Last week our Gospel Community was meeting to discuss the previous week’s sermon and someone asked, “Why did Jesus have to die?” I asked what they meant, because I knew this person trusts and believes in Jesus and His sacrifice for us. They said (I’m paraphrasing), “Why couldn’t God just say, ‘All’s forgiven’ rather than have Jesus die?” This is a really good question.
 
I mentioned it to our staff two days later in staff meeting, and someone asked how I responded. They suggested I share my response in a blog post, because this is something that has come up in multiple Gospel Communities during Notes Night. I had no idea this was a common occurrence. If you have been wondering about this question, are a GC leader who has been asked this question, or never even thought about it until now, this post is for you.
 
It is hard to start answering this question in any other place than the book of Genesis. In Genesis, God creates everything, including man, and lays out what is good in front of man. The Hebrew word for good is tov (or tob); the word refers to everything good, in the broadest sense possible. God determines what is good and beneficial and He imparts that knowledge and wisdom to the man He creates. God fashions man with His hands, He makes man in His image, He breathes His very own breath into the man to make him alive, and then He instructs the man on what is good and right and places this man in the garden.
 
God then tells the man the consequence of sin—he will die. You sin, you die (simple, right?), and yet we have made it so much more complicated today. To make this as simplistic as possible, death is separation. Death is not the stopping of our hearts, or the blood in our veins turning from red to blue (it’s all still red anyway), and it is not the synapses in our brain no longer firing impulses to our bodies. Death is separation from life. God is life and He tells us that if and when we sin, we are/will be separated from Him. Death is separation, not just from life, but also from all that is good.
 
In Genesis, God separates for the man what is light and dark, truth and lies. God makes the distinction between life and death for the man. This explanation of what constitutes life and death includes the idea that man is free to live and love God and His creation in any way the man sees as most useful. The man is not part of the garden; he was fashioned and placed within the garden to nurture and take care of its beauty because beauty is good.
 
When man decides to go his own way in the garden, without God, and do what he feels is right, he sins. In Genesis 3 you see that as soon as the man and woman sin, they tragically died. The scriptures use words like “shame” and “exposed” to illustrate what has happened. Their sin made them lose their innocence and their connection with each other and God; they became separated, they died. They, like us, no longer know the beauty of innocence, the good that allowed them to face one another without shame was now gone. They also lost true life that came from being in connection with God, the world around them, and each other.
 
The saddest part of all comes in Genesis 3:8. “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” They hide from God. Adam was the head of the human race and because he died, we are all born into life with a deep-rooted propensity to sin and seek our own “good.” However, man cannot know good apart from God showing us what it is—He alone makes that definition. To this day, sin runs rampant in our lives and causes us to be separated from others, our Creator, and eventually our own flesh.
 
How can God restore us to the place of understanding and knowing His definition of good? In the rest of Genesis 3, you see God comes walking into the garden, this place of rebellion and death, and He calls out to the man. It is not that God couldn’t see Adam hiding behind a bush trying to cover his baby-making parts; the point is that God comes looking for the man because the man could never find God on His own. God is on a rescue mission to redeem His people from death.
 
God then makes a promise, in His holiness, that He would provide Himself as a sacrifice to remove man’s sin and restore relationship. We see the first sacrifice when God slaughters an animal to clothe Adam and Eve’s shame. We can oftentimes gloss over this verse, but it is devastating—blood is spilled as the cost of man’s sin. The fact that God made this sacrifice Himself shows how important and necessary it was. Sinful people cannot dwell with a holy God. Eventually, this leads to the whole Old Testament sacrificial system, which ultimately points towards the final sacrifice for our sin, Jesus.
 
The writer of Hebrews sums up the entire Old Testament by saying in Hebrews 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” So God Himself provided Jesus, His son, at the appointed time to be the One that dies for us, in our place, as our substitution. God could not just wink at sin and say it was no big deal, like when our kids do stupid things and we act like it is okay. God is holy, just, right, and true. If He brushed sin off, He would cease to be God. Because He defined the consequence of sin as death, He had to follow through because His words are true. This is why blood, which is related to life, is required for the sin we commit.
 
The problem is that we could never pay for our own sin, because our own lives, our blood, are tainted because of our sin. What is taught through Scripture is clear – either you die, forever separated from God, or you trust in the provision of God through His Son, who has died for you. Your death for His life, your sin for His righteousness—Martin Luther referred to this as The Great Exchange.
 
I am trying to keep this blog on the shorter side, but the idea of our regaining life is rooted in the idea of sacrifice—more specifically, His sacrifice for us. Why did Jesus have to die? Because we are so evil, and the cost of sin is death. Why DID Jesus die? Because He is that good. Don’t let this get you down. There is a reason it is called “good news” or the Gospel; it is the only hope we have ever had. Our God has sought us and bought us with Himself. We don’t live in despair because of what it cost Him; we live new lives of joy because He has first loved us and given us a reason for great joy.
 
We are not dead. We are redeemed.

I’ll answer and then give some explanation…

The only restriction to communion is that someone must be a believer to take communion (if someone doesn’t believe it would be pointless to them anyway, right?)

We do communion after the message because it is an act of worship and should be a response to what God has done in us first. Scripture tells us that we are to take communion whenever we gather AND in remembrance of Christ. (1 Cor 11).

