|
1. Who needs Salvation
What’s it all about?
Talk one – Who needs salvation anyway?
1. Welcome and introduction
? Welcome, and thank you for coming, please relax and enjoy this evening and in fact the course, as we hope we will all get to know each other and meet new people and possibly even make new friends. This is a non pressured environment, a place to be able to relax, be ourselves, to discuss and ask some of those bigger questions we may have, or which may arise as life goes on. In a sense time out to think about life, as quite often if we are not careful life can be what happens around us and whilst we are busy dealing with that the more important issues can sometimes pass us by until when a marker such as a wedding or a funeral, a change of schools or job, an illness etc causes us to take stock and wonder, but rarely do we actually stop and think “What is it all about?”
So please feel free to ask any questions, because of the nature of the course we may only mention something’s in the course without the time to go into them at any depth, and not even mention others so if something does get you thinking or cause you to have a question, or if it is a question you may already have then please during the discussion time please ask because if you are wondering about it I expect everyone else is also asking it but may be to shy or embarrassed to ask it.
I promise that we will do our best to answer and if we don’t know we will find out and let you know, as no one ever has all the answers and sometimes there is no answer, sometimes as we get to know one another there may be more specific life questions specific to us, and if you wish to ask those please feel free as we will deal with them as sensitively and confidentially as we can, but we will not be aiming to create an intensive counselling session format.
The format of the evening will be that we will meet here at 7:30 pm and then share some light refreshments and then we will have a short talk lasting about 25 to 30 minutes, we will then split up into small groups and discuss the questions which the talk may have raised for us or questions we may already have, finishing around 9:15 to 9:30, the four sessions we will have together will be entitled
1. Who needs Salvation
2. What is Salvation
3. Walking in Salvation
4. When is this Salvation
And at no point will anyone be pressured into anything that they are not happy as we want you to be free to be able to relax and enjoy the course, also if anyone wishes to look at some of the issues we may mention or discuss there is a library of resources available which are free of charge and are there to be used so please feel free to help yourself, as that is what they are there for.
? Foundations
Whenever one builds something it is important to make sure the foundations are solid and true and likewise with our lives, therefore it is important initially to highlight certain foundations, such as the fact that what we will be telling you, and what we believe is not something unique to ourselves, that we are not a cult. But rather that what we believe is that which Christians and Christian Churches across Scotland and the world do believe and have believed and lived out and practised for over 2000 years so I would like to start by setting in some factual foundations for Christianity which we are not always aware of. And that these foundations are reliable enough for us to build our beliefs on, and they will take the weight of our lives, should we choose to build on them.
So what are these factual foundations?
? Archaeological evidence
Old Testament
(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David):
What has become evident over the last few decades is that the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the Bible's reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then.
Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia.
1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.
2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.
3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.
There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:
4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.
5) Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.
6) Joseph's Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem, as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?
7) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.
8) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.
Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, David and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Joseph's original tomb and home. There remain many 'tells' yet to uncover.
New Testament
Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error.
9) Paul's reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.
It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:
10) Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.
11) Luke's mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.
12) Luke's usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.
13) Luke's usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.
14) Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveler and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia..." Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.
It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."
In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been historical data which has validated his accounts, we can rest assured that the New Testament can be held in high regard as a reliable historical document.
We have no reason to fear archaeology. In fact it is this very science which has done more to authenticate our scriptures than any other. Thus we encourage the secular archaeologists to dig, for as they dig we know they will only come closer to that which our scriptures have long considered to be the truth, and give us reason to claim that indeed our Bible has the right to claim true authority as the only historically verified Word of God. This is why so many eminent archaeologists are standing resolutely behind the Biblical accounts. Listen to what they say (taken from McDowell's Evidences 1972:65-67):
G.E. Wright states, “We shall probably never prove that Abram really existed...but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period."
Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting."
William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."
Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
? Historical evidence
Author or source Date authored Oldest copy Time after events Number of copies
Herodotus 488 – 428 BC AD 900 1,300 years 8
Thucydides c.460 – 100 BC C.AD 900 1,300 years 8
Tacitus AD 100 AD 1100 1,000 years 20
Caesar’s Gallic War 58-50 BC AD 900 950 years 9-10
Livy’s Roman History 59 BC – AD 17 AD 900 900 years 20
New Testament AD 40 - 100 AD 130 (manuscripts AD 350) 30-310 years 5,000 + Greek
10,000 Latin
9,300 others
Tacitus - The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals (c. 116) about the Great Fire of Rome (64)
Included an account of how the emperor Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the disaster and initiated the first known persecution of early Christians by the Romans. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus’ works. Although partly aimed at showing the inhumanity of the emperor, Tacitus’ remarks have been studied more by modern scholars for information about his own religious attitudes and about the early history of Christianity.
