Machen - Christianity And Liberalism [Chapter 4]

Our Father in Heaven, Father, we are men who are just delighted to be wrapped in the robes of Christ's righteousness and gathered here this morning to speak about Him, to speak about what

He's done, Father, to even compare it with what so -called liberal

Christians have done to the Gospel over the last few centuries.

Lord, I pray that as we talk about these things, as we look at Your Scripture, and as we discuss the current state of the

Church, I pray that You would strengthen us, that You would sharpen us, that You would cause us to reflect again and again on how good and kind You have been to us.

Father, bless and strengthen each one here, we pray in Jesus' name. Well, so last week we began, or we really got heavily into Chapter 3, and we may,

I'm certain, finish Chapter 3 today, so we'll see.

See how that goes. I think we ended... Do you have Chapter 3 with you? Yes, I do.

Okay, good point. Valid, valid. I even have some Chapter 3.

They're back by the donuts. Chapter 3,

Chapter 3, Chapter 3. Number 9, Number 9, Number 9.

Okay, so we left off at Number 16, but I'll just do 15 to just get us back into the flow.

Number 15, true or false, about the only thing liberalism gets right is the transcendence of God.

Sadly, that's false. They don't get that right. You know, which just makes me think about cults.

What do they do? I say this fairly frequently. They lower God and elevate man, and that's what modern liberals do too.

Does that make them a cult? I don't know. Let the reader decide. By the way, speaking of cults, I did have a call from a cult yesterday at my house.

It took me about five seconds after I realized it wasn't spam and it was a real person. It took me about, you know, five seconds to realize that it was a

Jehovah Witness. Yeah, yeah, because they're still kind of a little skittish about going door to door.

I don't know why, but so eventually he said, now think about this.

If you're talking to a Jehovah Witness, what do you need to establish? Okay, but I mean, they'll grant you that.

The divinity of Jesus. Thank you very much, Keith. And so what scripture would you like to go to?

Okay. Yes, they've already reworded that.

So if you're looking for a really clear one, that's good.

I didn't think of that. Okay.

I didn't even suggest this one. As soon as the Jehovah Witness said this verse, I thought, oh, that's good.

Colossians 1 .15, right? And he goes, he says to me, he says, well, you know, what does your

Bible say? I think he said something like that. And so I said, I just read it, you know, because I always have my

Bible in my, no, I'm not. No, I just pulled up the eBible, Colossians 1 .15.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. And he goes, see that?

Firstborn. And I go, yeah, see that? And I said, the Greek word is prototikos, which means, you know, preeminent.

And he goes, well, you know, firstborn means he's the firstborn of all. And I'm just like, you know, just trying to talk to him.

And it was impossible. And eventually you realize you're just wasting your time with a cultist. So I just give him all the gospel.

And then he goes, are you some kind of Mormon or something? I started laughing, right?

And I go, yeah. And I said, I said, no,

I thought, I'm not even going to say I used to be, you know. And he goes,

Catholic? And I go, I, you know, at that point, I wanted to just go. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I said, no, you know, next guest. And, you know, so eventually I just said, you know,

I'm Protestant. It didn't matter. I mean, I'm just going through the

Bible with him. And he's, I said, let me ask you this. How do I get to heaven? No, he said, sorry, pal, all the seats are full.

I mean, he didn't, he, close. Well, because, you know, yeah, 144 ,000.

He said something like, well, you know, you can live on earth. And I go, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Your, your reservation for heaven has been rejected. So I, you know,

I just talked about what Christ actually did. And he didn't want to hear it. So, you know, I just said, okay, well, thank you.

Have a nice day. Repent, believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, and stop calling people. I don't know.

I just, I just, you know, after a while, I'm just like, because, you know, he was obviously, with no offense to those who are older than me, older than me.

And I'm like, okay, well, Lord's going to have to use what I say. So I'm just going to give him the truth and then peace out.

Okay. So number 16, why would war skew our view of sin?

And I think maybe, did we talk about this? Okay. But why do you suppose it would skew, change, alter, warp our view of sin?

Dave? Yeah.

And have you ever seen any of the, you know, I'm sure some of you guys have seen the propaganda for World War II.

And, you know, it got obviously pretty ugly and sometimes what might be considered today racist.

But I mean, it wasn't any better in the, in World War I. You know, it was the nasty Huns who were sinking ships and, you know, and they were evil.

They were skewering babies with bayonets. And, and the reality is everybody was just looking at each other across, you know, their, their various trenches and shooting each other.

But Machen says this, he says, in time of war, our attention is called so exclusively to the sins of other people that we are sometimes inclined to forget our own sins.

I mean, it's interesting because one of the, one of the positives I would say of social media is it's allowed me to connect to a bunch of guys

I was in the army with. And, you know, we all served during the Cold War. And I think the last thing you would want to do in those days was be, you know, associated with the

Soviet Union, the communists. And today they're taking over the

United States. But I digress.

He says it's quite right to be indignant against any oppression of the weak, which is being carried on by the strong.

True, right? Attention to the sins of other people is indeed sometimes necessary, right?

But such a habit of mind, if made permanent, if carried over to the days of peace, has its dangers.

It joins forces with the collectivism of the modern state to obscure the individual personal character of guilt.

Which is all just a big way of saying we forget that we are sinners, or there are sins that are just as bad as everybody else or worse.

So war, propaganda, all that stuff, I mean, it skews our view of sin.

Number 17, true or false, even 100 years ago, men were finding novel ways to excuse sin.

It's got to be true. Yeah. Am I my brother's keeper?