Scripture talks about taking communion in an “unworthy manner.” An “unworthy manner” would be in a way that doesn’t honor Jesus. Some in the early church, when they gathered, would eat and get drunk at communion (or the Agape – or love feast). It was originally a meal shared with an entire church body…people became selfish and made it about getting their own needs met rather than meeting others needs and lifting up Christ (hence an “unworthy manner).

We do communion weekly because it is when we gather…and, as I said, should be in worship and remembrance of all Jesus has done. It resets our hearts and minds to remember that true life is one lived with Christ, and that our lives are a gift graciously given to us by our great God. We lay our burdens down at His feet in remembrance of what He has done for us.

At Element, we use the ESV (English Standard Version). The question most ask is “why?”

There are 3 simple approaches to Bibles today and how they are translated.

• There is the Word for Word translations that try to simply take the text and translate it WORD FOR WORD. Current Word for Word translations would include the ESV, NASB, NKJV, KJV.
• Then there are Thought for Thought translations that seek to take a section and translate the entire thought in a way that keeps with the original wording but gives you the thought behind it. Poetry makes more sense in the scriptures in a Thought for Thought translation as many of the nuances can be kept. Current Thought for Thought translations would include the NIV, CEV, TNIV, NLT.
• Lastly, there is the Paraphrase. A paraphrase is a modern attempt to rewrite the scriptures in a way that modern readers can see it in a contemporary light (many times changing some key meaning in a text). A Paraphrase would include the Message, The Good News for Modern Man, New Living Translation.

The problem with each new revision of the NIV (it has been revised a number of times in the last 4 decades) is that it moves further and further towards a Paraphrase rather than a Thought for Thought translation. For what it is worth Collin Hansen, who serves as editorial director for The Gospel Coalition, likes the 2011 edition of the NIV.

Presently, there are more than 25 English translations. But The English Standard Version (ESV), in contrast to most modern translations, is not entirely “new.” The ESV is the product of a rich translation legacy which spans almost 500 years. The modern starting point for the ESV was the 1971 Revised Standard Version (RSV). Over 90 percent of the RSV is retained in the ESV. The RSV was regarded by many as the best modern translation in terms of precision and literary elegance.

The ESV improves upon the RSV in 3 important ways.

The following are from www.evangelicalbible.com where they list the differing aspects of many translations.

First, and most crucial to the evangelical community, is that the ESV corrects key Old Testament passages whose prophetic intent was dulled in the RSV.

Another example of an important correction to the RSV was the translation of the Greek word hilasterion and its cognates (Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10) which the RSV translated “expiation.” The ESV corrected this to “propitiation.” Propitiation means to appease the wrath of someone by the substitution of an offering.  Thus Jesus bore the wrath of God that was due mankind.  The righteous anger that was due mankind was placed upon His Son. Christ’s sacrifice had the effect of both bearing the sin of man (expiation) and the punishment due man for his wickedness (propitiation).

The NIV and the NRSV both took the “middle ground” and translated hilasterion as “atonement.”  In so doing the translators decided not to take a stand on the issue since “atonement” captures both expiation and propitiation. Both the “Message,” and the CEV translations have removed the heart of the meaning of propitiation from their respective translations entirely.  (See Romans 3:25)

2. Archaic language was updated. (Thee, Thou, Art, Ye, Hearken, etc.)

3. The ESV translation is more literal than RSV. It attempts, as much as possible, “not to improve on the originals”. Most people believe that different Bible translations are simply a function of varying levels of readability, though all roughly similar in accuracy; this is untrue.

Since the middle of the 20th Century there have been a lot new translations whose focus is not transparency of the original languages, but rather to make the “thoughts” or the “meaning” of the text more comprehensible to the modern reader.  These translations (thought for thought) have noble intentions of making the Bible easier to understand, BUT the result has produced translations which compromise the meaning of the text.

We believe that when a person reads the Bible, he should be confident that he is actually reading the words of God, in the form God delivered them to the biblical authors.

At Element we would like everyone reading the same trustworthy translation together. If you do not own a bible we will give you an ESV with a custom Element cover. Our free ones aren’t the greatest paper quality so don’t get them wet or they will expand like that kid in Willy Wonka who ate the Blueberry candy.

Having said all that there are at times problems with a literal Word for Word translation. I will give you some (because they are funny). When translators render a text “literally” without realizing the potential for double meaning it gets funny. In various places the following scriptures have been pointed out:

Gen. 30:35, “But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped …and put them in charge of his sons.” This was corrected in the second printing of the ESV, taking authority away from Laban’s goats: “… and put them in the charge of his sons.”

Luke 17:35 “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” In today’s culture “grinding together” has a totally different meaning.

Prov. 30:26 “the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;” I think you can see what this actually means.

Amos 4:6 “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities” The Hebrew idiom literally means they had nothing to eat.

Funny right? But seriously, all in all the ESV is one of the best translations out today. The work involved an exceptional team of more than 100 people worldwide, including: (1) the twelve-member Translation Oversight Committee, led by Dr. J. I. Packer as the General Editor; (2) sixty leading Bible Scholars; as well as (3) a sixty-member Advisory Council—all of whom are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy and to the timeless truth and authority of the Bible.

