What is The Gospel of Christianity?

Amos 8:12 reads: “People will stagger from sea to sea, and from the north around to the east. They will wander about looking for the word of the LORD, but they will not find it.” This reminds us of Jesus’ own question: “When the Son of Man comes, will he really find Faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The truth of what Amos wrote and Jesus pondered is apparently and urgently relevant to our present time.

The first question to all would-be believers is, “What is the Gospel of Christianity as Jesus preached it to us?”

The Gospel of God

There is one unifying Gospel, called God’s Gospel.

Let us start with Jesus, as he speaks to us. Mark 1:14-15: “Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God and saying, ‘The Kingdom of God is about to come, repent and believe that Gospel.”

Romans 15:16: God called Paul “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the Gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

1 Thessalonians 2:2: “But after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the Gospel of God amid much opposition.”

“The preaching of the Gospel of God refers to the Kingdom of God which will begin with the Parousia [Second Coming].”

Everything depends on our response to the Gospel Message about the Kingdom as Jesus preached it. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are themselves evangelism models, inviting us to repent and believe the Gospel about the Kingdom (Mark 1:14-15) as well as in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Jesus said: “If they were to perceive and understand [the Gospel about the Kingdom, Matt. 13:19], they would repent and be forgiven” (Mark 4:11-12).

Society is divided into two Christian classes: those who hear and receive the word of the Kingdom and those who either do not know it or reject it.

Jesus had a central message that formed the basis for His entire ministry and teachings. He pinpointed this central message in the heart of His most famous sermon — the Sermon on the Mount. He made a statement about what should be the highest priority for His followers: ‘But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you’ (Matthew 6:33).

 

Home Church Trauma

The New Testament gives evidence of churches gathering in homes. As mainstream churches increase in size and wealth, more and more believers are becoming frustrated with the selfish desires of the pastors of certain churches to acquire more and more wealth in the name of God.

Reasons Why People Are Leaving The Church

One of the reasons people leave denominational churches is because the denominations have a negative reputation. For example, many people dislike the Catholic religion because they feel some of the beliefs contradict with what the Bible preaches. The same could be said for those who consider themselves Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In addition many people have noticed they often focus more on what they are against instead of focusing on what they believe in.  Seventh-Day Adventists, for example, have specific rules on things that seem unimportant to many non-denominational Christians. Many of them do not eat meat considered unclean in the Old Testament, and many do not believe they should wear makeup, nail polish, or jewelry.

Mormonism is another religion that often focuses more on the rules and what they are against than what they are supposed to stand for. Mormons are to abstain from alcohol, caffeine, and other substances that can alter a person’s behavior or thinking.

A lot of people who attend main stream churches find the church is more focused on policies and rules than they should be. They seem to care about whether or not their church goers are following the rules instead of caring about the people and what they need. The Jehovahs Witnesses are well known for their shunning policies if members question the governing bodies decisions and doctrinal teachings.

Belonging to a non-denominational home church can be easier but it also has its disadvantages.

Disadvantage of Home Churches

Home churches are open to people setting their own rules which are not currently in line with the laws of the country. They will also face problems much the same as the bigger churches and so they too will not be immune from scandals and unfaithfulness between married couples, abuse of minors etc etc. If too much trust is granted to one member of the small home church without oversight, this could lead to disasterous consequences.

Home churches also have the tendency to grow overnight. This forces the hosts of these churches to expand into bigger buildings. Expansion costs money and usually the members fit the bill for lavish furniture and stained glass windows and all the other fancy trimmings. Ownership is granted to the majority who have funded the build and as the church expands others continue to pay for the upkeep and the pastors salaries. When the building is sold the profits go to a select few and the rest get nothing.

If you are going to join a house church make sure you know whats expected of you before you commit your heart and soul to it and your bank account.

Does the Bible teach Immortality of the Soul?

More often than not when we hear people discussing death and the afterlife most are convinced that when we die we go to heaven or hell. I wonder if anyone has considered what our function would be once we arrive in heaven. Will we sit on a cloud and play the harp? Will we worship God all day? Will we build new houses in heaven? If we took a closer look at the scriptures we may actually find the answer to our questions.

If you have a bible please turn to John 11 verses 1 – 44. You will note that Jesus resurrected Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days ( verse 39). The bible writer John did not record any after-life experience in heaven as Lazarus did not declare to anyone that he had been in heaven. Surely if Lazarus had been in heaven he would have been eager to share his experience with his friends and family? Also consider this, why would Jesus have brought Lazarus back from heaven if he was enjoying all the facilities heaven has to offer? Surely that would have been a selfish act on the part of Jesus if he took his friend away from a life of heavenly bliss?