You know, I mean, how far back does it go? Pretty far. Adam, it's the woman you gave me.

Morning, Ben. He says, he says, if John Smith beats his wife nowadays, no one is so old fashioned as to blame

John Smith for it. I mean, hey, it's not his fault.

On the contrary, I mean, man, he could get black bald for that these days, right?

Look what he said. He excused wife beating. On the contrary, it is said,

John Smith is evidently the victim of some more of that Bolshevistic propaganda. Are you wondering what that is?

Yeah, I'm just looking at Brian. I'm going, you ever heard that word before? Probably in a sermon, right?

Beware of the Bolshevist. The Bolshevists were the communists in Russia at the end of World War One.

So that was the name of their party. Yeah.

Bolshevik. Oh, all the time.

Well, I mean, this this week, you know, the the both the assault and the excuses for Kanye West were pretty, pretty intense.

And I'm like, I mean, I don't know how anybody watched the video. I mean, he says he he said basically, you know, are there good things about Hitler?

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of good things about Hitler. And I'm like, well, there's no there's no place to go.

Right. He didn't have any kids.

I don't think no. I mean, there's I mean, there's a what was the show that he was on Adam or what's that, guys?

No, no, no. But this week he was on with some guy who just lost a billion dollars in lawsuits.

No, but no. He was sued. He was sued for the shootings down in Connecticut because he said they were all faked.

Alex Jones. Thank you. Yeah, he lost a billion dollars. I mean, I'm sure that that'll stand up, you know, on appeal and everything.

A billion dollars in emotional damages. OK. I mean, I think what he did was reprehensible, but a billion dollars.

Alex Jones, who I've never seen a show. I don't know anything about him other than he seems like as soon as if somebody sends me a link that says

Infowars or Alex Jones, I automatically go ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, because it's going to be out there.

I mean, I'm out here. I like to tell people I'm more conservative than Genghis Khan. But and it's true.

Because I believe in individual liberty, which makes me more conservative than Genghis Khan. But but Alex Jones is like, you know, further out than I am.

So he's on the Alex Jones show. And he and he says that. And Alex Jones, to his credit, says,

I don't really think there's much good to say about Adolf Hitler, except for, you know, maybe if you want to talk about the the

German uniforms, they were pretty sharp. You know, I mean, and and Connie is just not having it.

It keeps going anyway. Yeah. When when he's trying to. He says, yeah, yeah.

Machen says Congress ought to be called in extra session in order to take up the case of John Smith in an alien, a sedition law.

He's still carrying out about that. He says the criminal is now the victim. And I'm like, yep. I mean, like bail is discrimination.

And I'm like, no. No bail is so that you'll show up in court when you're supposed to.

And and, you know, but that's the that's the society we live in where it's not your fault.

And I mean, it was interesting. Just watched a an episode of Law and Order where people are just going into this grocery store in New York City and they're just like helping themselves all the time.

And I'm like, OK, that's real life. That's what people are doing. You know, and I just thought to myself, how are people in New York City and other big cities where shoplifting is now legal?

How are the store owners to make a living? And I don't know. I really don't.

OK, number 18. What is because he uses this term and, you know, we don't use it enough.

What is paganism? Yeah. He says paganism is that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties.

Very different is the Christian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to. And here's

I think this is probably the most important part. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature, whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart.

I wish he hadn't said broken heart. I would have said. I would have said something more like a realistic view of mankind or a pessimistic view, you know, opted to.

Yes. Yeah. But but I mean, I just want to contrast it with paganism. Paganism says mankind is inherently good.

Right. Christianity says mankind is inherently evil. So I like those ideas.

But paganism, I mean, if you just read his definition there, you'd have to go.

Paganism is the prevailing religion of the world. Yes. Number 19.

Why should Christians be the most joyful of people? I think that's good.

Right. Hope. And, you know, when I meet people in there, I mean,

I was thinking about somebody that I've talked to a few times here recently, not at the church. And I just thought and I know she's not a

Christian. And I just think, boy, her. Demeanor is just one of kind of despair and, you know, sadness.

I'm like, you need to get saved, woman. In Christianity, on the other hand, nothing needs to be covered up.

The fact of sin is faced squarely once for all. Is that true, though? What does the psalmist say when, you know, he covers up his sin or when he doesn't confess it?

That his. Yeah, his bones dried, his flesh withered, you know, he's just like.

After sin has been removed by the grace of God, the Christian can proceed to develop joyously every faculty that God has given him.

Such is such as the higher Christian humanism, a humanism founded not upon human pride, but about upon divine grace.

So we ought to be the most joyful of people, whether we are or not.

You know, I can hear Pastor Mike saying missionary to your face.

I like that number. Number 20. No, you may not.

Next. Did you just conflate the law of God in the gospel?

Yeah. Well, I mean, it sounded like that in your question. Let's go to the tape. How would

I say it better than Machen? Right.

In other words, if we're to have awareness of our own sin, then what do we do?

We preach. We preach the law to ourselves, don't we? Oh, in the lives of.

Well, OK. And I hate to get down into the weeds here, but he uses in the lives.

Right. Not through the lives. We don't proclaim the law through our lives.

Look at me. He's saying that if the if a

Christian isn't living a life that makes takes them seriously and they're not showing that in their lives, then then it's not going to be giving the example.

Yeah. Well, I was I was going to get close because the law of God must be proclaimed in the lives.

OK. Living it out. Well, I think

I think you need to read the last sentence of the paragraph. The rank and file of the church must do their part in so proclaiming the law of God by their lives that the secrets secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed.

So I don't know about that. I mean, that that it does kind of draw a question mark in the sense that.

