Category: Gospel Centered

Fellowship and the Evangelical Spectrum by Kevin Bauder

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In Kevin Bauder’s latest article, he discusses the nitty-gritty details of how fellowship and separation pan out in his view. This is the culmination of a long series of articles on the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. I think quoting his conclusions at some length here, would be helpful for my readers, but I encourage you to go read the entire post.

Finally we come to the hard part. I have been writing about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. In the process, I have tried to articulate briefly a vision of Christian fellowship and separation. This vision involves a boundary (the gospel), outside of which no Christian fellowship is possible. It also involves a center, the whole counsel of God. Increasing levels of fellowship necessarily index to this center.

In my thinking, separation is simply the absence of fellowship. Outside of the boundary, separation is absolute. No Christian recognition should ever be given. Inside the boundary, separation is decided by the extent to which we Christians mutually hold the faith (the whole counsel of God) in its integrity.

Even among fundamentalists, certain separations are unavoidable. These separations are forced upon us when we cannot jointly hold the whole counsel of God in its integrity. In that sense, each separation includes some element of censure. Nevertheless, separation at one level does not necessarily require separation at every other level. Nor do these separations necessarily require that we adopt a contemptuous attitude toward one another. To the contrary, separations can and usually should be carried out with grace and charity.

At the risk of publicly embarrassing a friend, let me cite an example. Some years ago, God in His grace allowed me to make the acquaintance of Dr. Michael Barrett, president of Geneva Reformed Seminary. Dr. Barrett is a committed Presbyterian, while I am a Baptist by conviction. He is a covenant theologian (though a premillennialist), while I am a dispensationalist (though hardly of the Hal Lindsey variety).

It should go without saying that Dr. Barrett and I find our fellowship limited in a number of areas. Both our ecclesiology and our eschatology differ at important points. He is not going to ask me to lecture on baptism and I am not going to ask him to make speeches about pretribulationism.

More importantly, we cannot be pastors in the same church. Dr. Barrett probably could not in good conscience pastor a church that strictly forbade infant baptism. I could not pastor a church that allowed it. Consequently, Dr. Barrett and I are not likely to plant any churches together.

In other words, we separate from one another. We separate in every area that requires a commitment to those areas of eschatology or ecclesiology over which we differ. We cannot cooperate in any way that would require either of us to surrender his obedience (as he understands it) to Christ.

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that Dr. Barrett and I see one another as enemies or even opponents. Far from it. When it comes to an understanding of the beauty of holiness, of the majesty of God and the mercy of the Savior, of the importance of gracious affections and the role of sober worship, I find that I have far more in common with Dr. Barrett than I do with most Baptists or dispensationalists.

For the sake of those things, I have a deep respect and love for Dr. Barrett, and I am convinced that he reciprocates. Each of us shares concerns with the other that we share with few other people. We pray for one another. Both of us yearn for God’s best blessings in the ministry of the other. Most germanely, we are committed to fellowshipping and collaborating wherever it is legitimately possible.

To put it baldly, I grieve to be separated from Mike at any level. I see our separation as an evil, and I yearn for the day when our fellowship will be utterly unhindered. If there were a legitimate way of overcoming that separation now, I would pursue it.

Our separation is an evil (an evil circumstance, not an evil act), but it is a necessary evil in view of the alternatives. One alternative would be for one of us to abandon his commitment to obeying Christ. The other alternative would be for us to pretend hypocritically that we are not divided in those areas where divisions really exist. I would sin against Dr. Barrett by asking him to do either of these things.

Until one of us can convince the other of the error of his ways (not a likely prospect at this point in our lives), Dr. Barrett and I will continue to separate from one another where we must. We will also fellowship and work together where we can. We will do both to the glory of God, precisely because we care about one another.

This ought to be our attitude toward all fundamentalists with whom we differ. Indeed, it ought to be our attitude toward all other Christians who stand in some degree of error. We ought to separate where we must, fellowship where we can, and love one another withal.

In my opinion, the now-old new evangelicals were guilty of a very serious error. It was as serious as a Christian can commit. I also believe that hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of errors that are (nearly?) as serious. Very few levels exist at which I can overtly cooperate with exemplars of either group. Fellowship in both instances is severely truncated. Nevertheless, I find leaders in each group who challenge me spiritually and whose examples (at least in limited areas) I wish to emulate. Furthermore, where they are obedient to the Lord and genuinely trying to serve Him, I want them to succeed.