According to the scriptures the vast majority of humans will be resurrected on earth. John 5 verse 28-29 ‘’ Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice’’, and come out–those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.’’ There is no mention here of heaven or hell. The dead are simply in their graves ( memorial tombs) and they will hear his voice and come out. Can it not get any more clearer than this?

DEATH IS SLEEP

I was tempted to make that caption: DEATH IS LIKE SLEEP, but that would be Scripturally inaccurate, as nowhere do the Scriptures state that death is “like” sleep, but rather that death IS SLEEP. God prepared Moses for death with the following:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, you shall sleep [Heb: shakab—to lie down, to rest, to sleep, to decease] with your fathers…” (Deut. 31:16).

David said:

“Consider and hear me, O Lord my God: lighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death“ (Psalm 13:3).

When Lazarus was dead (John 11:14), Jesus said:

“Our friend Lazarus sleeps: but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep”(John 11:11).

The Hebrew Scriptures state plainly that, rather than possess immortality, the soul can and does die. “The soul [ nephesh ] who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4, Ezekiel 18:20).

The Old Testament describes the dead as going to sheol, translated into English as “hell,” “pit” or “grave.” Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 describes sheol as a place of unconsciousness: “For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished …”

The most powerful words come from Jesus Himself: “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

In conclusion we know that right from the very beginning of creation and after man sinned against God, Adam was told that he would go back to the ground from where he came. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3 v 19

Noahs Flood is one of the centerpiece arguments for young-earth theology.
Because of this, I have been asked what I believe the Flood of Noah was like. To answer this question, let us first look at what the Flood is not…it is not the event that has been described by the young-earth theorists. There is no possible way the Flood could produce the rock record we see, nor could the flood produce all the coal layers, oil reserves, or chalk layers that we see in the rocks. If you want to explore these topics first, click on them to examine them in closer detail.

Was Noahs Flood Global?

This is probably the biggest question I get asked. This will be a short answer to such a big question, but…no. You may ask how I can believe in an inerrant Bible if I don’t believe the Flood was global. The Bible says the waters covered the entire face of the earth (Gen. 7:19). However, when considering any writing, one must take into account the author’s point of view.

What is the author of Genesis’s point of view? He is writing the story from the viewpoint of the witnesses, or, mankind. At the time of the Flood, mankind was still limited to the Middle East. Therefore, if you wipe out mankind, which all existed in one geographic area, you could easily say the Flood was global, since everywhere that man lived, it was flooded. Does that mean that North America was flooded? Think of it this way. You are in your house, and a flood comes and covers your entire house, leaving you sitting on your rooftop, with no land in sight. This flood event may not be global, or, over the entire surface of the earth, but to you, it is definitely ‘global’, for your entire world, all the land that you own, all the land that you can see, is flooded.

Or, think of it from Noah’s viewpoint. All the flood stories from around the globe originated from Noah, since all mankind is descended from him. If you are Noah, on the Ark, floating around with no land in sight for months on end, you too would certainly call the Flood global. Therefore from his viewpoint, global would be the correct word, even though there is no proof that the Flood actually covered the entire earth.

If the Flood was global, there is no proof that it covered the entire earth, either geologically or from writings, including the Bible. It was certainly ‘global’ from Noah’s viewpoint, but we can’t be certain that he completely circled the globe to prove that it was indeed global.

Food Supply

In Genesis 8:11, the dove that Noah sent out brought back an olive leaf as proof of dry land. Let’s look a little closer at this from a young-earth perspective. In order to prove the Flood, and the necessary erosion that took place in order to deposit all the rock layers we see today, two young-earth theorists, Baumgardner and Barnette, worked out a simulation of the current patterns and speeds if the entire globe was covered in water.(Footnote 1) The important thing to note here is that the water currents were at least 131 feet per second, or more than 89 miles per hour! (Actual speeds varied between 89 MPH and 194 MPH). At that velocity, all previously existing trees would have been torn from their roots, and there would be no living trees or plants to survive the flood. So, where did the olive leaf come from? It would have to be a leaf from a seedling which the dove brought back, because none of the pre-existing trees would have survived.

Since none of these trees could have survived, there would have been no plant food for any of the animals (or Noah) to eat. How did the plant-eating animals survive after they were released from the Ark? The young-earth model cannot answer this.

How did the meat-eating animals survive? They would naturally have to immediately feed on the plant-eaters, which would have made them extinct within a matter of weeks. The young-earth global flood model again fails to answer this. However, if the Flood were local, not global, then the animals would merely have to migrate a short distance to find food. Clearly, the local flood model is the only one which can logically explain survival of animal species after the Flood of Noah.

Wildlife Ranges

What about the other continents…where they flooded? Was Australia flooded? If so, how did the wildlife there, such as Koalas and Kangaroos, get to Australia from the Ark? Did they swim across the sea? Of course not. If they migrated from Noah’s Ark, you would expect Koala and Kangaroo populations to exist all along this migratory route…but they are only located in Australia. A young-earth flood model cannot explain the wildlife habitat ranges that we see today in Australia, nor the other continents.

