closer to Nirvana
Service/works that result from our faith that are performed as part of our mission are wonderful and are definitely effective (and some would contend mandatory) for reaching the lost. But they cannot be performed in a vacuum that is disconnected from the Word.
——bill
This reminds me of a book my former SBC church (sorry, all SBCers out there) gave to all us teachers on how to double our SS classes every two years or less. The author discussed at length how most of the barriers to the gospel were not theological, but social. The key was to get people to like you through being nice to them - doing things for them, etc. - and then they would be more likely to accept Jesus.
“Oh, come on”, is absolutely right, Bill.
In fact, can we all do a group scream….AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!
I can’t stand it when the church is qualified by a word like “missional”. They might as well label all other churches as “apostate”. That doesn’t help persuade and challenge, it only is condescending and relies on cute buzz words.
I say let the Church be the Church as Scripture as God through Scripture dictates. That includes mission, preaching, serving, etc. Let’s not reinvent what God has already invented in the name of the latest trend.
I was in the SBC once, and I must say that what helped me to avoid an overreaction to the problems I saw was not a cleverly marketed church movement, but a rediscovery of Scriptural theology, which was well articulated by the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. We can, and must, articulate this to the new generation.
I think many are missing the point of Robert’s message. He is an advocate for his people to preach the message of the gospel with their lives and talents during the week. Too many preachers think that preaching on Sunday gets the job done. Then the congregation goes to work during the week and does nothing.
Roberts says its about the kingdom because his people go to closed countries and use the talents God gave them as plumbers, homebuilders, and teachers to make a difference. Maybe they should just stay home and study systematic theology.
Sorry to interrupt the group scream, but I do have a question. In all seriousness, what exactly is the problem with “enjoying Catholic worship?” I have deep disagreements with the Roman Catholic church on a wide range of topics, but I do think there are some things that the Catholics have right, and that Protestants (esp. the reformed/evangelical ones I hang out with) could learn a thing or two from them.
Also, Brian, are you saying that cultural barriers to the Gospel don’t exist, or merely that the church does a poor job of addressing them?
Peter said: “but I do think there are some things that the Catholics have right,
Well, they do have pretty buildings and great fish frys.
But seriously, the Catholic worship service is very reverent. Too bad it’s so rote and reflexive to so many Catholics. And we won’t go into the five Solas…
——bill
Catholics have no corner on reverence in worship. The Reformation kept all of the reverence and threw out all the images/idols.
As to my friend Cody, we agree on Robert’s main point as you state it. The point of disagreement is using kingdom and preaching as contrasts, as if they were opposed. It’s not the preaching (or systematic theology), it’s the heart that heeds not to God.
Cody says: He(Bob Roberts) is an advocate for his people to preach the message of the gospel with their lives and talents during the week. Roberts says its about the kingdom because his people go to closed countries and use the talents God gave them as plumbers, homebuilders, and teachers to make a difference.
I wish people would stop confusing the gospel with good works or the fruits of the Spirit.The gospel is : You are a sinner condemned by God’s law in need of grace. You must repent and believe and trust in the blood atonement of Jesus for forgiveness. How can a persons talent help them to teach this simple message? How we live our lives is not the gospel so please stop calling it gospel. Our lives are a testimony of God’s work in us. People can see the evidences of a great work in our lives but this is not the gospel.
Well said, Kenny.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
…expressing that he has enjoyed Roman Catholic worship.
Horrors! Attending is one thing, but if he enjoyed it…
:)
This is wonderful - I’ve been tagged a social gospel, liberal, Armenian! This is exciting for me given my roots and background - how the heck you guys could read my book and determine all that I’ll never know - because I’m not any of those!
It makes me sad people, even some younger people are looking at the new world with old lenses and vocabulary that no longer fits. Globalization (beyond economics) is about to leave people in their 30’s and up, about as lost in the world as Luther would be in Grand Central Station in Manhattan. There is no doubt about it - the church is learning a new way to communicate (be it seeker or postmodern) and at the same time discovering historical theological roots. However, that will not be enough to engage the world effectively - and it has not been enough. Know and say is not enough - see and act must be combined with it.