If if people are to look at my life and therefore feel guilty by the way they're living. Maybe the converse is this point.

If people see Christians taking sin lightly. And and I think, well, I guess mine's not that big of a deal.

Why do I need to be a Christian? Because we're not.

The proclamation of the law of God, the bad news. Yeah.

So I so I think that's good. But but again, I think, you know, like I mean,

I could read that and I could say, well, then what do we need to do? We need to police up society. Yeah.

And so I I mean, I don't necessarily like the way that's phrased. And I know he wasn't a legalist.

So so if I was his editor, I'd go.

I don't think you're saying what you mean to say here. He may say what he's meaning, but it's notification that can be taken the wrong way.

Yeah. Right. I would agree with that. OK. Number 20.

True or false. We need to stop treating the little sins as if they are big sins. Yes, definitely false.

He says, how can the consciousness see? And this is just him moving on. And this is right. How can the consciousness of sin be revived?

Something no doubt can be accomplished by the proclamation of the law of God for the law reveals transgressions.

The whole of the law, moreover, should be proclaimed. It will hardly be wise to adopt the suggestion recently offered among the suggestions as to the ways in which we should have to modify our message, blah, blah, blah, blah, that we should stop treating the little sins as though they were big sins.

You know, this way leads to. Anti -nominism is through the little sins, he says, that Satan gains an entrance into our lives, it's good to, you know, how easy example, how could

Paul say in First Timothy, you know, I'm the chief of all sinners, how could he do that? And and I think, you know, to just kind of amplify what you're saying as we mature in Christ, as we grow in Christ, then the little sins.

Become greater in our eyes because like Roman seven, even though, you know, maybe we're not committing great sins, the little sins we that we would like to stop doing, we don't stop doing.

Yes, exactly right. Number 21, true or false conviction of sin is liberating.

Well, I have true. Yeah. I mean, yeah, conviction of sin.

Can lead to what, you know, the cover up of sin or the denial of sin.

It is quite useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit. If everybody has taken it lightly, conviction of sin is a great mystery, which can be produced only by the spirit of God.

So I think that's the important phrase, our conviction of sin. And when a man is comes out of conviction of sin, his whole attitude toward life is transformed.

I mean, I was just thinking about what's the guy's name?

The bomb bomber fighter in a pilot, not pilot, but he was a bombardier or something in World War Two.

And he goes to the Billy Graham crusade. Anyway, he gets convicted.

I can't think of the guy's name was a really great book. Well, I think he just he just gets convicted.

He's a drunkard and he has a lot of problems and he just gets convicted and it really changes his life.

He goes from being an angry, bitter man to being quite the evangelist.

I can't think of his name here at the moment or the name of the book. What's that?

Yeah. Unbroken is the name of the book. Yeah, but I think the movie sort of took all the gospel message out of it.

Yeah. Shocking. Who knew? OK, now we're in 22.

True or false? Modern preaching is generally more convicting than ever. I mean, when you hear somebody like Rick Warren wax eloquent about sin, you've really really got something because that I don't know that.

Yeah, I don't know that has happened yet. I mean, wouldn't that be a great book? You know, Rick Warren is like writes a book called

The Sin Filled Life, you know, and it's just like railing against sin. OK, he says modern preachers are trying to bring men into the church without requiring them to relinquish their pride.

I mean, I just want to let that hang there, because not only do they say don't relinquish your pride, but be proud of your pride.

They are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. I really should have brought some

Reverend Bob Schuller quotes this morning.

I mean, some of you younger guys don't know who Schuller is. But I think

I mentioned him before, but he built the Crystal Cathedral. He wrote a book. Imagine this title.

Believe in the God who believes in you. And they actually gave that out in the jails.

And we just, you know, thousands of copies of this thing. And they were floating around for a while.

So one night I had a Christian sergeant I worked with. His name was

Dennis. And he had a copy of that book. And I said, I'll tell you what, let's just do this.

You flip the chapter, or you flip the book open to a page. And, you know, let's see how long it takes you to find heresy.

And then I'll flip it open to a different page, and we'll see who can get to the heresy. It's just unbelievable.

You know, I mean, hey. So he says, the preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the

Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows. You people are very good. You respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community.

Now we have in the Bible, especially in the life of Jesus, something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people.

Such is modern preaching. Yeah, you know,

I went to church on Sunday, and what the pastor said made me feel good, but not good enough.

You know, I kept looking for something that made me feel even better. It is heard every

Sunday of thousands of pulpits, but is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than he.

Probably not going to do better than Jesus. No, probably not. Probably not.

Okay. Yes, you have a question. I see that. Yes. Yeah, there's no release for it.

Well... Yes, but you...

I think Keith has just expressed the life, or summarized the life of Martin Luther prior to, you know, salvation.

Because, you know, the more he learned of the law of God, the more despondent he became, right? The more convicted he became, and the more he realized that the

Roman Catholic system offered nothing but more guilt. You know, and...

Well, or you just do what he did, which was, you know, just, okay, well, I guess I'm not confessing enough.

I'm not doing enough, you know. So you get on the treadmill of works. Yeah. You know, the

Homer Simpson thing. He says, he looks at his son and says, well, you know what?

What's the son's name? Bart. He says to Bart, he goes, that's right, son. Can't win, don't try.

Immortal words. Yeah. Can't win, don't try.

I'm going to find a message to entitle, Can't win, don't try. Just for Dave.

Okay. Chapter four. Number one. True or false?

While traditional Christianity and liberal Christianity come at things from different perspectives, their endpoints are remarkably similar.