Other fundamentalists do not necessarily draw the lines where I do…. [and] might very well choose to separate from me. That, too, is part of the judgment that they must make, and I must grant them liberty to make it. I am not the one to whom they will answer.

For my part, the dictum is pretty simple. Let us separate where we must. Let us fellowship where we can. Let us love one another withal.

Please do read the whole thing as he includes even more practical examples as to specific decisions he’s had to make. Oh, and plan to read his entire 24 part series while you’re at it! I like the vision of separation and fellowship that Bauder gives. I’m not so sure absence of fellowship entails everything Scripture says of separation, however. Let me know your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks.

“Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah & Elisha” by Raymond B. Dillard

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

In today’s church, the Old Testament is often overlooked. When attention is drawn to it, the focus tends to be on creation science, Proverbs for daily living, Psalms for devotional nourishment, and character studies for us to emulate. The Christian church largely focuses on the New Testament for its teaching and preaching. In a sense this is natural, because the New Testament is so definitive for church life. Yet the NT spends a lot of time focusing on the Old Testament, and the early church’s Bible was primarily the OT. In fact, the more one understands and appreciates the message of the Old Testament, the better he or she will be prepared to really be impacted by the teaching of the New Testament.

Thankfully, the last twenty or thirty years have seen a revival of interest in the Old Testament and the recovery of preaching it as a Christian testament. Moralistic surveys of the characters of the Old Testament might have some use, but they are being set aside today in favor of a biblical theological approach that sees a unity in the Bible as a whole. The narrative of Scripture is being seen again as thoroughly Christocentric, and countless believers are being revitalized in their faith through finding the glory of God in the Old Testament afresh.

A big factor in the renaissance of the study of the OT has been the impact of good Christian books. P & R Publishing has produced a series of helpful books on OT themes called The Gospel According to the Old Testament series. The first book in that series is Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah and Elisha by Raymond B. Dillard.

Dillard’s book and the series as a whole, parts ways from a simple anthropocentric approach to the OT. Such an approach centers on people and their needs, and looks to the OT for examples to follow, and life-lessons to learn. Dillard’s approach, in contrast, focuses on what we can learn about God from the story, remembering that all OT stories have the unique quality of being divine revelation. The “first question” in this approach, “will not be ‘What’s here for me?’ but rather ‘What do I learn about God from this passage?'” Once we learn “about what God is like” from the passage, we are then prepared to ask “How we should I respond to this God?” Dillard then goes a bit further. “For Christian readers of the Old Testament”, he says, “there is yet another step to take…. We need to ask, How can we see God in Christ reconciling the world to himself in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures? That is, in addition to anthropocentric and theocentric ways of reading the Bible, there is also a Christocentric approach.” (pg. 124-125)

With these goals in mind, the book begins with a historical overview of the time period of Elisha and Elijah and the likely time when Kings was written (the Babylonian exile period). It is interesting to note that Elijah and Elisha are singled out and given almost 1/3 of the space of the entire book of 1-2 Kings. Dillard also traces how later Scripture uses the account of Elijah and Elisha, focusing particularly on the parallels Matthew draws between Elijah and John the Baptist, and Jesus and Elisha.

The book moves on to a treatment of all the texts in 1 and 2 Kings where Elijah and Elisha have an important role. Each chapter contains, two or three passages (quoted entirely) which are discussed individually followed by questions for further reflection. Having the Biblical text included allows for the book’s easy use as a devotional guide. The study questions make it handy for a small group study, and the material covered is simple and direct enough to allow for several uses. The themes developed and traced often throughout Scripture, make this an accessible theological resource, and the brief nature of the thoughts shared make it a perfect tool for pastors, who could easily prepare a longer sermon using the material Dillard offers as their starting point.

Dillard’s exegesis is sound and the application he draws is challenging, relevant and helpful. I particularly enjoyed how he brought to bear a detailed understanding of the historic worship of Baal (from the Ugaritic texts) and how this highlights many of the points made in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. From crossing the Jordan, to the chariot of fire, from the rain being stopped and with fire coming from heaven, all of this relates to the alleged domain and limits of the god Baal. Dillard also excels at translating the concerns of the agrarian age of Elijah and Elisha to our own contemporary problems. Along the way he also develops a thoroughly God-centered approach.