We hope you like the ESV.

There are many people out there called “grace teachers.” There are also many things they teach which bother me like ‘as believers we do not need to confess our sins,’ and sanctification being a one time process at salvation (putting justification and sanctification all into one basket). Another weird teaching would be that we do not need to repent.  Could I have your thoughts?

I don’t know if this will make sense…but much of this can be found in our Gospel Class Lesson 3 about salvation.

I believe that all of our sins have already been forgiven at the moment of the cross, so in one sense asking for forgiveness doesn’t make sense, but confession does. 2 Cor 7:10 tells us that godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. Many of these teachers see repentance too closely resembling guilt (I believe) and misrepresent it…repentance is stepping away from what drug us into sin in the first place. We are to confess our sins to each other, as it will keep us accountable and help us to grow. Repentance is what we then do in our remorse for our sin…walk away from it. Because we have been forgiven doesn’t give us the right to live as antinomians (those who believe everything is OK to do because we have been forgiven).

Element holds the position that sanctification could be defined as “salvation in present time.” We are saved positionally, but are being made daily more into the likeness of Christ. Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Through the blood of Christ we ARE holy, but are being remade and renewed, so to speak, everyday to be conformed to the likeness of the Son. God initiates, marks out, and secures our salvation, and it cannot be broken. What He begins, He is sure to end (bring to completion).

We also hold that sanctification fuses man’s responsibility, God’s work, and the church’s equipping in the process of a believer’s growth in Christ.

• Ephesians 4:11-16 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
• Philippians 2:12-13Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
• Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God,to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son,so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

The chain of salvation works like this:

• Foreknowledge is God’s intimate knowledge of events and His people –before the foundation of the world He predestined, He knew us. This causes much controversy.
• Called has to do with conversion or bringing of one to faith.
• Justified means to be legally acquitted from wrongdoing (this is past tense for those in New Covenant relationship with Jesus).
• Sanctification (salvation in present time) is the process of maturity as God conforms us to His Son’s image. As I said, sanctification fuses man’s responsibility, God’s work, and the church’s equipping in the process of a believer’s growth in Christ.
• Glorification is the final completion of God’s purpose in salvation, which includes our death and resurrection.

A friend of my husband is always trying to get reactions out of believers and see how far he can push them. He had put up a huge thing about how Jesus went to hell after he died. I guess I had never really studied it. I was wondering if you could shed some light for me.

Well, first off, this is the problem when people do not know their bible, or who know very little, try to tell everyone else what the bible teaches. What he is referring to isn’t in the bible, it is part of what is known as the apostles creed.

The first thing you need to know about the Apostles Creed is that it wasn’t written by the apostles. The Apostles Creed was used as a baptismal creed (in the 4th century). The Creed was changed into what was called “the received form,” the version most people know today, by the Roman church in the 7th-8th century. This received form included the phrase, “He descended into hell.” The apostles creed wasn’t even used universally until the 16th century.

There are 12 changes from the original form to the received form of the creed. The clause “he descended into hell” was believed to have been first reported in the West by Rufus Aquileia (390). In the East, the clause is found in the Arian Creeds (about 360) by Venanitus Fortunatus (590).

But the word for descended is the word DOWN and the word for Hell (in the original Greek) is the word for GRAVE (some Latin scholar decided this should be translated as “inferos” which means “Hell fire” or inferno). In the original creed it was simply meant to be a reference to His physical death.

Wayne Grudem says, “the phrase ‘descended into hell’ was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed…until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus in A.D. 390. Then it was not included again in any version of the Creed until A.D. 650.”

In the great reformed Westminster Confession of Faith, they went out of their way to remove any opportunity for confusion on this issue. In the section of their Confession of Faith explaining the Apostle’s Creed, they rendered the phrase as “He was buried, and remained under the power of death for a time.”

Some people like to also point to Ephesians 4:9 where it says Christ “descended,” but we are to read the scriptures in context. Ephesians 4:9-10 in context says In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

What this means is that in the incarnation, Jesus taking on flesh, He descended from the highest heavens (Luke 2:8-14 in the birth narrative) to the lowest regions (to the earth). When Jesus walked the earth he suffered, was crucified, was buried, but He also defeated death and rose again. This is why it says He then ascended and is now seated in the highest heavens at the right hand of the Father (See Acts 1:9 and 2:33).

Question: Have you ever considered becoming Anglican? Are you familiar with the books by Robert E Webber? It raises some interesting church history/theology questions for churches.

Will we become Anglican? The short answer is no.
 
My long answer about becoming Anglican and Robert Webber is as follows (it’s kind of long):
The Anglican Church traditionally venerates tradition over scripture; this is actually seen very clearly in Webber’s writings. He writes romantically (I say that because I can’t think of a better metaphor) about tradition, liturgy, and philosophy while seeming to neglect the weight and authority of the scriptures.
 
Don’t misunderstand me, I believe Webber has many valid points. He writes that “Seeker-oriented contemporary churches argue that worship does not need to present the whole gospel. The purpose of worship, they say, is to get people in the door. Then, after they have gained a hearing, they present the gospel in small-group settings. This argument may be good marketing but it fails to understand the biblical purpose of worship.” Again, this point is valid, but I do not think it applies to Element as we present the gospel every week, and many times more than that.
 