Nice try, though. Really? Their endpoints are remarkably similar.

Okay. That's an end point, right?

Mitchell says modern liberalism has been observed so far has lost sight of the two great presuppositions of the

Christian message, the living God and the fact of sin. Other than that, it's doing pretty well. He says the liberal doctrine of God and the liberal doctrine of man are both diametrically opposite to the

Christian view, but their divergence concerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the message itself.

According to the Christian view, the Bible contains an account of a revelation from God to man which is found nowhere else, which implies liberals believe that these truths can be found elsewhere.

Right? The Christian experience, I mean, even, and I think we're going to see this developed as well, if you just believe that the

Bible is one of many holy books, and which, you know, if you listen to a liberal

Christian, I don't need to name names, but even some liberal Christians who have been, and when

I say liberal Christians, I want to lowercase the C, you know, liberal

Christians who have held high office in this country. What do they talk about?

They talk about the great religions, and they will refer to these other great religious leaders, and they'll attribute really great things to them.

Well, how can they do that? Because they're Christians lower C. In other words, they're cultural

Christians, but maybe not biblical Christians. Okay, number two.

Thank you for liking that. Because you liked it, we'll move on to number two. Number two, true or false?

Hey, if you didn't like it, I would just stay on one for longer until I got some amens. Amen. Number two, true or false?

That's all. Just keep mashing that. I can keep you all here until tomorrow, you know.

True or false? The notion of man having communion with God is unknown in the

Old Testament. See, now, I think that's a little tricky.

Because I have true. Okay. Now, if you want to say

Adam and Eve, maybe I can go with that. I think after that, though, it's a little more difficult.

I mean, I guess it depends on how you define communion. Here's what

Machen says. The Bible also contains an account of a revelation, which is absolutely new.

That new revelation concerns the way by which sinful man can come into communion with the living

God. It wasn't my error. Oh, no.

I am preserved without error. Yeah.

Yeah, well, I did put capital M man. So, you know, yeah,

I think you guys are wrong. So I'm going. Yeah. Hit the like and subscribe.

Okay, well, let's just think about this for a minute.

What is it when he says that new revelation concerns the way by which sinful man can come into communion with the living

God? What makes that new from the Old Testament? In other words, what didn't exist in the

Old Testament that exists in the New Testament? I mean, there's something revolutionary, and I think that's his point.

You know, there's something revolutionary in the New Testament. And, you know, in contrast with the liberals who say, you know, all religions have truth.

Right. I mean, I, you know, my dad used to say things to me like he would compare

Christianity. What's a really old Middle Eastern religion? What's that?

Yeah, but I mean, it's really it has the whole mother daughter thing or mother son thing.

And, you know, all these other things. Veganism. Close. Anyway, he would say, well, what about Zoroastrianism?

You know, and, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And, you know, it's got this and it's got that.

And I'm just like, OK, what would you do if you were Satan? I mean, if I were

Satan, I would produce counterfeit after counterfeit after counterfeit, which, you know, even like Mormonism, a lot of truth in Mormonism.

You know, they'll even tell you Jesus is God. And they'll even say,

I mean, one of my aunts this week wrote something about, you know. Oh, isn't it wonderful that, you know,

Jesus is sufficient, you know, and I'm like, yeah, it is. I think to myself.

It just depends on how you define sufficient. This week on Harvard Radio Broadcast, be blessed if you do this.

The New Testament said you are blessed and now continue to.

And the blessing was promised in the Old Testament. The blessing was given to us in the

New Testament with the death, burial and resurrection. I mean, that's there's definitely.

You know, truth there, right? I mean, if we just think about this way, the Old Testament looks forward to the cross.

New Testament looks back at it. Right. What was anticipated is now.

Has now come to pass. We could definitely say that. But, you know, just this idea of communion.

If we could just define that a little bit, if we're going to say, you know, the way he's using it here, how would you define that?

Coming into communion with God? OK, fellowship. And I think that's kind of better.

Sorry. Sorry, Chuck. Right. Relationship. Right. How about even let's use a biblical term reconciled.

Right. And it would have been nice, you know, again, if I was writing this book, maybe today,

I would certainly bring that in. Why? Because I want people to understand that we there was a disruption.

Right. And that in the relationship between God and man with a capital

M. And Christ reconciled us.

Right. The second Corinthians 521 language. Well, you can think that all you want, but, you know, here, let me just show you.

See, it's got it's got yellow highlighter right there, which means it is definitely true.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. OK, well, then.

OK. I think

I think then we'd have to say that Machen obliterated himself. OK. No, he says.

No, he. No. He says the Bible also contains an account of revelation, which is absolutely new.

That new revelation contains or concerns the way by which sinful man can come into communion with the living

God. Now, you could you'll just look at the Old Testament and you won't see. Yes.

OK. OK. OK.

Can I just. Yeah. Can I just let let's go to the context. Top of page 60. Right after that, that new revelation concerns the way by which sinful man can come into communion with the living

God. Next sentence. The way was open, according to the Bible, by an act of God. When almost 1900 years ago, outside the walls of Jerusalem, the eternal sun was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of.

OK. I. Right.

But it didn't it didn't. All right. Well. Yeah. I'm going to.

OK. I think I think mentions self -obliterated. But, you know, the beautiful thing about and I've said it before about writing controversial questions is it stirs discussion.

OK. Number three. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. That's a good question. See, I think, again, it depends on how we how we determine that word communion, how we define it.

You it well. Let me ask you this.

Somebody who partakes in communion, are they a communist? So, all right. All right, moving right along.