The anticipatory function of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., the confrontation with Baal on the spot of the future battle of Armageddon, the feeding of a hundred men from 20 loaves with food “left over”, and etc.) is highlighted well in this book, even as parallels with Christ are carefully and judiciously drawn. Sometimes more explicit NT connections are left for the discussion questions, and I credit the author with stopping short of stretching too far in finding types and analogies of NT truths in the stories. I was intrigued too by the fascinating parallels drawn between Elijah and Moses when they went to Mount Horeb, and the discussion of the redemptive role of miracles — restoring creation to how it was intended to be.

The stories of Elijah and Elisha are breathtaking, and life-giving in themselves. Just as Elisha’s bones brought a man to life, so too will this book bring life to your spiritual soul as you see those stories in a fresh and faith-filled way. The book may open your eyes to a Christian understanding of the Old Testament that you were unaware of. At the very least it will thrill you to the wonderful, covenant keeping God we serve, and His Son Jesus Christ. I highly recommend this book and others like it in The Gospel According to the Old Testament series.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or through P & R direct.

Fellowship Redefined: David Cloud, Mark Dever and the Fundamentalist Notion of “Partnership”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 62 Comments

David Cloud has out done himself. As king of the fundamentalist “dirt alert” squad, Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong. They cared about the fundamentals of the faith, as something to rally around and unite over. They actually stood by the age-old maxim: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” Imagine that! Boy were they duped. There is no such thing as a non-essential, don’t you know. Rom. 14 and Matt. 23:23 not withstanding.

Cloud has an article entitled “In Essentials Unity”, where he quotes disapprovingly many wise comments from other fundamentalists, like Charles Keen and Clayton Reed, who are waking up to the fact that standing with a brother for the gospel doesn’t imply a wholesale endorsement of every single doctrinal position he may espouse. In fact we can appreciate the contributions of those who differ with us on less important points. Cloud however disagrees, saying, “I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as ‘non-essential’ or to ‘stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals’.”

I have previously spelled out my thoughts on how important it is to accept that the Gospel and other core doctrinal truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at it!

My point in this post, however, is to seize on a small bit of Cloud’s post which speaks volumes about how he and many other fundamentalists think about “fellowship” and “partnership”. This actually might reveal why Cloud and his disciples find themselves so far afield from their fundamentalist forebears.

Cloud brings up Calvary Baptist Seminary’s upcoming National Leadership Conference where they (a fundamentalist institution), will be inviting Mark Dever to be their keynote speaker. Dever, of course, is a leading conservative evangelical, who is not a fundamentalist insider, and certainly not acceptable for fellowship of any kind in Cloud’s book. Here is how Cloud lets us know this problem as to Dever’s credentials:

…and New Evangelical Southern Baptist Mark Dever in 2010. (Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, which is partnered with the very liberal American Baptist Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Baptist World Alliance. For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “Partners.”)

In Cloud’s mind, Dever’s association with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention makes his case even more egregious. Not only is he a “new evangelical” and a Southern Baptist, but he is “partnered with” the liberal organizations listed above.

What struck me about this is how completely far off the mark Cloud is in this assertion. Mark Dever is known throughout Christian circles as a conservative’s conservative in many respects. He defends substitutionary atonement and stands for a complementarian position on women in ministry, and he is certainly a champion of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dever encourages a very local-church-centric philosophy of ministry, and has some of the best resources available for Biblical church life. Before I go on to defend Dever, the charges against him are actually going to get worse.

Perhaps as a result of some feedback, Cloud recently sent out two clarifying emails about this statement, through his Fundamental Baptist Information Service newsletter. The second clarification expands on the original statement:

In the article “In Essentials Unity,” December 7, 2010, I made the following statement:

“Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is also a member of the liberal American Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the horribly apostate National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.”

I have been challenged on this, as the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s web site only lists its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

While Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not a member of the American Baptist Church directly, it is definitely partnered with the ABC, as well as the very liberal Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by dint of its membership in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention.

For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “DCBC Directory of Churches” and “Partner Organizations.”