Dinosaurs

Young earth theorists are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, this explanation is not feasible. The dinosaur graveyards referred to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young-earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.

To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood (Figure 4.1). The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.

It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood. However, it is clear from Genesis 7:21-23, that all life was killed during the first 40 days of the Flood. Some young-earth theorists will argue that the bodies floated around, and eventually sank, based on various factors as body size, density, and so forth. However, this cannot be true, because the dinosaur footprints all exist in the same Mesozoic rock layers, as do all the dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dinosaur poop), and fossilized dinosaur eggs. Clearly, the dinosaurs were alive and well, after the declaration in Genesis 7:21-23 that all living things were killed during the first forty days of the flood. Clearly, the young earth flood model cannot explain the dinosaur fossil distribution in the rock record. However, if one accepts a local flood event, with the dinosaurs having lived over 65 million years ago, there are no problems.

Conclusion

The young-earth flood model falls flat on its face when compared to the rock record. There is no global, geological evidence for a flood, nor can the young-earth model explain animal survival when there was no food supply, animal distribution ranges, nor dinosaurs which survived the first forty days of the flood.

The old-earth explanation can handle all these problems. You can believe in an old earth, and still believe in Noah’s Flood. It was not “global” over the entire earth, but it certainly was “global” if you were in Noah’s shoes.

Evolution Versus God

Part  1 –  Was life created or did it evolve?

Evolutionists claim that the virtually infinite variations of life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. So,insects fish, plants and animals and humans have their origin based on pre-existing types that have evolved over time. According to evolution theorists, life started from bacteria and all life has evolved over millions of years to become a better species. This calls for a giant leap in faith. Life cannot start from non-life and then by itself turn into completely different species i.e. plants, insects, animals and humans. No scientist has been able to provide evidence to support this argument.

According to evolutionists man was Homo habilis, then evolved to a better species, Homo erectus and then evolved to Homo neaderthalenis before evolving to where we are today as Homo sapiens. Man has adapted to the environment and become a new superior species. The Homo erectus species of man can no longer be found.  Bacteria has however remained in all life forms. It has not died out. How do evolutionists account for this?

Part 02 – The Human Reproductive System and Life Cycle.

Humans have a reproductive system. How did the reproductive system evolve from bacteria which replicates on its own by the thousands per bacteria variant to a human reproductive system with a  slow reproduction rate? Did the human gene evolve on its own intellect and so as it was perfecting man from Homo habilis and Homo erectus it corrected the reproductive cycle, by ensuring a pregnant women carries a baby for 9 months and then it restricts man to an average living age on earth of 75 years? Why can’t man as the superior off shoot of bacteria live as long as bacteria? In addition if man is the superior species why has man not adapted to its environment to live longer than the Bowhead whale (200 years) or the Rockfish (200 years) or the tubeworm (300 years)?

Part 03 – Dinosaur Fossils and Homo habilis  

There is fossil and bone evidence today of plant, animal and human species that existed millions of years ago. The existence of these species is not in dispute. The evolution of these species and the creation of these species is however a hotly debated subject around the world. Did God create these species millions of years ago and then wipe them out in order to create a new animal species and human species? Has the evolutionary process always been in action?

Christians and evolutionists do not have conclusive evidence to support any of their arguments. This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. In order to navigate this question, we need to first examine what elements are necessary to sustain life on earth.

Elements needed to sustain life on earth

Plant, animal and human species need the following elements to live:

• carbon
• hydrogen
• nitrogen
• oxygen
• phosphorus
• sulfur
• Water
• Sunlight
• Food
• Atmosphere

Part 04 – Atmosphere

Small planets and moons have insufficient gravity to hold an atmosphere. The gas molecules escape to space, leaving the planet or moon without an insulating blanket or a protective shield. Earth & Venus are the right size to hold a sufficient-sized atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. It keeps the surface warm & protects it from radiation & small- to medium-sized meteorites. Venus’s atmosphere is 100 times thicker than Earth’s. It is made almost entirely of greenhouse gasses, making the surface too hot for life. The four giant planets are completely made of gas. Of the solid planets & moons, only Earth, Venus, & Titan have significant atmospheres. Mars’ atmosphere is about 1/100th that of Earth’s, too small for significant insulation or shielding.

In order for bacteria, plants, dinosaurs and Homo habilis to survive on earth millions of years ago, all the elements  mentioned above are vital with the atmosphere being a very important element that is not found on planets nearest to earth. If as evolutionists hypothesise that the earth began millions of years ago with a huge explosion and bacteria was formed as a result of the earths condition being just right, we have to ask ourselves why bacteria has not been found on other planets near to earth (the moon and mars).