Number three, why does Machen describe salvation as something that happened? Tourful.

Okay, good.

Salvation is made for you, not by you. Yep. Yeah, so it's an actual event, not an experience.

Machen says salvation, then according to the Bible, is something, is not something that was discovered, but something that happened.

But if you pray enough about it, you'll get a burning. So yeah, okay, well.

Hence appears the uniqueness of the Bible, of all the ideas of Christianity might be discovered in, although all the ideas of Christianity might be discovered in some other religion, which is what

I was saying earlier, even Zoroastrianism. Yet there would be, in that other religion, no

Christianity. For Christianity depends not upon a complex of ideas, not a system of ideas, but upon the narration of an event.

Without that event, the world, in the Christian view, is altogether dark and humanity is lost under the guilt of sin.

There can be no salvation by the discovery of eternal truth, for eternal truth brings naught but despair because of sin.

But a new face has been put upon life by the blessed thing that God did when he offered up his only begotten

Son. So Christianity really, ultimately, is about the event, not about a system of ideas, complicated though they may be.

All right, number four. True or false? Experience can serve as a vital confirmation of the gospel message.

Could go either way.

Chuck says false. Okay, let's see, tell the truth and shame the devil. How many say true?

Okay, how many say false? Okay, let's see, let's see, let's see what's in the ink.

True! Experience, yeah, that's what the yellow highlighter says.

Okay, well let's just read what Machen says and then we can, we can debate some more. Christian experience, as we have said, is useful as confirming the gospel message.

That sounds pretty much like the question. But, because it is necessary, many men have jumped to the conclusion that it is all that is necessary.

So experience can serve as a vital confirmation? Yes, yes. But it's not the message itself.

You know, I should have bolded vital so that you could really throw people off.

I would have tricked Dave then. Yeah, but that's the beauty of the question when you get right down to it.

Yeah, it is true. But you know what's shocking to me?

I mean, I'm not, I won't name any names or anything, but I've spoken with people at length about their testimony, about how they've come to know

Jesus Christ. And there have been a few people who, no matter what

I say, and no matter what the Bible says, can't get away from the experience part.

There's no objective reality whatsoever, and I mean, I remember dealing with this one couple, and they were both so, if I could just put it this way, old, that I realized that, you know,

I had basically two choices here, and you can flagellate me for being a compromiser here, and I'll accept it.

I thought to myself, if I say, I'm not even sure you guys are saved, and I don't therefore allow them into the church, because we don't take unsaved people under membership, they're gonna go to another church.

Now, was I afraid of losing their money? But I thought, okay, at this stage of their lives, which would

I rather have them do? Sit here and listen to the truth week after week after week after week after week, or go somewhere else where they might,

I don't know, you know, and someday, according to James 3, I'm gonna face a stricter judgment, right?

So, you know, compromising Steve. I know, and that's the ultimate thing.

I don't really know, but I'm just listening, going, I mean, I, you know, if this were, you know, like a baseball practice,

I've gone from throwing the really hard and fast balls to, you know, bigger ones, and now

I've taken out the big rubber ball, and, you know, I'm just like, here, hit this, you know, I'm just like, hit something, and it's not looking good for the home team, and, you know, so I don't know, ultimately, but, you know, if it were up to me, but, you know,

Steve can be a little legalistic, so maybe I'm just, you know, too harsh, I don't know, but... One more, one more story, yes,

Keith, good point, I mean, and to just kind of underscore that, you know, I mean, when people are gonna get baptized, they send me their testimony, and, you know,

I try to avoid the George Harrison version of things, which is all through the day, I mean, mine,

I mean, mine, I mean, mine, so just remind me of that, I mean, mine, so I get a testimony from somebody in it, and they said, you know, this was 30 pages, and now

I've cut it down to 15, and I'm like, boy, 15 pages,

I'm just going, you know, it was an hour -long testimony, you know, yeah, so I just kind of,

I thought I can either edit this, or I can encourage more self -editing, so that's what

I did, but yeah, 15 pages, I think you're missing the point, okay, let's see,

Machen, having a present experience of Christ in the heart, may we not hold that experience, no matter what history may tell us to the events of the first Easter morning, right, may we not make ourselves altogether independent of the results of biblical criticism, no matter what sort of man history may tell us,

Jesus, Nazareth, okay, may we not continue to experience the presence of Christ in our souls,

I like how he says, I have to read that part, he goes, no matter what history may say about the real meaning of his death, or about the story of his alleged resurrection, may we not continue to experience the presence of Christ in our souls, yes, yeah, and I mean, and you know what's hard, and you guys already know this, because what's hard is, you know, the realization that,

I mean, I don't objectively know a lot of things, right, I mean, I'm just a guy, but sometimes

I listen, and I'm going, man, if that was me saying that, would I, you know, would

I believe I was saved? I don't know, I think I'd have a hard time, but can people give all the right answers, and not be saved?

Yeah, yeah, so I mean, yeah, I think that's a good question, I think, you know, sometimes it's just, it's hard to know,

I mean, well, let's take it, you know, since I mentioned the baptism thing, which do you suppose that I, or what should we set a higher threshold for?

Church membership or baptism? A higher threshold.

Okay, not, well, well, now let's, let's look at Machen's world here, let's talk about Presbyterianism.

What do they have, a higher threshold for church membership or baptism? Church membership, okay, but the threshold for baptism is so low that what happens, and this is my argument against, or one of my arguments against Presbyterianism, what happens when you baptize everybody, you know, all the little babies all get baptized, then what do you have to do at some point in their life?