Webber is typical of most post-modern writers today, he criticizes Christianity’s emphasis on “creation–sin–redemption” and replaces it with “creation–incarnation–recreation” – He seems to think that the two are mutually exclusive (where I think they go hand in hand). He thinks Christianity also concentrates too much on the sacrificial view of the atonement…he thinks this excludes seeing Jesus as Christus Victor (Jesus as the victor triumphing over sin, death and the powers of evil). In Webber’s mind this has led to an individualistic form of Christianity in which people are concerned too much about redemption from sin and not enough about the rescue of fallen creation in the new heaven and earth (the new creation).

I hope you can see my dilemma. Just as Webber accuses the church today of not understanding the fullness of the gospel, he doesn’t either because he neglects part of it as well. This is why I have issues with him, because he is so right and so wrong. Webber talks about the “redemption of the whole world,” and while I know what that means to me; what does he mean when he says it? In his book Ancient – Future Worship he says:

• It “has to do with God’s rescue of the entire created order and the establishment of his rule over all heaven and earth” (pp. 57-58).
• “Deliverance is for the sake of the world” (p. 59).
• He complains that “worship now places greater attention on the individual’s condition before God. The vision of God to reclaim the whole world and redeem all flesh and matter through the victory of Christ over sin and death scarcely appears” (p. 77, cf. pp. 90, 94, 96-97, 121).

These statements sound great, I might even make them on a Sunday morning or in a blog, but the issue is Webber never clearly defines the gospel. Is he saying that all mankind, along with all matter, will be redeemed and re-created? If so, then the message of personal redemption is indeed an over-emphasis, in fact it wouldn’t be the point of the cross at all. However, if it is believers in Christ that Jesus paid for at the Cross, because of the sacrificial death of Christ, then we ARE saved individually (though our salvation is not meant to be lived in isolation).
 
My largest problem with Webber is that he makes statements like this, “I affirm the Bible as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice…However I draw on the foundational interpretation of the Church Fathers and the creeds and practices of the ancient church.” (p. 19, cf. p. 68). In other words, final authority in reality does not rest in Scriptures, but in the church…that is a huge issue because it’s wrong.
 
Webber also calls for us to resist intellectual analysis that he believes stems from the Enlightenment and read the Bible as true but “not for truths.” In communion he encourages us to free our thinking from reason and science and embrace “mystery.” We are to read the Bible “holistically, relationally, and passionately” (p. 125), rather than intelligently and rationally, for, “the intellect always dissects, makes judgments, analyzes, and sifts, but the heart listens, sees, feels, loves, fears, and believes” (p. 127). This is a false dichotomy between head and heart and an overreaction to those who think too much. Even the profit Jeremiah reminds us in 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?“

Webber prefers Eastern over Roman liturgy that is centered not around Scripture, but around the Lord’s Table; he writes much on this subject. He rejects all the major positions on the purpose and nature of the communion  and claims that the “ancient” view is, “When bread and wine are received in faith, we are transformed. Bread and wine nourish our union with Jesus. It transforms us into his image and likeness” (p. 140). This is not what communion is, it is a remembrance of what Jesus had done. Our redemption and hope…Jesus even said (Luke 22:19) “Do this in remembrance of me.”

I do agree that there are so many things we will never totally comprehend about our God and His ways (mystery), but Webber’s approach abandons the clear approach of Scripture itself and leaves far too much to our own imagination and to what others call “subjective mysticism.” Webber is asking us to accept a form of Christianity not emerging from Scriptures but from the practices of men years after God had spoken His final word in the New Testament. This is the same approach that led to corruption in the “ancient” church and ultimately necessitated the Reformation.
 
I hope this makes sense. I personally call myself a believer, a follower, a Christian, rather than taking a label of a particular mode of church called “Anglican.” I don’t want to limit what God calls me to be and follow just one portion of the gospel, I want to follow all of it.  

Is God a community? I’ve really been struggling with this idea lately. I looked up the definition of community in the dictionary and it defines community as:

1:a unified body of individuals: as
a:state,commonwealth
b:the people withcommoninterests living in a particular area;broadly:the area itself <the problems of a largecommunity>
c:an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
d:a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society <acommunityof retired persons>
e:a group linked by a common policy
f:a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests <the internationalcommunity

The definition of community as defined in Merriam Webster’s dictionary doesn’t seem to actually apply to God. Can you help me here? Because nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that God is a Community, and just because God is a Trinity doesn’t mean you equate that with “community,” because when you look up the definition of community, it doesn’t fit. When you say this, do you have a different meaning of community in mind then what the dictionary defines it?

Answer:
1) The dictionary is not a theology book.
2) If a dictionary doesn’t define it correctly, that doesn’t make our statements untrue because we explain our definition on a regular basis.
3) If we took the definition for community from the dictionary then Gospel communities wouldn’t be Gospel communities because that definition doesn’t fit.
4) You even said “nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that God is a Community, and just because God is a Trinity doesn’t mean you equate that with “community.” Well, the word TRINITY isn’t in the bible so does that mean God cannot exist as one?
5) Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema “the Lord your God is ONE” is a term of a cluster of grapes. One cluster, many grapes. It is a nourishing, life giving RELATIONSHIP of community. Just as a man and a woman become ONE (same word) Flesh, God is ONE.
 