As Christianity has shifted to the East - which puts us on a huge learning curve because the next Luther and Calvin will probably be Akmed and Nguyen - we will begin to see the Gospel through the eyes of first generation believers in an Eastern yet connected context. This will be fascinating. It’s been too long since Luther.
As the center of Christianity has shifted, so must the expression of Christianity also expand beyond a pulpit, preacher-driven, Western market come hear me speak approach. I’m promoting the mobilization of the entire church laying across all of the infra-structures of society. It’s not new - it’s an Acts 11 model. It’s viral, organic, relational and the LCD is not the preacher but the layman. It’s not new - I am learning it form the church in the East. But that’s another book later.
Talk to the people you serve - what gives them meaning? I’ve discovered two things - intimacy with Christ and serving people that are hurting. Nothing new in that - Love God, love your neighbor.
When the world is won for Christ - it will not be won because we have more and better trained preachers, missionaries, theolgians, and a stronger religious infra-strucutre in society - I promise you. If that were the case it would have already been done. Thats’ the story of Acts and the story of the church in the East. (East is all non-Western to me) It will be won because the whole body of Christ is mobilized - this is how it’s happening in the East. I’ve seen it, and continue to see it often. If this is true- and obviously I believe it is - then it changes our role as pastors and leaders from just “theologian -preacher-chaplain” to equally include “mobilizer-soldier-diplomat.” To me it’s not either or but both and. By the way, people accept Christ and churches emerge - we’ve seen it - or I wouldn’t be proposing this. This is my premise - but it’s really not mine - it’s the church in the East - I brought it home and it works for individuals and for the spread of the Gospel. It is the present-future.
There are two conversations taking place today - and Barna in Revolution picks up on it some - the conversation of “religious professionals” and classically trained - like those of us reading blogs like this - and the believer who isn’t a religious professional but is serving God with all they’ve got. Who, if they did read blogs like this - would have a different response.
If I can figure out how to find my way back to this blog I’ll post again and interact with you guys - if not forgive me. I love discussions like this - it sharpens me and makes me think deeper. I’m on my way in a week to several wild places for a month - keep me in your prayers - like it or not, I’m one of your scouts and need to get back in one piece to bring you the treasures from the old new world.
This is wonderful - I’ve been tagged a social gospel, liberal, Armenian! This is exciting for me given my roots and background - how the heck you guys could read my book and determine all that I’ll never know - because I’m not any of those!
It makes me sad people, even some younger people are looking at the new world with old lenses and vocabulary that no longer fits. Globalization (beyond economics) is about to leave people in their 30’s and up, about as lost in the world as Luther would be in Grand Central Station in Manhattan. There is no doubt about it - the church is learning a new way to communicate (be it seeker or postmodern) and at the same time discovering historical theological roots. However, that will not be enough to engage the world effectively - and it has not been enough. Know and say is not enough - see and act must be combined with it.
As Christianity has shifted to the East - which puts us on a huge learning curve because the next Luther and Calvin will probably be Akmed and Nguyen - we will begin to see the Gospel through the eyes of first generation believers in an Eastern yet connected context. This will be fascinating. It’s been too long since Luther.
As the center of Christianity has shifted, so must the expression of Christianity also expand beyond a pulpit, preacher-driven, Western market come hear me speak approach. I’m promoting the mobilization of the entire church laying across all of the infra-structures of society. It’s not new - it’s an Acts 11 model. It’s viral, organic, relational and the LCD is not the preacher but the layman. It’s not new - I am learning it form the church in the East. But that’s another book later.
Talk to the people you serve - what gives them meaning? I’ve discovered two things - intimacy with Christ and serving people that are hurting. Nothing new in that - Love God, love your neighbor.
When the world is won for Christ - it will not be won because we have more and better trained preachers, missionaries, theolgians, and a stronger religious infra-strucutre in society - I promise you. If that were the case it would have already been done. Thats’ the story of Acts and the story of the church in the East. (East is all non-Western to me) It will be won because the whole body of Christ is mobilized - this is how it’s happening in the East. I’ve seen it, and continue to see it often. If this is true- and obviously I believe it is - then it changes our role as pastors and leaders from just “theologian -preacher-chaplain” to equally include “mobilizer-soldier-diplomat.” To me it’s not either or but both and. By the way, people accept Christ and churches emerge - we’ve seen it - or I wouldn’t be proposing this. This is my premise - but it’s really not mine - it’s the church in the East - I brought it home and it works for individuals and for the spread of the Gospel. It is the present-future.