Tod Brainard, author of “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” The Projector, Fall 2010, wrote to me on December 8 as follows:

“Before the publication of my article I contacted the DC Baptist Association in Washington to verify Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s membership with them. The DC Baptist director told me personally that Capitol Hill Baptist Church was a paying member of the association and current on their dues. He further indicated that they had not questioned or expressed concerns over the DC Baptist Association affiliates including all those listed in my article. By the way, Jesse Jackson is a member of the National Baptist Association [which is partnered with the DC Baptist Association].”

In “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” Pastor Brainard wrote:

“Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention; and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which are both blatantly apostate. In addition the American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church).

“It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together. To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive. Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. ”

———-

I cut off the article at that point where it continues to expound on the perceived dangers of such awful associations and partnerships and where all this can lead. From staunch conservative, Mark Dever has now been transformed into a closet Roman Catholic who collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity! Better be careful what kind of perceived associations fundamentalists will find in you!

Now for the killer. All of this is just a bunch of hooey. The only thing that is true is that Dever’s church is a member of the DCBC. But not a paying member, nor a compliant member. In fact, years ago, Dever led the charge in the SBC to defund the DCBC from any national convention dollars due to their liberal ties. Dever’s church in fact does not pay dues to the DCBC, in fact they don’t even charge dues, they just accept free will offerings (which Dever’s church does not send their way).

A contact of mine at Dever’s church, verified that the church secretary has been receiving calls about this and just this week called the DCBC to verify that they haven’t received funds from Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Dever’s church). In fact, CHBC is on a list of “non-contributing” member churches. The church is in the DC and perhaps there is some benefit to being listed in the DCBC listings. But their “membership” is anything but a complicit involvement in apostasy!

This account is documented in Christianity Today which did a story on the controversy surrounding the DC Baptist Convention and their defunding by the SBC national convention. Here are some quotes from CT documenting Dever’s stance to all of this:

Most area pastors line up with the local convention. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not among them.

“They [DCBC] are presenting this as a political move,” Dever says. “But these agreements presume a common understanding of our purpose. I would encourage the SBC not to give a penny to the D.C. convention.”

…

Dever believes the district convention has a confused theology.

“There’s no personal animus,” Dever says. “That’s what I keep hearing from the DCBC, like somebody’s out to get them. I don’t think they have a good category for genuine theological disagreement.”

So the record is plain for all to see, Dever is not partnering with the DCBC in any theological sense. But David Cloud and his like, see it differently. Any membership or association of any kind, entails a complete agreement, not only of the association itself, but all the associations each group has which is associated with the other group. I don’t see how most of those Baptist groups are really and truly connected in spirit with the Pontiff of Rome. But the fundamentalist notion of “partnership” can magically make this happen.

This isn’t just a crazy story. This isn’t just a ludicrous blunder by Cloud. This is a travesty of Christian fellowship. If this is how we treat fellow ministers of the Gospel, woe be to us! Such foolishness crowds out the Gospel, which becomes just another hill we will die on. With the Gospel as “just another doctrine”, we lose a Christ-centered, Gospel-rooted faith. The result is a schismatic, piety which is no one’s true friend. And grace is left out of the mix. I’ll close with some wise words of old, from the Puritan, Thomas Manton (commenting on Phil. 3:15):

…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.

Quotes to Note 21: Melancthon & Zwingli on the Fruit of Faith

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010), pg. 124-125.

Today many mistake the Reformation emphasis on “sola fide” (“faith alone”) with an easy-believism where faith is all that matters and works are downplayed to the extreme that some view them as completely optional in the life of the Christian. James Payton in his book, explains that to the Reformers, faith was never so “alone”. Rather, they expected faith to always be accompanied by good works.

I found the following quotes from Philip Melancthon and Ulrich Zwingli quite helpful on this point.

Philip Melancthon [from his 1521 Loci communes theologici in Melancthon and Bucer ed. Wilhelm Pauck, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), pg. 92, 109 and 112] —

Faith is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy promised in Christ…. This trust in the goodwill or mercy of God first calms our hearts and then inflames us to give thanks to God for his mercy so that we keep the law gladly and willingly.

Faith cannot but pour forth from all creatures in most eager service to God as a dutiful son serves a godly father.

For although faith alone justifies, love is also demanded…. A living faith is that efficacious, burning trust in the mercy of God which never fails to bring forth good fruits.