Rest assured God, in Himself is a community. For a greater understanding of this, I would recommend Tim Chester’s Book A Meal With Jesus.

I am reading in Mark chapter 4:35-41. This is the story of the big storm on the lake with Jesus sleeping and the disciples freaking out, then Jesus calms the storm. Jesus is upset with them “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” Mark 4:40 I am a little confused with this. I understand we are not to worry because He is in control, but I thought we were to cast our cares upon Him (and the disciples did go to Jesus with their problems). It is just a question that has bothered me and when I read it again I decided I’d ask.

There are a couple of things going on here.

Mark’s Gospel moves very fast, so at this point they had been with Jesus for a while, but the reality of who Jesus really was had not sunk in. The word for “afraid” from Mark 4:40 is a word that describes timidity or dread. In Revelation 21 it is used of Christians who give up under pressure (essentially they are considered cowards). It is when something so terrifying happens that you want to wet your pants and run away.

In Mark 4:41 when it says they were filled with “fear” it is the where we get our word “phobia” from.

Essentially, there is a great storm that is tossing their boat around like it is nothing and Jesus stands up with great authority and tells the storm to be quiet. There was something about how Jesus revealed Himself to them in this moment that they had not experienced before. They raise the question, “Who is this? That even the wind and the seas obey Him?” The implied answer is “He is the God who made it all.”

Think about these people who had been taught about God their entire life, and now Jesus is standing in front of them revealing Himself by quelling a storm, that could wreck ocean liners, with a mere word. To have that type of power displayed makes you realize how powerful God actually is and it freaked them out, just like it would us. There is a natural awe and dread that comes along with actually seeing the power of God. Jesus’ rebuke of them was more of a “don’t you run away and hide, don’t cower when I reveal myself.” It gave them a stronger and healthier understanding of Him.

Secondly, Mark was writing his gospel to Romans, it is very action oriented, and Romans want to know “did Jesus get the job done.” This story would have a huge impact on those facing persecution in the Roman church. As Walter Wessel noted, “It assured them that the strong Son of God would go with them into the storm of opposition and trial.” Essentially, there was nothing to cower from because it all rests in Christ’s capable hands.

In your THIS IS ELEMENT video you state, “we have a huge influx and convergence of social groups that has not been met by the local church just doing the same old thing in the same old way.” What is the same old thing and the same old way?

Glad you asked, and I would recommend at some point you listen through our Gospel Class as the weeks on Missional Church cover this very idea. I reiterate, listen to the WHOLE Gospel Class as it all fits together, bits and pieces won’t help.
 
Most people are indoctrinated into church culture before they understand the truth of the freedom of the gospel (we are taught the correct jokes, dress, views on alcohol, and political affiliation before we truly understand the gospel). This causes such a rift in people’s views of God as they grow because they find it hard to differentiate between the legalism they have been taught, and the grace that comes from the gospel.
 
For the last couple hundred years people have been taught that you bring someone to church, a revival, a bible study…then they hear the “gospel”…then you ask “do you believe in Jesus, do you know where you will go when you die,” as if the point of Jesus is about our death and not our life (Luke 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.) Don’t get me wrong, I love Billy Graham and plenty of churches are still working with this model, but it is becoming less effective.
 
If people believe and confess they are then welcomed into the community, if not we keep “working” on them until they do believe. This is what is called “Roman Evangelism” and it looks like this: Believe, Behave, Belong. That is how most churches do it, and it worked for a really long time, but I think that will be less and less effective as time moves on because our society is becoming increasingly pagan in its cultural values (it is why we hear statements like: “there is no absolute truth, everything is relative,” and, “it just ‘works’ for me.”)
 
What Element believes a church in America must do is follow a Celtic type of model that looks like this: Belong, Believe, Behave. George Hunter in The Celtic Way of Evangelism lays this out really well. Today we should invite people to belong to our community, love them, take care of their needs and invite them to participate in the life of the church as we give and serve each other and the community. If we are truly living missionally, most people will see a difference in how we worship and begin to understand Jesus by not just our words, but by what we do, and they in turn would believe as well. Once they believe they continue on with what they already are doing, living the life of gospel, but now with the strength of God’s Spirit living in and through them. Their lives and attitudes change because it is Christ who is changing them.
 
There are all kinds of ways to better understand the individual sub-cultures we live in as well (I would also recommend Center Church by Tim Keller, but also the Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler about keeping the gospel as it is while living on Mission). You can click here: http://audio.ourelement.org/gospelclass/pdf/000.Gospel_Class.pdf and get our gospel class booklet, on page 39 is a chart of how Belong, Believe, Behave is lived out.  

Q: I have struggled with certain things for awhile, I have been praying a lot and have even gotten a mentor through a Women Mentoring Women ministry. But I have been thinking of adding hypnotism to my prayer to try and kick certain things in a healthier direction. I know two Christians who have used this method to help with smoking addictions, and they quit. Would I be doing something sinful in God’s eye to use hypnotism with his Word?

A: Well, hypnotism is one of those areas that I tend to get into trouble with a lot of people because I think it is a terrible idea. Let me see if I can explain.

