What is a Christian?

On a number of occasions, over the years, I have preached on the question: "What is a Christian?"  I have come at the question from different angles, and provided a number of answers to it.  However, someone from my Facebook contacts placed the following on their page and, as well as sharing it on that particular social medium, I want to share it here.  I wish that I had read it a long time ago - and if I preach on that same subject in the future, I will undoubtedly make reference to this.  Indeed, I may well quote it in full!

I hope that many who read it 'get the message'! 

Coincidence?!

There may well be those who will say, or think, "What a coincidence"!  Personally, I don't believe in coincidence. The fact that, just after I had published the post below, I opened an e-mail to find this video-clip, is much more than 'coincidence'.   It does show that one doesn't have to be an atheist to be a scientist; that one doesn't have to be a scientist to be an atheist; and that an atheist can come to faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.  That latter fact is the most wonderful of the three - and it apples to anyone who will look, honestly, at the Gospel record.

As my former minister, mentor, and personal friend, the late Rev. George B Duncan, would often say: Don't look at the church - it's full of faults; don't look at the congregations - they are made up of sinners; don't look at the clergy - they're no different from the rest; look at the Christ - the only Person in the history of mankind Who could ask even His enemies, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?", and receive no answer!  (For the record, the typo is not mine!!).

Evolution - or adaptation?!

It was a brief newspaper article that informed me that salamanders - those lizard-like amphibians - in the Applachian Mountains of the eastern U.S.of A., have shrunk in size by eight per cent over the past fifty years!  Scientists, it was reported, "... attributed the evolution to the species adapting to climate change." (Minicosm, 26/03/14).

I found that to be a very interesting comment.  In one sentence, it used two words as if they are almost synonymous - without, apparently, realising that they are totally different!   If these creatures had "evolved", they would now be something different.  That, after all, is what evolution is claimed to do.  There would also, especially after such a brief period, be an abundance of intermediate creatures - those that were part of the way between the salamanders of fifty years ago and the creature into which they had evolved.

The other word that was used in the quotation is, of course, much more accurate.  These salamanders have not 'evolved'; they have merely adapted to changes in climate - or other environmental changes that may even be fairly localised!   They are still salamanders!

Even as a non-biologist, I get annoyed at this loose use of the English language that leads those who take such statements at face value to pontificate that, once again, "science has 'proved' evolution"!

There is another thought.  If these salamanders had 'evolved' into a new form of creature in fifty years, that would shoot gigantic holes in the 'old-earth' theory, i.e. the theory that the planet is millions of years old.  These vast time periods are necessary to support the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, as they are required to permit the gradual changes that the theory promotes, and that allowed (to put it simplistically) amoeba to evolve into human beings.   Of course, if that had been the case, as it is often claimed is shown by the fossil record, then there would evidence in that record of those intermediate forms.  Even Darwin accepted that, and is recorded as having stated that, if such fossils were never to be found (and he expected that, in his very near future, they would) it would be a major blow to his theory!

As has been pointed out by many who are much cleverer than I, evolution is not a scientific fact.  It is an anti-God philosophy espoused by humanists and atheists.   True science has two basic requirements before a theory may be accepted as a fact: observation, and repetition.  In other words, I must be able to observe the experiment (or whatever) that I am performing, and I must be able to repeat it.  Obviously, neither of these is possible with regard to the past.

So don't allow the atheistic 'scientists' to fool you.  Often, they can't even differentiate between evolution and adaptation!

A Tribute - Proverbs 31:10ff

Many people, over the years, have commented on how much I take after my late dad.  I share his looks; his mannerisms; his quiet nature (okay, that last one is a joke!).  I am happy to be connected with a man whom I loved and admired as much as I did.

And there is a third similarity - a genuine one!  My dad was married to a wonderful woman in my mum!  I am so glad that I take after him in that.  These past few days have been hectic.  While newspaper reports would suggest that it is very easy to get into the UK without a passport, we have been having great difficulty obtaining replacement passports in order to get out of the UK, next month, on our first visit to France for this year!