Okay, determine whether they're saved or not, so there comes a point where, you know, you see these 30 -year -olds in the congregation, you just go, you know what,

I don't know if Billy is saved, and what about Susie, and you know, so what do you do? You talk to them all and kick them out, you know, or, or you keep them in the church, and then what happens?

Yeah, but what happens to the, so if you look at the 20th century, the

Presbyterian Church, you start with the PCUSA, and it's a very conservative denomination, they're right down the line, and then what happens?

They go off the rails, so they start, they start the PCA, and what happens?

It's about to go off the rails, and this is why, and my thesis is, when you baptize all these unregenerate people, and you have, and the de facto, the default,

I guess, default position is, you know, they're going to be church members unless they excuse themselves, then you've got, you've got a real problem, because you're gonna wind up with a bunch of people that aren't saved, who want teaching for itching ears, and you know, want to go along with the culture and everything else, and then at some point, yeah, the whole denomination is going to skew to, yeah, the culture, yeah.

Brian? Yes, and that's what, and so to answer my question, to, you know, obliterate myself, yeah, the threshold for baptism is lower, at least around here it is.

I mean, all I, all I want to hear is, you know, a credible profession of faith, and I don't have to determine whether it's genuine or not, just whether it's credible or not, right?

That's right, that's right, and I like what he says here, he says, the

Christian says to himself, I've meditated upon the problem of becoming right with God. I've tried, tried to produce a righteousness that will stand in his sight, but when

I heard the gospel message, I learned that what I had weakly striven to accomplish had been accomplished by the

Lord Jesus Christ when he died for me on the cross and completed his redeeming work by the glorious resurrection.

If the thing had not yet been done, if I merely had an idea of its accomplishment, then I am of all men most miserable, for I am still in my sins.

My Christian life, then, depends altogether upon the truth of the New Testament record, and you know, it was so, that rang so true with me because as a

Mormon, you know, I had this idea that Jesus' life and death meant something to me, did something for me, but it was kind of like, if I could use this term these days, kind of like a booster shot, right?

It got me to where I needed to be, and then it was up to me to sort of, oh yeah, totally,

I mean, and not only synergistic, but I would say it was more, you know, kooligistic, you know, he just kind of brought you back to neutral, and then it was up to you to make yourself right before God.

Yeah, to a certain extent, yeah, yeah, I think Mormonism is a little worse than Catholicism, but your mileage may vary.

Number five, true or false, plenary inspiration means the Bible is without error.

True, and you know, because I know that because it's in the highlighter, one of the reasons

I wanted to do that is because a lot of churches have in their statement of faith, they believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and we don't talk like that, so it's like, what does it mean?

It just means it's without error. He says, the Bible might contain an account of a true revelation from God, and yet the account be full of error.

It's possible. Before the full authority of the Bible can be established, therefore, it is necessary to add to the

Christian doctrine of revelation, the Christian doctrine of inspiration. The latter doctrine means that the

Bible not only is an account of important things, but the account itself is true. The writers, having been so preserved from error despite a full maintenance of their habits of thought and expression, that the resulting book is the infallible rule of faith and practice.

That just means that the Holy Spirit used their personalities and their education and their quirks and everything to write what he wrote,

Brian. Are you trying to differentiate between God and the

Holy Spirit? If so, please wax eloquent. We will hear that heresy now.

Like, forgive student loans.

Sadly, the

Supreme Court is going to strip him of that power very soon. Plenary indulgences, yes.

Wow. It overflows into the bowels of hell, you know.

I mean, come on. That's just awful.

Okay, number six. Number six, true or false, according to Machen.

The Holy Spirit dictated the Bible to men who faithfully wrote it down. It is, in yellow highlighter, false.

That's the key, you know. Whatever you guys want to argue is one thing. Plenary highlighter, yes.

Machen says, this doctrine of plenary inspiration has been made the subject of persistent misrepresentation.

I've dealt with that. Anybody ever had argued with somebody who wants to say, well, you're saying then that, you know,

God just dictated... you ever heard that? Yeah.

Bears repeating. Its opponents speak of it as though it involved a mechanical theory of the activity of the

Holy Spirit, as if he takes possession of them, right? The Spirit is said, is represented in this doctrine as dictating to the writers, who are little more than stenographers.

But of course, all such caricatures, a word that everybody should know, caricatures, misrepresentations, cartoonish misrepresentations, are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising that intelligent men should be so blinded by prejudice about this matter, not as even to examine for themselves the perfectly accessible treatises in which the doctrine of plenary inspiration, which means what again?

Absolute inspiration is set forth. It is usually considered good practice to examine a thing for oneself before echoing the vulgar ridicule of it.

But in connection with the Bible, such scholarly restraints are somehow regarded as out of place.

It is so much easier to content oneself with a few opobrious adjectives such as in insulting, derisive, right?

Adjectives such as mechanical or the like. Why engage, and I love this, this is probably why

I say this whole paragraph, why engage in such serious criticism when the people prefer ridicule?

Why attack a real opponent when it is easier to knock down a man of straw? I had a cousin who used to be on Facebook quite a bit.

Thankfully, he's declined to, not, you know, he doesn't participate much anymore. And I used to say, you know,

I used to look for a good gif of, you know, somebody soaking a straw man with kerosene every time he, because he would, like, heck, oh man, you must really get a good deal on kerosene because you just soak your straw man in that thing, light it on fire.

It's so easy, right, to create an opponent that doesn't exist and then burn it. And that's what, that's what they do.

Okay, number seven, and this is going to take a little thought. Where did

Jesus say anything that would defend the inerrancy of the Bible? On page 64,

Jesus, Jesus said, all right, Chuck, get my eye on you.