There are two conversations taking place today - and Barna in Revolution picks up on it some - the conversation of “religious professionals” and classically trained - like those of us reading blogs like this - and the believer who isn’t a religious professional but is serving God with all they’ve got. Who, if they did read blogs like this - would have a different response.
If I can figure out how to find my way back to this blog I’ll post again and interact with you guys - if not forgive me. I love discussions like this - it sharpens me and makes me think deeper. I’m on my way in a week to several wild places for a month - keep me in your prayers - like it or not, I’m one of your scouts and need to get back in one piece to bring you the treasures from the old new world.
Mr. Roberts, thank you for your posting. As Tim posted, you state in your book “Where is the church today speaking to justice and mercy? Where is the church today serving the poor and hurting? Where is the church today serving as a prophet to society?” To that, my question is: Where is your objective evidence that these things are NOT happening? As my posting indicates, whenever I see these accusations, they are inevitibly followed by support for liberal social causes with little or no gospel backing. And as I indicated later in the chain, statements like “It’s not about preaching” seem to back up that assumption.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Evangelical church who doesn’t think we should be out serving. I believe the dispute comes in the balance between works and teaching the Gospel. One could contend that one without the other is the issue. And there are certainly churches who preach without serving. My concern comes when we promote serving without preaching (and I use the term “preaching” somewhat loosely; sharing the Word may come in forms other than a 30-minute sermon…)
In Tim’s review, he contends that you support a “non-proclamatory gospel.” I believe that both are appropriate and necessary, and perhaps the sequence is up for debate. Without the benefit of having your chapter “”What Do You Get When a Church Combines Billy Graham with Mother Teresa?” in front of me, I am unable to see your position on how the Gospel is proclaimed.
As some of my fellow bloggers will note, I have a strong dislike for attempts to co-opt the Word to support liberal causes (and I’m sure my liberal brethren will say the same about the conservative wing of the Church). There have been a number of postings around the ‘net over the last few weeks regarding Walter Rauschenbusch and how he promoted the Social Gospel in the early 20th century. The causes he promoted are dead in line with the left-leaning Emerging Church folks now in 2006. What tends not to come up is WR’s off-the-wall theological stands (see the Wikipedia article on WR for a little more detail). When I see items that smack of the same philosophies as WR’s, my deflector sheilds go up.
The Gospel of the Bible removes us from any political claptrap and focuses on the most important matters of sin and redemption. Any action on the part of the church cannot focus solely on service - after all, as I posted somewhere else recently, Christians don’t have a corner on the “do nice things” market, so that doesn’t suffice. Jesus did not come simply to heal the sick and serve the poor. He came to serve by giving himself as a sacrifice for our sins.
God’s grace and safe travels to you!
——bill
Bob,Do you really think that Mother Teresa preached the gospel?
Kenny: “The gospel is : You are a sinner condemned by God’s law in need of grace. You must repent and believe and trust in the blood atonement of Jesus for forgiveness.How we live our lives is not the gospel so please stop calling it gospel. Our lives are a testimony of God’s work in us. People can see the evidences of a great work in our lives but this is not the gospel.”
Ok. I am glad that you can reduce the gospel to two sentences. By all means lets round the world into stadiums and quote those two sentences and we will be done with the great commission.
Which causes me to ask why Jesus didn’t just say sentences? Why would he perform miracles? Why would he touch people? Why would he have actual conversations? I am guessing that the way Christ lived has nothing to do with the gospel.
Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe that when we quote the gospel- those sentences that the world doesn’t listen because our lives don’t exhibit those words?
I agree with Bill. I would put it this way - Jesus had both compassion (feeling and acting) on hurting people and also severe honesty with them. Wisdom dictated how he loved people. Jesus knew what people really needed.