Franklin Dunham  writes this as a definition of hypnosis: “Hypnosis, mental state of heightened suggestibility, characterized by trance-like sleep. The basis of hypnosis is the fixation of the subjects attention upon a gradually narrowing source of stimulation, until he is attendant upon only the directions of the hypnotist. This is variously achieved by repetition of instructions in a low, level voice, or having the subject fix his gaze upon a light in an otherwise dark room. The subject remembers nothing of what he did during the hypnotic period. Certain effects may be suggested to continue after the subject returns to consciousness; these are called post-hypnotic suggestions.” The University One-Volume Encyclopedia; 1967; p 421 (underlines are mine)

For centuries hypnotism was used by witchdoctors and shaman spirit mediums alike to attain altered states of consciousness. The development of hypnosis as a field of study in the context of medicine and psychology (most agree) dates from the claims of Fredrich Anton Mesmer (1733 – 1815). Mesmer was an Austrian doctor who performed therapeutic healings induced by magnets, but he is considered to be the Father of Hypnotism.

Mesmer says, “Disease was the result of imbalance in the patient’s animal magnetism” A French investigating team was commissioned to check out Mesmer and found his healings were attributed to the power of suggestion. In spite of the serious flaws in the claims of Mesmer, his theories and practices opened doors to further examination of the nature and effect of hypnotism.

After the world wars, hypnotism was revived and integrated inextricably into the field of medicine. In 1956, the American Medical Association pronounced that Hypnosis was ‘a valuable therapeutic adjunct.’

Some Christians believe the use of  hypnotism, in any form, is occultic and demonic. I don’t think it is as ominous as all that, but I believe it is very dangerous. By putting yourself in a hypnotic state is making yourself very vulnerable. Imagine your brain pattern is like a keyboard, in hypnosis you are walking away from the keyboard and allowing something, or someone, else to sit down and start typing.

As Christians what we must understand is Jesus, first and foremost. He is the salvation for not only our souls but our entire lives. It is Jesus who can make us whole and lead us into the life He calls us to…part of redemption is laying everything (including what you still struggle with) at His feet.

The Scriptures remind us that God’s Spirit will guide us into all truth. One of the ways that He will do this is by guiding our thoughts into what the correct answers are as we are trying to figure something out. But you will not be able to hear him in the midst of hypnosis because you are letting go of all He told you to keep a hold of.

2 Corinthians 10:5 tells us: We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. This means that we are directly responsible for what we choose to think about and dwell on. This right does not belong to anyone else, including any hypnotist, who may want to plant their thoughts and suggestions into your mind.

I do not believe that hypnotism is something any Christian should be involved in. Instead, we should be submitting all things to Jesus. One day God will want to use you to help someone WALK through their struggle and pain. It will do no good if you say, “I had hypnosis and got all better”…even though the outcomes of hypnosis are debatable. That doesn’t point anyone to Jesus, it points them to trying to find an altered state of consciousness rather than trusting God to see us through a particular trial.

Please, I would encourage you, to hold Christ’s hand and walk through your struggle with Him. One small step at a time in the hand of your savior.

Matt 6:14-15 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. I’m trying to wrap my mind around being forgiven for past present and future sins, while not looking at this as maintaining or working for your salvation. I understand that if you are truly born again you will forgive, but these verses make it sound like God can hold forgiveness for the times you don’t forgive. Can you help me with this?

Sure thing. So many people seem to have the same view of these verses and it is just bizarre.

First off, when Jesus paid for our sins it was ALL of our sins past, present, and future. It would be totally contrary to the truths stated in scripture if we had a moment of unforgiveness in our hearts and God negated the work of the cross.

When Jesus spoke these words it was before He paid for our sins, before the cross. In one sense we SHOULD forgive others and a CONSTANT unforgiving heart is probably an indicator of an unregenerate heart (someone who doesn’t truly follow Jesus). But every time you hold a grudge until the Spirit works you through it does not mean you are going to burn in hell.

Colossians 3:12-13 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. In the New Testament post-resurrection context, Colossians shows we have BEEN forgiven and that is the model of why we SHOULD forgive.

I thought I would write a quick little blog about being careful what you ask us at Element. If you send us a question, that question may end up on our website if we think it can help others.

Lately I have been getting a lot of questions and have been posting our answers (with a lot of editing to the questions to keep the innocent, private). But we wanted you to be aware that if you are thinking it, and you decide to ask it, we think that other people are thinking and wondering as well.

Most of the time we, at Element, have such a different view than a lot of other churches, that we don’t anticipate what you are thinking that well. Not assuming we know what you are thinking is a good thing at times, but it also can bite is in the dairy air (or the buttocks).

So you are warned…ask and we will answer, but everyone may get your answer as well.

Q: Is the writer of Hebrews addressing those who are born again, but are not? There was a time in my life from the age of 13 to 15 where I believed I was a Christian but left the church/God and started believing and even arguing with other Christians about the bible. A couple years later I asked God to save me and to take control of my life. Hebrews 6:4-6 should I come to the conclusion that I am not saved and hope for salvation is impossible for me?

A: How about a short answer (for once).

If you are worried about it, then I believe you are saved, regenerated, redeemed. Those who weren’t would not care either way.