Ulrich Zwingli [from his 1531 An Exposition of the Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. and trans. G.W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), pg. 272] —

But we must add at once that the pious will not cease from good works simply because it is impossible to gain any merit by them. Rather, the greater our faith, the more and greater our works…. For since faith is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can it be slothful or inactive when the Spirit himself is unceasing in his activity and operation? Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.

You may also be interested in reading my review of Getting the Reformation Wrong by James R. Payton Jr.. See also a previous “quotes to note” post where I shared some good thoughts from Zwingli on the gospel. And

“Which None Can Shut: Remarkable True Stories of God’s Miraculous Work in the Muslim World” by Reema Goode

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

From the time I was a little boy, I remember being fascinated with missionary stories. I’d find the country on a map and visualize myself going to that distant land with the Gospel. Africa, South America, Asia — all were equally enticing destinations. On-screen slide projectors introduced me to the mud huts, shacks and cardboard cities of extreme poverty, to exotic animals, tropical paradises and beautiful vistas, and most of all, to the faces of people who need Christ. In my background, however, I can’t remember many tales of missionaries to Muslim countries. Closed countries were just that, and with the response to the Gospel in more reachable lands, the prospect of outreach to Muslims wasn’t raised.

My experience is certainly not unique. It is only in the past 20 years or so that missions to Muslim-controlled nations have become the dream of Christian young people. A dream and a reality. Two American wars in Iraq and the constant Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have kept the Middle East, and its Muslim religion, at the forefront of our global vision. And many American Christians have taken it upon themselves to pray for the advance of the Gospel (not the same as the success of America, mind you) in these dark lands.

That I call Muslim-dominated lands “dark” is not a popular sentiment in today’s pluaralistic age. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about spreading the light. And Christian missionaries have laid down their lives to spread that wonderful story of Jesus throughout the ages and all over this world. Sadly, many Muslims today mistakenly think Christianity is represented by America’s policies and the evil practices she tolerates. Such is not the case. True Christians serve a Kingdom not of this world.

American Christians like me are beginning to hear of the inroads being made by the Gospel in Arabia and other such places. But what we hear is often only bits and pieces of what God is doing. For Americans in general, and Christians too, there remains a fear of Islam and a mystique to Arabia. Few are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the gospel, and many don’t even know what missions to Muslims would even look like (here in America even, and especially over in a “closed country”).

A new book, shines a beacon on what God is doing in Arabia, and what it is like to be a missionary there. In Which None Can Shut: Remarkable True Stories of God’s Miraculous Work in the Muslim World Reema Goode (and I assume that to be a pen name) shares some of her real life stories of being an American woman ministering to Muslims alongside her family in an Arabian country. Along the way we share her joys and sorrows and come to know more clearly what it is to be ministering God’s love to Muslims in a far away land. The book is a breathtaking tale that is sure to elicit both praise and prayers to God for Him to do even more.

The book is a quick read, and the story moves along quickly. Goode shares the struggle of fitting in to a new culture, and her fear for her children. She describes the people and customs of Arabia well, and draws you into the story. Over and in all of the stories we can see God’s grace and His Spirit at work. God gives Reema and her husband just the right words to say, over and over again. Incredible opportunities to share the Gospel are commonplace, as the people of that land are curious to learn more about Christianity and life in America. Through the Eastern emphasis on community, and the sharing of one another’s lives, the people get to see what a Christian really is.

God’s miraculous power is seen too. Dramatic healings, protection in demonically charged encounters, and the beauty of conversion to Christ are all recounted. Testimony to God’s working in people’s lives prior to and apart from Christian missionaries is amazing as well. And the author insists these stories are representative of God’s work in many lands and many cities all across the Muslim world.

I couldn’t put this book down. And when I did, I was moved to pray more intently for the continued advance of the Gospel in Muslim lands. I fear that many Christians in America are more focused on the encroaches of Sharia law and Muslim suicide bombings than they are on the need these people have for Jesus Christ and the Gospel of God’s grace. May this book serve to elicit prayer rather than prejudice from God’s people.

I think the book could become a best seller and open the eyes of many Christians to the thrill of missions in general, and Muslim missions in particular. May God inspire many more Christians to follow Reema Goode and her family into Muslim lands with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Tyndale House direct.