The bulk of the 'phoning and running around has fallen to my own wee wife.  She suffers from a 'hidden' medical condition that is exacerbated by stress of any kind and, at times over these past days, she has been put "through the mill" to an extent that she could well have done without.   Yet she has plodded on, and has an appointment at the Glasgow Passport Office, on Monday when, we trust, this particular saga will be concluded.

In the Biblical Book of Proverbs, we find a wonderful description of a wife:

"A good wife who can find?  She is far more precious than jewels.  The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life.  She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.  She is like the ships of the merchant, she brings her food from afar.  She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and tasks for her maidens.  She considers a field and buys it;with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.  She girds her loins with strength and makes her arms strong.  She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.  Her lamp does not go out at night.  She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.  She opens her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hands to the needy.  She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet.  She makes herself coverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple.  Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.  She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers girdles to the merchant.  Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.  She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.  She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.  Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:  'Many women have done excellently,but you surpass them all.'  Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.  Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates." (31:10-31).

I am so grateful to Father God that He gave me such a wife.  The details may be different - we do not live in the same culture - but the principles of the "good wife" are the same.  Words are not sufficient to say how much I love her - but I do!  She has been a loving, caring, supportive, encouraging, faithful, wife for more than forty-three years, and has been a wonderful mother to the two super daughters whom she bore to me.

Thank you, my love.  You are, indeed, "more precious than jewels".

Text; context; pretext!

It's a well-known maxim among those who are involved in the fields of theology (study of God), homiletics (the art of preaching), and hermeneutics (the skill of Biblical interpretation), that "A text, out of context, is a pretext"!  Sadly, there are some texts of Scripture that are regularly taken out of context and, thus, totally mis-applied - even by some who are Bible believing, Gospel preaching, disciples of Jesus.

One such is Rev.3:20.  This reads "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me." (RSV).  How often has that text, together with Holman Hunt's famous painting, been used in evangelistic services as an invitation to the unconverted to open the doors of their hearts, and allow the Saviour to enter? 

However, if we take the trouble to look at the surrounding verses (the context) we discover that those words were spoken, not to unbelievers, but to the church (i.e. the people who made up the church - there was no 'church building' at that time) in Laodicea.  The invitation is to 'church members'!

At Wishaw Baptist Church, this morning, we were reminded that there are, in the church - and you may read that as any individual fellowship, or as the church world-wide - both false professors and faith professors.  In other words, there are those who, while happy to sit in a church building, have never entered into a living relationship with the Lord Jesus!   As has been written: "The biggest threat to the church today is fans who call themselves Christian, but who aren't actually interested in following Christ.  They want to be close enough to Jesus to get all the benefits, but not so close that it requires anything from them." (Kyle Idleman).

Another well-known, and oft-quoted text in this category is the one that was used in my hearing today, and led to this post being published.  It reads: "... if My people who are called by My name humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (RSV).  What a wonderful promise!  And the state of the British nation - and most of the so-called 'western world' - would certainly lead many to claim that promise for their own land.

But wait a minute!  Those words are found in II Chron.7:14.  That is in the Old Testament.  They are a direct response, by YHWH (the Covenant Name of Almighty God), to king Solomon, after his prayer at the dedication of the first Temple,and its consecration by YHWH Himself.  They are words that apply directly to the Jewish people, written in one of the historical books, and without any warrant to transpose them to any other contemporary situation!   If they are to be used in such a way, I would contend that they would require the same national repentance, and crying out to God, that was required of the Children of Israel.  They failed to do so - and the result may be seen, as prophesied by YHWH, and recorded in vs.19-22.

We live in difficult times.  The Christian faith, and the disciples of Jesus, are being increasingly mocked, macerated, and marginalised.  But perhaps, instead of trying to claim the promise of II Chron.7:14, the church should be heeding the warning, implicit in Rev.3:20!