At Element we do not believe a person can lose their salvation because our salvation is based in the person and work of Christ, not in the person and work of ourselves. If He is an eternal God (which He is), and He has forgiven all of your sins (past present and future), then your future is secure.

We believe in what is called the “perseverance of the saints.” This is a simple way of saying that those who God calls, He brings home. The fact that you ran off like a crazy child into traffic, thinking you were doing your own thing, thinking you were so smart in your arguments…but are now WHERE YOU ARE simply shows that your Father in heaven was seeking you, chasing you down, and bringing you home.

Hebrews 6:4-6 must be understood in context. All the verses that people use to say a believer can lose their salvation actually teach the opposite in context of the surrounding passages and the Greek text.

So, rest at ease, serve God more fervently, love those around you more closely, because God holds you in His hands…and as Jesus says in John 10:28-30 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” You are not stronger than Jesus…so rejoice that He brought you home (like the prodigal son).

Too many Christians have been taught too many clichés. I will tell what truth is…2 Cor 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. Stop living in regret, that is not GODLY GRIEF it is worldly grief and will never lead to life. Jesus left your sin at the cross, you should as well.

You are called to now to live and walk in new life.

What’s the deal with the ending of Mark, and where do you think the ending actually is? Is after verse 8 or 20 in Chapter 16? And what would the reason be that there is a discrepancy where the end of the book is? It just doesn’t seem the appropriate place to not be too sure. I guess I would think that with something as important as the bible, there would not be anything that would leave room for “personal interpretation” or “guessing.”

There is a short and a long answer to your question; I will try to land somewhere in the middle.

Most of the complaints about the verses in Mark 16:9-20 start in the 19th century because the critics believe that Mark should stop after 16:8. The added verses are NOT arbitrary and are not added simply because someone felt like it. Many of our current manuscripts from Mark contain the ending you have in your bible but the style is a bit different from the rest of Mark (which some suggest makes the ending not part of the original).

From the oldest manuscripts we have found, (“we” meaning the church as whole and biblical scholars specifically) the last twelve verses are missing.  There are even a handful of manuscripts that include a shorter ending before the current longer one in your bible today (this exists in the oldest Latin Codex in existence).

What you have to understand is that the current ending of Mark is consistent with the gospel accounts, there is nothing out of place with it. What the note tries to give you is simple honesty: SOME (not all) early manuscripts have it missing. This could be scribal error, the addition could be tacked on because a scribe somewhere didn’t like the abrupt ending, or the original ending could have been lost (which is not uncommon with ancient scrolls due to their wearing patterns), or the gospel may have been unfinished, due to death or some form of persecution.

There is also evidence that it was part of the original though. Justin Martyr (one of the original church fathers) wrote a famous work called the Apology (Defense of the Gospel) in AD 160; he states that Ps. 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus’ disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20. Justin’s student Tatian (AD 172) incorporated the “Longer Ending” into his Diatessaron (this was a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels – I have a copy you can read if you want). Irenaeus (in AD 180) quoted from the verses 9-20 specifically as part of Mark’s gospel.

Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, or whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author’s death.

To give you more food for thought (and not meant to confuse you at all), in some of our earliest manuscripts there is a shorter ending, which is then followed by the current ending. These appear together in 6 Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies. I know you are wondering “what does the shorter ending say,” because I know you want to know, this is it (with slight variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”

There is huge disagreement among scholars as to whether Mark originally stopped writing at 16:8 — and if he did so, if it was deliberate or not—or if he continued writing an ending which is now lost. Allusions to a future meeting in Galilee between Jesus and the disciples (in Mark 14:28 and 16:7) seem to suggest that whether what we have the real ending or not, Mark intended to write beyond 16:8.

Some interpreters have concluded that Mark’s intended readers already knew the traditions of Jesus’ appearances, and that Mark brings the story to a close at 16:8 to highlight the resurrection and leave anticipation of His return.

Either way, whether it belongs or not, nothing about it is arbitrary. It has been thoroughly thought out, researched, and placed in scripture. They give you the footnote for honesty’s sake. It is their way of letting you know what we have and what we don’t, so you as the reader have nothing hidden from and are fully infirmed.

And whichever way you see it, it is all good news, the tomb is empty and He is risen.

Question: My brother (who is in jail) told me that he is following in the Asatru Religion.  Know anything?  I’m getting ready to write to him and trying to think about how Jesus would respond.

A: Do you remember Norse mythology? Odin, Thor, and all the Norse gods? Asatru is German Paganism (sometimes called Odinism or Norse Tradition). There were believed to be 2 families of gods…1 was called Æsir the other was Vanir. Asatru literally means “Æsir’s Faith.”

This is the religion that was practiced before Christianity reached the Germanic peoples. They believe in multiple gods and have strong leanings toward animism. They believe elves (or land spirits) can inhabit inanimate objects and these objects can have a fate all their own.

For your brother to use the word Asatru is very odd because it is pretty specific. He is being influenced somewhere because this is not some THING some ONE finds just wandering around. If he is actually in jail (I think that is what you said) he is probably embracing it so he can join a gang. Odinism in the US has VERY strong ties to the American Neo-Nazi scene. I have a friend in jail right now and he says YOU HAVE TO be a part of a gang inside or you are essentially dead. I would think he is probably following it so he can keep his butt safe and really has no idea what it truly believes. He probably is told “it’s a religion for white guys.”