We also have to ask ourselves how the sun and the moon  are the perfect distance form earth providing us with gravity which controls our tides and our seasons and sunlight that does not kill us through radiation poisoning and sustains life by giving enough heat to allow water to flow instead of freezing all over the earth. It allows all life species to exist at the right temperature in many parts of the world, whereas no other planet in our galaxy can do this.

Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and one percent other gases. This allows all life to breath. People need to breathe, and so do lots of other animals—and plants! Breathing is part of a process called respiration. During respiration, a living thing takes in oxygen from the air and gives out carbon dioxide. This process gives animals and plants the energy to eat, grow, and live life!

For all life to exist there has to be a delicate balance of temperature, and gases which is only found on earth. Dinosaurs, plants and Homo habilis existed millions of years ago on earth due to these elements being just right. How do evolutionists account for a big bang that created the right elements for life and percentages of oxygen and nitrogen? Humans cannot exist on 82% nitrogen and 18% oxygen.

Part 05 – Dust – Bacteria to Man

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground Gen 2: 7

The main intention of the words is to point out man’s feebleness. He is made not from the rocks, nor from ores of metal, but from the light, shifting particles of the surface, blown about by every wind.

Gen 2: 7 cont. . . breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.–The life came not as the result of man’s bodily organisation, nor as derived by evolution from any bacteria or other animal, but as a gift direct from God.

 Part 06 – Evolutionists Claim that Animals have evolved

Evolutionists point to the finch and its beak in an effort to explain how certain bird species have evolved over time. This apparently has come about as a result of a change in weather and bird migration patterns and the ability to source and consume the right food or seeds for survival.

Can we use the same argument for humans. Man no longer needs to hunt for his food. He simply walks into a KFC and pays for food that has already been slaughtered and cooked for him. Before the industrial revolution people lived on farms and bred their own animals for consumption. When the dinosaurs died and cattle began to roam the earth, did man evolve from being a hunter with increased strength and hairy arms and ape man features into what we see today as a more handsome species with less hair and strength? Did man adapt in a sense to his food source and his environment just like the finch?

Part 07 – Have Eskimos Evolved?

Eskimos have tougher skin and less handsome features than other human races. This is as a direct result of their environment they live in. Evolution has not changed the stature and build of the Eskimo allowing them to be a more superior race in their current environment compared to what they were centuries ago. The gene pool has remained the same and variations of build and looks and skin colour has only changed when an Eskimo and a human from another race have reproduced. If evolution theory is correct and all species evolve to become a superior species than before, we would see a distinct change in the Eskimo races features. Evolution apologists would argue that for such a change to take place it would have to take place over millions of years and not over centuries. No evidence exists for this theory.

Part 08 –  DNA and the Cell is complexed

Scientists have tried a computer simulation of a random creation of a cell to see if the DNA would evolve.  The earths age is 4.5 billion years old. Scientists found that it would take a period of 100 000 times the actual age of the earth. DNA and RNA and protein must be perfect for life to exist. If evolution theory is correct why do we have males and females? We should have one creature that can reproduce. Was the first ape-man a male or a female? How did a male ape reproduce life on its own? Evolutionists may use the earthworm as an example.

Part 10 covers this.

Part 09 – Can a Tornado Create A Boeing?

If life came about by chance we may want to ask ourselves that if a tornado swept through a junkyard could it assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein? We know the answer is no. Its simply not wise or scientific to say that it is possible.

Part 10 – Are Earthworms an example of Evolution?

Earthworms are hermaphrodites, meaning an individual worm has both male and female reproductive organs. Evolutionists propose this is where the split between male and female began. However, there are humans with both sex organs as well. Why not give us options? What is wrong with a man falling pregnant and carrying a child if he so desires? Why has the evolution process and final product i.e. man been divided by evolution into a male and a Female and given the gift of child birth to a women only?

Part 11 – Religion and Evolution can Agree.

Theistic Evolutionists propose that there’s design in nature and that God is the designer. Among Theistic Evolutionists there are some who imagine that God directed the course of natural processes (such as evolution) long after the beginning of the universe. The evolution process was therefore part of Gods original design. Man and animal evolved on their own and once man was able to communicate and read and write, God introduced himself to them as their creator. Man was not ready to understand the biological processes of how life could exist through a splitting of cells and protein and enzymes so God chose not to give primitive man a science lesson and instead He instructed Moses to write about the story of Adam and Eve. Jesus said to his apostles “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.” So, there are certain things we can understand and there are supernatural things we can’t understand even with the help of the Holy Spirit. Its just humanly impossible for scientists to have all of the answers and neither do Christians. God will reveal all in good time.