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century :
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribes of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
There is more evidence for and about the life and work of Jesus than the life of Caesar, and they are independent accounts which in itself communicate something of the impact he had on those around him and society he lived in, and even still does and therefore his uniqueness. And there is therefore far more than we can discus this evening.
? Biblical evidence
The Bible's Documentary Evidence:
(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David)
The documentary evidence for the reliability of the Bible has been an area of research which has been increasing rapidly over the last few decades. But this hasn't always been so. The assumption by many former archaeologists was that the Old Testament was written not in the tenth to fourteenth centuries B.C. by the authors described within its text, but by later Jewish historians during the much later second to sixth century B.C., and that the stories were then redacted back onto the great prophets such as Moses and David, etc... Yet, with the enormous quantity of data which has been uncovered and is continuing to be uncovered, as well as the new forensic research methods being employed to study them, what we are now finding is that many of these preconceived notions of authorship are simply no longer valid. For instance:
(1) The skeptics contended that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses, because there was no evidence of any writing that early. Then the Black Stele was found with the detailed laws of Hammurabi which were written 300 years before Moses, and in the same region.
(2) There was much doubt as to the reliability of the Old Testament documents, since the oldest manuscript in our possession was the Massoretic Text, written in 916 A.D. How, the skeptics asked, can we depend on a set of writings whose earliest manuscripts are so recent? Then came the amazing discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls written around 125 B.C. These scrolls show us that outside of minute copying errors it is identical to the Massoretic Text and yet it predates it by over 1,000 years! We have further corroboration in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, translated around 150-200 B.C.
Yet to please the skeptics, the best documentary evidence for the reliability of the Biblical text must come from documents external to the Biblical text themselves. There has always been doubt concerning the stories of Abraham and the Patriarchs found in the books attributed to Moses, the Pentateuch. The skeptics maintained that there is no method of ascertaining their reliability since we have no corroboration from external secular accounts. This has all changed; for instance:
(3) Discoveries from excavations at Nuzu, Mari and Assyrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Eshunna Codes point out that Hebrew poetry, Mosaic legislation as well as the Hebrew social customs all fit the period and region of the patriarchs.
(4) According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period.
(5) Historians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period.
(6) The account of Daniel, according to the sceptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century's East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar's building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye-witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.
The strongest case for extra-Biblical corroboration of the Patriarchal period is found in four sets of tablets which have been and are continuing to be uncovered from that area of the world. They demonstrate that the Biblical account is indeed historically reliable. Let's briefly look at all four sets of tablets.
(7) *Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13.
(8) *Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.
(9) *Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru.
(10) *Nuzi tablets: (from Iraq) speaks about a number of customs which we find in the Pentateuch, such as:
a) a barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar)
b) a bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah)
c) a dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob)
d) work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob)
e) the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac)
f) a father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel)
g) the sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob).
Because of these extra-Biblical discoveries many of the historians are now changing their position. Thus Joseph Free states: "New discoveries now show us that a host of supposed [Biblical] errors and contradictions are not errors at all: such as, that Sargon existed and lived in a palatial dwelling 12 miles north of Ninevah, that the Hittites were a significant people, that the concept of a sevenfold lamp existed in the early Iron Age, that a significant city given in the record of David's empire lies far to the north, and that Belshazzar existed and ruled over Babylon."
While documentary evidence for the Bible in the form of secular inscriptions and tablets not only corroborates the existence of some of the oldest Biblical traditions, similar and more recent documentary evidence (such as the Doctrina Iacobi, and the Armenian Chronicler) eradicates some of the more cherished Islamic traditions, that Islam was a uniquely Arab creation, and that Mecca, the supposed centre for Islam, has little historicity whatsoever before or during the time of Muhammad.
We look forward to further documentary discoveries coming to light, as they continue to substantiate and underline the Biblical record, while simultaneously putting doubt to the record of the Qur'an.