In talking to him maybe you could ask if he knows why many of these people in pre-Christian Europe decided to follow Christ. I think you need to approach it from the standpoint that your brother is looking for some security…and yet only Jesus can truly offer that. Not trying to be too harsh, but when Jesus’ disciples were worried about Jesus’ safety he responded in Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Jesus is NOT telling us that fear should be our motivator…but if you are going to live in fear, there is really only ONE that needs to be feared (and it is not people). Jesus goes on to say in Verse 32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.

You mentioned before that he wanted to follow Jesus; maybe he needs to realize that now is time…and even in jail…that is the place.

Why can’t a person believe and give their life to Christ after death?

I have been trying to put into words how to answer your question about Salvation AFTER death in a way that makes sense.

What you were talking about, by a person trusting Christ after salvation, is a form of what is known as Universalism. Universalism teaches ALL people will come saving faith…no matter what they believe or how they have lived (it is considered a heresy).  Seriously, why would Jesus hold the Gospel and its proclamation in such importance if NONE OF IT MATTERED.

First, there is a vast difference between life and death (right?)…The difference between a death bed conversion and an after death conversion is that the person on their death bed is STILL ALIVE. Sin brings death; Jesus in John 8:23-24 is talking to the religious leaders and tells them plainly, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Jesus wasn’t confused on what happens after death.

If someone dies in their sins they are DEAD in their sins, separated from the life of God.

In Jewish thought, which would have been prevalent for Jesus, everything was thought of in terms of life. A house wasn’t a home unless someone was living in it…if no one lived there it was just sticks and mortar. This is why EVERYTHING has to deal with life. Romans 6:22 “But 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.” No Jew, especially Jesus, would argue about people changing their minds after death.

From a Calvinistic perspective if someone is not redeemed in this life it is not going to happen…period; but I am trying to give you a broader perspective just in case you don’t hold to a reformed point of view (which I am guessing you don’t if you think people can change their mind after death).

One of the most amazing things about God is that NOT ALL PEOPLE go to heaven. He doesn’t force those who disbelieve to live in His presence forever. Most people want to live without God in their lives, so why not simply get your wish for all eternity? Is it that living without God for eternity is not pleasant enough so they would want a change from hell they currently participate in? That would seem to indicate that God then tortures people after death into believing…something I am sure He does not do.

This is why God gives us THIS life and THIS time… 2 Cor 6:1-2 As God’s fellow workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For he says,
“In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you.”

I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.

Many people have gone off the rails because they want things done differently than God does them. We think we are smarter, kinder, more loving, more gracious…but we are not. We must trust that God knows what He is doing better than any of us.

I guess I should end with the most important verse on this: Hebrews 9:27-28 “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”

Hope that helps,
Aaron

In the Catholic Bible, the Old Testament contains extra books called the Apocrypha (some have called them “LOST BOOKS”). A lady from Element is in a Bible study with some Catholic ladies, she sent in a question and asked why our scriptures do not include the additions to Esther that the Catholic scriptures do. So, here is my not so short answer for all of you.The verses in question are Esther 10:4-16:24…This is a whole can of worms so bear with me.

Now for the long answer:

The “lost books” or Apocrypha were never lost.  They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture.  They weren’t lost nor were they removed.  They were never in the Bible in the first place.

The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons:

1. They were not referenced by Jesus.  Jesus directly referenced the entire Jewish canon of Scripture by referring to Abel (the first martyr in the Old Testament) and Zacharias (the last martyr in the OT) (Matt. 23:35).  He also never quotes directly from any of the apocryphal writings, but makes numerous references to the Old Testament books.
2. They contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) or the condoning of magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
3. They have serious historical inaccuracies.

In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture, known as the apocrypha.  The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

For Esther, the additional six chapters originally first appeared in a translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The verses were interspersed in Esther in the Septuagint. The early church father Jerome used the Septuagint in translating what is known as the Latin Vulgate (it is what the King James Bible was translated from…Latin, not Greek).

As far as Esther goes, Jerome recognized the additional verses as additions not present in the Hebrew Text and placed them at the end of his Latin translation as chapters 10:4-16:24. However, some modern Catholic English Bibles restore the Septuagint order, such as Esther in the NAB.

The extra chapters include several prayers to God, perhaps because it was felt that the above-mentioned lack of mention of God was inappropriate in a holy book. Many believe that Additions to Esther is the work of an Egyptian Jew, writing around 170 BC, who sought to give the book a more religious tone, and to suggest that the Jews were saved from destruction because of their piety. The additions completely change the tone of the book from what was originally intended from the Hebrew Manuscripts.

By the time Esther was written, there was a new foreign power on the horizon as a future threat to Judah, it was the Macedonians of Alexander the Great. They defeated the Persian empire about 150 years after the time of the story of Esther. This may have led to the Egyptian Jew adding the extra chapters trying to reinforce the ideal of remaining pure and separate under a new foreign super power.

In addition, modern Roman Catholic scholars openly recognize the Greek additions as clearly being “additions” to the text.

Hope that answers the question,
Aaron