Okay, somebody said, I heard so, well, let's see what, let's see what

Jesus said on page 64 here. He said, a Bible that is full of error certainly, is certainly divine in the modern pantheizing

God -in -everything sense of divine, according to which God is just another name for the course of the world with all its imperfections and all its sin, but the

God whom the Christian worships is a God of truth. Actually, I don't think he actually cites

Jesus saying anything, but can you think of any, any places where Jesus might have said something about the inerrancy of Scripture?

Okay, I have that down, very good. What, what is it? Because I, I just put a couple down, but John 17, 17 is one.

Okay, yeah, I thought of that one too, but I didn't look up the reference, so. Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth.

See, it's no longer thy, it's your. So, no, yeah, what, what, what verse are you thinking around?

See, I don't even agree with that, but because you said, I dear, I'm giving you credit. I agree with that,

I just don't think it, I just don't think it hits the, what I, the question, where did Jesus say anything that would defend the inerrancy of the

Bible? Well, he didn't really say anything in John 1, 1. Okay, okay,

I like that. I have one other passage, or one other verse. Well, no, but, but I like that,

I think that's good, right? Everywhere that proceeds from the, that's when he's being tempted in the wilderness, right?

John, right, okay.

I mean, I think that's probably in the, is that in the Sermon on the Mount? I do not think I came to, maybe it's not in the

Sermon on the Mount, might be, but it sounds like Matthew. Can you think of another, can you, can you think of anything in John?

See, I don't have to look, because I already put it down. I didn't highlight it, though, so I don't know if it's right or not.

Okay, John 10, where he says what? Brian's looking for a bailout.

Okay, I don't know if that, yeah.

Okay, I mean, I would agree with that one. Okay, how about this one? Good, good.

How about John 16, 13? When the

Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears, he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Now, how can I say that that refers to Scripture? And, okay, he will guide you into all truth, all the truth.

And that's one of the things, you know, when I was studying this, when

I was preaching through John, just realizing how many times people use that verse to kind of justify, you know, they pray, they get a feeling that something is right.

And so they say, well, you know, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth. No, no, because in that context, what

Jesus is doing is he's trying to comfort the, if you recall, he's trying to comfort the disciples who are like, they're really like, worked up, they're going, hey, wait a second, you just told us you're going to leave.

Yeah, that whole, like I said, the whole section, where does it, I think, is it maybe chapter 14, where he goes into, he goes into this comfort thing, is it 13 or 14?

And he just starts telling them, you know, why they should be comforted.

Oh, yeah. 14, let not your hearts be troubled, believe in God, believe also in me.

And that's right after, obviously, at the end of 13, Simon Peter says to him, Lord, where are you going?

Jesus said to him, where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward. Yeah, I mean, this is difficult for them.

Back to chapter 13. Now, before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of the world to the

Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. I mean, these are, you know, he knows that the end is coming.

I mean, this is the last supper. He knows that the end is coming. And so he spends that evening just preparing them for that.

And I'm sure there are other places we could go, which would certainly, where Jesus would affirm scripture.

But that's, you know, I just I just thought it's just kind of an interesting question.

Yeah, yeah, those are those are good. And those are, you know, a lot in the

Sermon on the Mount, or, you know, even you have read, but I say to you, or you, you know, you've heard what

I say to you. Number eight, true or false. There are many churchmen who accept that men unaided by the

Spirit could produce an error free Bible. Let's see what the highlighter says.

Yes. Well, let's just let's just find let's go to the phone before we go to the throne.

I know, but I'm I'm doing I'm reversing it on purpose. Let's go to the phone before we go to the throne.

Are there churchmen who accept that men unaided by the Spirit could produce an error free Bible says there are many

Christian men in the modern church who find in the origin of Christianity no mere product of evolution, but a real entrance of the creative power of God who depend for their salvation, not at all upon their own efforts to lead to to lead the

Christ life, but upon the atoning blood of Christ. There are many men in the modern church who accept the central message of the

Bible and yet believe that the messages come to us merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in their literary work by any supernatural guidance of the

Holy Spirit of the Spirit of God. There are many who believe that the Bible is right at the central point in its account of the redeeming work of Christ and yet believe that it contains many errors.

This is separate another group such men are not really liberals but Christians because they have accepted as true the message upon which

Christianity depends a great gulf separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which

Christianity stands are false. Yes, church churchmen, you know, meaning not not

Christians, I guess would be the key there. In contrast, the modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration, but even such respect for the

Bible as would be proper over and against any ordinarily trustworthy book. I mean,

I really, I hate when people, I've mentioned this before, when they use that word inspired, you know, about other things.

That song inspired me and I'm like, no, it didn't, you know, no, no, wrong.

Okay, number nine. True or false, the Old Testament is filled with horrible teachings and Paul develops doctrines that Jesus never intended.

We'll see what the highlighter says. Have you ever heard those things?

I was almost, I almost could have picked like a random post from my uncle and Uncle John says the

Old Testament is filled with horrible teachings and Paul develops doctrines that Jesus never intended. Then it would be true if I just put

Uncle John said. Yeah, if you just use half, then it's guaranteed.

He says, it makes it says the impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of God, the authority of Christ.

What does that mean? As it was a country music fan,

I can interpret this for you. Okay.

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of the

Bible, the authority of Christ. Is that the new refrigerator?

Um, what, what is, what does that mean?

Okay. It could be a nebulous Christ principle or it could be warmer, warmer.

How about red letters? The letters written in red, you know, are, are well, even more so than red are more reliable.