So we end up with this mesh of supporting evidence whereby each peace of evidence is independent and stands on its own and therefore they also support one another, and as the evidence gets stronger and stronger and the foundations become more and more secure it becomes a firm foundation on which we can base the Christian faith
So how does all that information affect us? – So if the bible is true and what is says is corroborated then that leaves us with a question about what we will do about the contents.
So what is sin?
As we have looked at the foundations of Christianity and found they are reliable, and factual, and historical. Therefore the bible is reliable and if it is reliable what does the bible say about one of the most foremost concepts in Christianity. The concept of sin and forgiveness and is it relevant to us today, in the bible book of Romans chapter 3:23 it says;
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
So let us look at this and how such an outdated concept can have any relevance to us today?
A poll carried our some while ago asked people what the term 'sin' meant to them. The average kind of answer was something like 'that which is wicked' or 'something which harms other people'. But there did not appear to be any clear picture which people held.
Of course, to some the question is nonsensical. They might say, 'Who can say what 'sin' is anyway, it just seems to be an outmoded religious idea, another mans right is another mans wrong - and yet these people are well aware of moral outrage when the wicked go unpunished, they are well aware of the outrage which they feel when some elderly person is beaten senseless by some thug in order to steal a small amount off them. Or they remember only too well the anger they felt when a precious item was stolen from their car!
In short, their experience of life has shown them that certain things are simply wrong. If one would not want ones own family to be wronged (and who would?), one is agreeing that there are norms which we should all seek to live by in order to achieve less suffering, anger, stress and hardship etc. Some may say what about relativism "Who can say what is right and wrong?") But they will lose all perspective of relativism when and if - and especially if the wrong which they perceive is too close to home!
Now the bottom line is that we all know that we are aware of right and wrong and good and evil even if we might occasionally argue over the definitions.
In the Garden of Eden, Mankind effectively took to itself the prerogative of deciding what comprises good and evil, and chose to go there own way rather than Gods way and since then it has been a downward spiral.
Many Christians accept the principle of moral depravity but this does not state that all are as evil as they could possibly be, but that all fall short of the holiness of God. We are all affected - to one degree or another – by the effects of sin. We are in a state of fallenness of one degree or another. There are some truly evil people in the world of course, but many others are a mix of many things; but none are truly pure in either behavior or knowledge.
Martin Luther used the description, 'Homo in se incurvatus', to describe the sinner. The phrase means something like 'mankind curved in on itself'; this is an image of reaching in to oneself rather than reaching out to help others; this illustrates the inherent selfishness which lies at the heart and base of sinfulness.
So, in the final analysis, sin is the demand for 'man-rule' or, 'self-rule'. Above all, it is anti-God, although as long as ones concept of 'God' does not make any real demands upon one, and does not impinge upon ones so-called 'freedom', a concept of "God" might be allowed. No, we need to recognise the reality that some behaviour harms ourselves or others, and we really have little or no excuse to duck this reality when we see suffering all around us.
So, what is sin?
Sin is rebellion against God and we witness it everywhere. Not knowing the true God inevitably leads to behaviour which is unholy and sinful. And these sinful acts may not always be as extreme as what we would consider to be sin. We may clearly see sinful in acts of adultery, murder, strife, selfishness, hatred and malice; but we need to be aware that even "nice people" are held under the power of sin, until accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour! If a person is motivated by self-interest and has no desire to walk with Jesus Christ, that in itself is sinful.
All have - fallen Short
As the bible passage says, the whole world really does lie in wickedness and we can see the results of this all around us - no matter how 'politically-correct' and non judgmental we are.
We see this on the broader scale in the breaking down of society with growth in crime rates and types of crimes, abuse of all different kinds, and indirect abuse by neglect, selfish aims and ambitions not only at a personal level but also at national and worldwide levels. That which our parents and grandparents could literally never have even thought of, and worse is taking place daily on a global scale.
However as I previously stated we may think well actually I am quite a good person basically, I may have made a few mistakes but I am no murderer or etc, etc. We may even think of someone we know who is much more of a sinner than us, someone perhaps we would say oh now they really need something because they are much worse than I am, perhaps it is that we think of Hitler and think well I am not as evil as he was and perhaps someone like mother Theresa of Calcutta and think but I am not as pure or as good as she was, however we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
Maybe it would help us to use the analogy of an exam and the pass mark being set at 80 percent now Hitler may only score a 5 percent mark and maybe mother Theresa a 79 percent, maybe we would give ourselves a 60 or 65 percent mark but whether one gets a mark of 1 percent 79 percent they both fail to come up to the required standard.