Bob, I appreciate your contribution to the Church. You aims are noble and good. Seeing and acting must accompany knowing and saying. But the way to mobilize is not to focus on mobilization - because then anything toward that end will seem to work, and there is the danger of the ends justifying the means. Paradoxically, God mobilizes his Church the old-fashioned way (the way he did through history and still does today), by making disciples with the Gospel! It’s not more complicated than that. He mobilizes them by changing them, inside out. I think you’d agree with all that, but you’re trying to reinvent the wheel.
Also, Brian, are you saying that cultural barriers to the Gospel don’t exist, or merely that the church does a poor job of addressing them?
Peter,I’m sorry that I missed your question earlier. A friend of mine noticed that I had not responded to it. Sorry about that. I will try to answer it.
I guess the first thing would be to determine what people mean when they say “barriers” to the gospel, and then what they mean by “cultural” barriers. A barrier is defined as something that obstructs, blocks or hinders. As I have said before, we do have to engage the culture to some degree at all times…for example…me presenting the gospel in Chinese to someone who doesn’t speak Chinese would be a cultural barrier (except, of course, at Pentecost…when even this barrier was overcome supernaturally by the Holy Spirit).
Where I believe that many like Roberts have erred is in thinking that we must not only engage the culture, but that we must also become culturally relevant.
Having said that, let me finally answer your question.
Aside from very basic things such as speaking the same language (and wearing clothes, etc.)…I do not believe that cultural barriers exist.
If I am in America, speaking English, I do not believe ANY cultural barriers to the gospel exist to anyone else who speaks English. As I’ve said before, the gospel is what it is…and it doesn’t need my help to make it more culturally relevant so that people will be more likely to accept it.
To believe that way, I believe, is to deny the sovereignty of God in the monergistic work of salvation.
Social good works are NOT the gospel, as others here have said. They ARE very good things to do…but they should flow FROM and as a RESULT of a regenerated heart…but they should NEVER replace the gospel…because they are NOT the gospel…and they will NEVER save anyone.
i’m confused by the definition of “the gospel” presented kenny, and i echo cody’s question: where does jesus (or anyone else for that matter) say this?
i read galatians 3 and paul says, “God announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All nations will be blessed through you”
i don’t see anything about depravity or atonement there. i can read those things into the text… but it’s not plain. the most obvious reading is a reference to genesis 12, where God tells Abe that he and his descendents are to “be a blessing”…. to bless people. persons, people, the nations. he doesn’t expand on it… and neither does paul. if “the gospel” is what kenny says it is and if it really is as important as many of you claim it to be… why isn’t it simply and explicitly stated anywhere in the bible? i’m not trying to be difficult, just looking for some answers…
i don’t feel like romans 10 is a legit response to this… or romans 4… or 6. none of these have the entire logical argument posited by kenny.
if it takes several passages to communicate the idea… doesn’t that seem odd? jesus only takes a sentence or two in matthew 25 to condemn people to hell for ignoring the poor.
eric,
Sounds like you may be on the road to works-righteousness, brother.
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness…
Go read all the sermons preached in Acts…you will find it very clearly stated in all of those accounts…Law and Grace…Law and Grace…Law and Grace.
To Cody:Matthew 3The Gospel according to John the Baptist
1Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2”REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 5Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they CONFESSED THEIR SINS. 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the WRATH to come? John 1:29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Parable of the SowerLuke 84When a large crowd was coming together, and those from the various cities were journeying to Him, He spoke by way of a parable: 5”The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up. 6”Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7”Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out. 8”Other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as great.” As He said these things, He would call out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” 9His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. 10And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. 11”Now the parable is this: the seed (gospel) is the word (not actions but the word)of God.
Notice that in verse 8 the sower says “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Now this shows that it is not the sowers methods that are at fault but it is the one that cannot hear that is at fault. Only those that God grants the ability to hear can hear. We are not to think that ineffectiveness is our fault but it is only the result of verse 10 “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. Because I know you will object to this point I will add the following verses1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, John 6:37”All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 44”No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Now it is important that our lives demonstrate that we are children of God.1 John 3:24The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. If we do not keep His commandments we have no assurance of salvation. We have this assurance if we do keep His commandments because it is evidence that God’s spirit is in us and working in us.
To Eric: I just did a bible study lesson with my class on Romans 4 and would have liked to have used it but since you have disqualified this scripture I hope that Luke chapter 8 is in your Bible ;-)