We're not there yet though. So, um, major says he cannot accept.

He says what he regards as the perverse moral teachings of the Old Testament, right?

Which I said, horrible teachings. Okay. Or the sophisticated, uh, sophistical arguments of Paul, but he regards himself as being the true

Christian because rejecting the rest of the Bible, he depends upon Jesus alone.

That's the, you know, what, but I mean, this is kind of, if I could put it this way, this is

Southern Christianity, right? Southern Christianity. This is, you know,

I go to the church of Christ in Little Rock, Arkansas, and this is what we teach. We just focus on the letters in red, because that's, what's really important.

Treat others like you want to be treated, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Major says this impression, however, is utterly false.

The modern liberal does not really hold to the authority of Jesus because Jesus upheld the

Old Testament. I mean, we can go to now that I'm thinking about it. I mean, even when he's talking about marriage, what does he say for this reason?

You know, you show a man shall leave his father and mother and clean it. You know, I mean, he, he cites the

Old Testament. Number 10, true or false. One reason for the epistles,

Paul meaning, is that the fullness of life, the fullness of the life and work of Jesus could only be explained after the fact.

See what the highlighter says. True. The words of Jesus spoken during his earthly ministry could hardly contain all that we need to know about God and about the way of salvation.

For the meaning of Jesus redeeming work could hardly be fulfilled, be fully set forth before that work was done.

It could be set forth indeed by way of prophecy. And as a matter of fact, it was so set forth by Jesus, even in the days of his flesh.

But the full explanation could naturally be given only after the work was done. And such was actually the divine method.

You know, even thinking about the attacks on, you know, this idea that Paul wrote things that Jesus never intended.

You know, what are some of the stupid holes, obvious holes in that?

This is just driving me crazy. Sorry, it's my OCD kicking in. Oh, they still have more to take up.

All right. OCD off. Yeah, you know, it's probably.

So what would you say to somebody who says, you know, essentially Paul went too far or Paul invented things that Jesus never intended?

Okay. Yes. But, but Paul wasn't there.

Okay, good. Okay. But, but how about, how about this?

What does, what does Paul say? You know, that he was taught by Jesus himself, right?

So, I mean, I, I think anybody who wants to say such things basically has to deny the plenary inspiration of scripture.

They just have to basically say, well, Paul's a liar. Peter didn't know what he was talking about, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah. Yeah. Joel Osteen and his co -writer was

Rick Warren. Is that the guy who also wrote the

Star Wars books? Okay. I'm just making that up.

I think that was 10. Well, let that second pass.

Penal substitution is not what God said. Okay. Let's see.

Where were we? Fullness work. Yep. Okay. Obviously it had to take place afterwards. I mean, Paul, did

Paul develop new doctrine? No. What he did was explain what was there. So number 11, true or false?

Machen seems to prophesy of the Jesus seminar where scholars decided what

Jesus did and did not say. True. I mean, I've talked about the

Jesus seminar before, you know, that's, and, and really I looked it up to just see when the

Jesus seminar was founded and that was 1985. That's genuine. Oh, he dubbed it.

He dubbed it for that. Yeah.

And Machen says those words of Jesus, which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical process.

I mean, I think, I think you've probably heard this before, but these guys literally sat around with four different colors of beads and they would take secret votes, you know, using like red.

He definitely said it white, probably not. And then I think there was black and gray, you know?

Yeah. So it, you know, all these different gradations about whether he said that or not.

And so they decided what he said. The critical process is certainly very difficult.

And the suspicion often arises that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical

Jesus. Only those words which confirm or conform to his own preconceived ideas, right?

You go in there thinking, well, this is what Jesus is like. And then you read the quote and you go, yeah, he probably said that.

Nah, he wouldn't have said that. Yep. No, no,

I know. Never have. And yes, many, many times.

Well, I mean, you know, even even even the the

Pentateuch has been subject to that. It's what we call higher criticism. You know, did Moses write this?

Probably not. You know, this is the Elohist voice or this is the Deuteronomist voice or this is the priestly voice or the.

Yeah, they've got it all down. But even after the sifting process has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable to accept as authoritative all the sayings of Jesus.

He must finally admit that even the historical Jesus, as reconstructed by modern historians, said some things that are untrue.

That's that's just shocking. And I had to get that in there. OK, we're basically out of time. Number 12, true or false, modern liberals love the

Sermon on the Mount. False. The highlighter says false.

Yeah, the truth is that the lifestyle of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life purpose or the life purpose of Jesus is covered by modern liberalism is not the life purpose of the real

Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus isolated, misinterpreted, which happen to agree with the modern program.

It is not Jesus, therefore, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus recording teaching has been made.

And then he says certain isolated ethical principles in the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are the teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.

But as he said before, when he when he goes through the when Mason goes through the Sermon on the

Mount, there's a lot they don't like. Right. They don't like where he's authoritative and where he portrays himself as deity.

And finally, 13 tour. Oh, they like it.

They like it, but they only like certain sections of it. OK, but any if any part of the question is false, then the whole question is false.

So they don't they don't love it all. They just love part of it. Number 13, true or false.

The Bible is true only if it is true for an individual. That's obviously false. And we don't have to go through all that because we're not time.

But the highlighter says it's false. Therefore, you can take it to the bank. It is false. OK, well, we'll close in prayer and then we can talk about the prophecy.

All right. Father, thank you for this time. And thank you for these men coming early in the morning. Lord, I just pray that you would build us up, cause us to to to think and Lord, as we as we study to just love your word more and more and be thankful for the truth that Jesus Christ saves sinners, even us.