The fact is if God as the bible and Christianity states him to be is real then he is pure and holy and therefore his standard is 100 percent and not one of us can ever make up that gap for we have all made mistakes and not one of us is perfect therefore in order to meet with God we need to have that gap between ourselves and God bridged.
But what relevance can that have can that have to us?
Well we have all sinned, that is we have all done some wrong, that is we have all fallen short of Gods standard and therefore need some way of making up that gap between us and a perfect God, but what are the outworkings of sin in our lives?
Well this means that as a result of our fallen state, and our choice to go our own way we are in a state of imperfection and therefore we have probably been sinned against and sinned against others, in other words we have all done wrong and had wrong done to us. Therefore this means that we see certain things in our lives which were never meant to be there and therefore we all need the healing power of the gospel to help us with those things both not do them, and, to be healed of the results of the things which have been done to us, which means we live in a society which leave individuals looking for things such as;
A hunger for personal fulfilment
Needing an antidote to unfulfilling consumerism as no matter what we have it is never enough
Growth in alcoholism, drug abuse and addictions
A massive growth in mental health problems
An increase in seeking fulfilment from the physical to the detriment of the individual
Broken personal relationships and homes
Continuing isolation of the individual even in the family
There is emotional disconnection
We have personal hurts we cannot deal with, and society tells us to be rational about it and also the only healing it offers is to learn to deal with it and carry on anyway or to learn a coping method to cover the pain.
We are all so hungry for love and yet unable so often to express that love, or to live in the good of it, even when we are loved.
Workaholics
We all seek to belong and to find fulfilment in such groups as football, pubs, clubs etc but ultimately they can not fulfil our deepest needs, nor can they bring healing into out lives, and defiantly not bring eternal life.
But what are the real reasons?
We have a whole myriad of spiritualities which have no foundation in anything yet refute Christianity which does have foundations and it is dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to today’s society.
To summarise we are all looking for wholeness and yet the real solution to this is Christianity as all of these items listed above could be the results in our society or our personal lives of sin for the bible also says in the book of Romans 6 chapter 23;
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”
You see so many issues in life we struggle with are a result of the wages of sin, either hurts that we have done to us or to others, and that in turn effects the way we develop and interact with others and how we lead our lives. So what we are really experiencing is in part the wages of sin which leads to death to whatever degree, now ultimately that has a more long lasting effect when we are talking about eternal life as that is the ultimate payment for sin however the gift of god is eternal life as we just read, and when we choose this life then the power of sin over us and its effects are broken and we can then begin the process of healing and restoration that God does in our lives for that passage says in verse 22 to 23 says
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
God can literally transform lives, and there are many ordinary people who could tell you of the transforming power of God for good in there lives, and although it may not be the easiest life being a Christian it is the best life one can choose. After all as one teenager said when telling her story of how Jesus had changed her life “after all he is God he can fix anything.”
"Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death," Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 7:10-11. "See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter."
1. Freedom from labels – Liesl’s story
2. Freedom from the past – Liesl’s story
3. Freedom from ourselves – Liesl’s story + another story.
And so it is important to see the difference in the fruit of worldly sorrow and godly sorrow, one brings death the other life and personal change for good, and hope.
Jesus also said in John 10:10 “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Not in things but in our selves for that is what we were created for, a fulfilled godly life.
So, how do we get this, well it is through forgiveness as the passage we started with says;
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
And we will be coming back to this passage in later weeks, but next week we will be looking at the uniqueness and work of God through Jesus, as the central character in Christianity, and how and why that should impact on our lives.
So there is plenty for us to discuss so till next week thank you.
Bibliography
Robin A. Brace 2002 – What is sin? The bible – New International Version
F.F.Bruce G.E. Wright
Sir Frederic Kenyon William F. Albright
Millar Burrows Joseph Free
Nelson Glueck Tacitus
Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century
Herodotus Thucydides
Caesar’s Gallic War Livy’s Roman History
New Testament
|
Ernie Butler, 05/03/2008 |
|
|
