Archive by Author

Street Preaching the Gospel to Muslims in Birmingham England

preaching to muslims

Robert Parker shares his recent street-preaching trip to England.

Just a quick break down of my mission trip to Birmingham England. Statistics say more children are born to Islam than Christianity in Birmingham England. A team of preachers and myself across the states and England was led by Dale Mcalpine. We had a great opportunity to preach the gospel in this town at the city center. As an American I have never seen so many Muslims handing out booklets as well as the Koran. They had loud speakers preaching against the deity of Jesus. It was a perfect opportunity for us to set up and preach the gospel. So we set up our loud speaker and began to preach. Little by little people would stop and out of nowhere a large Muslim congregated in front of us. I noticed when I was preaching the Muslims standing in front of me were like deer in headlights. It seems as if they were hearing the gospel for the very first time. There were a few heckling here and there especially the Muslim women. But generally they were listening and taking in the preaching. As the day went by I noticed a lot of oppression going on in this community with the Christians. They were very happy we were there and some even had tears in their eyes. The vendors were telling us that we don’t have to pay full price because we were the ones preaching the gospel, and they thanked God for us being there. Before the day ended Christians came by and asked if they could hand out tracts or hold biblical signs saying Jesus is God. It seemed liked the Christians in that town gained some hope and confidence before we left. One even told us we don’t know how any of you guys didn’t get attacked. But we are so happy you are here. It was a blessed day preaching the gospel and the deity of Christ. I could never have imagined how many Muslims heard the Biblical Gospel. They knew before they left that their works cannot save them and that they needed a Savior.

 

2015 Bible Reading Plan – Read the Gospels Deeply

It is about that time of the year when we are introduced to creative ways to read our Bible for the next calender year (did you do it this year?).

This is my seventh year encouraging others to use my particular reading plan. I suggest you take each day of next year to read and reflect on a single unit in the Gospels. Did you know there are conveniently about 365 units in the Gospels?

In the past, I cited five good reasons to own a Gospel Synopsis. The fifth reason is:

Read a synopsis in one year by reading one pericope [a gospel unit] every day. By coincidence, the synopsis contains 367 pericopes (That is, all four Gospels combined contain 367 units.).

The edition I recommend for English is the Synopsis of the Four Gospels.

 

Jesus’ Deity – Difference in Function Does Not Indicate Inferiority of Nature

There is a frequent assumption that unbelievers have about the Trinity. But if you are aware of this deep assumption by those who deny the deity of Christ, you can disarm them. James White has said:

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

There is a built-in assumption for many that if Jesus possesses a lesser role than the Father, he must therefore posses a lesser nature. This is not a valid inference. Those who oppose the deity of Christ point to Jesus’ submissive remarks about doing the will of his Father.

For example, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I am.” They infer from this that Jesus does not share the same nature with the Father. This ignores that the context is talking about their relational roles, not their nature, John 14. Jesus also calls the Father, “My God.” Yet those who oppose the deity of Christ ignore that this is a humble acknowledgment of the incarnate Jesus, modeling for us humility and submissiveness (John 20:17). This exalting affirmation is what we would expect from the Son of God.

Similarly, it is argued, since Jesus is the agent of the Father in many respects such as creation, Jesus cannot be fully God. Regarding the Spirit, they will make the similar false assumption: Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot have the same divine nature as the Father. They will look at these statements and make the fallacious leap that difference in function indicates inferiority of nature.

By doing committing this fallacy, they also deny the freedom of the Divine persons to choose their roles. Or to put it another way: they assume that to be truly God, the Son and the Spirit must have the exact same roles as the Father. Do not allow them to accept this assumption.

A simple, but effective, illustration will show that difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature: A husband and wife will have different roles in a marriage. Wives are to take on the submissive role, but this does not indicate that difference in function requires inferiority of nature. Does the wife have a lesser nature than that of the husband? Not according to Christian anthropology. They both are fully human.

Let’s praise God for the incarnation, which itself presupposes a submissive role that brought about our salvation. We do not worship a unipersonal-unitarian God, but instead a complementary-trinitarian God.

 

A Quick Tip on Doing Exegesis…

Exegesis (i.e. biblical interpretation) has never been about “possibility.” It has always been about “probability.”

I frequently come across interpretive conclusions where the language of “possibility” is invoked, by both those who read Greek and Hebrew, and those who don’t. I have noticed that some use this ploy when they approach a text with a preconceived conclusion in order to fit their pet theory.

Recently, I read a discussion among some individuals who do not know Hebrew from Adam about what “the Hebrew means” in a particular text. They were imposing their English categories upon the Semitic language and concluding that “it is possible that the Hebrew could mean X”; consequently, the probable meaning was deflated, minimized, and equalized. In other words, doubt was cast upon the probable meaning because another meaning was “possible.” Pragmatically, the authority of Scripture was neutralized with the tactic of citing “possibility,” because someone did not like the probable meaning—it undermined their theory.

“Possibility” is irrelevant in interpretative conclusions; what matters is what is probable. One can never come to a confident conclusion if we allow the “possibility.” The clarity of God’s Word ends up being hazy and out of reach.

It is possible a two-headed, pink elephant is outside my door, but why should I amuse this possibility?

[Original post here]