I'm calling this series Doubters Welcome, and you don't have to be one to be here, but it may help, as a matter of fact. One of the things that has most impressed me in my own study of the New Testament is to see the way in which Jesus welcomes honest doubt, honest searching inquiry. There's an episode fairly near the beginning of his story. You remember that John the Baptist was given the particular role of heralding Jesus' coming, preparing the way and announcing him to the multitudes. And then very shortly after John did that and Jesus was recognized publicly and began his ministry, lo and behold, John found himself clapped into prison because he had rattled the chains of the authorities just a little too hard.

He had called the ruler an out-and-out adulterer, and the ruler didn't like that too much, so he clapped him into jail. Now, you can just imagine the dynamics going on in John's own mind as he's sitting there in jail saying to himself, if I'm his herald, and if he in fact is Messiah, come to set up David's kingdom here on earth, what in the world is going on? Why am I sitting here in jail? I ought to be at his right hand side and we ought to be out there leading an army bringing in the kingdom.

And John begins to doubt. Begins to wonder could I possibly have been wrong? And so finally he sends some of his disciples to Jesus and we read about this in Luke chapter 7. He sends his disciples to Jesus with the question are you in fact the one who is to come? Are you the Messiah, the promised one?

Are you he? Or should we be looking for somebody else?

And in the 22nd verse, Luke 7 and verse 22, Jesus answers them. He says, Go and tell John what you have seen and heard. The blind receive their sight, The lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear. The dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them, and blessed is he who takes no offense at me.

I'm interested in that reply.

Jesus doesn't merely say, yes, I am, you dummy. Why did you ever ask? John, how could you of all people raise such a question? You were there at my baptism. You heard the heavens open and God speak. You saw the Holy Spirit come down as a dove and light upon me. How could you possibly be raising such a question? He doesn't say that.

Neither does he say, yes, that's it.

But he gives him proof, tangible, palpable, visible proof. He gives him evidence to believe. He says, look, see, tell him what's going on. the lame are walking, the blind are seeing, the deaf are hearing, lepers are being cleansed, the dead are being raised.

That's fairly overwhelming.

But in fact, it's even more powerful than that, because if you remember where John was getting his message from, he was dealing with the prophetic texts, and one of his favorite prophets was Isaiah. Jesus, in fact, if you want to go back and do your homework on this, is virtually quoting the 35th chapter of Isaiah, which was totally familiar to John. This is what would come rolling off of John's tongue when he announced the coming of Messiah.

Do you see what's going on? Jesus is saying, yes, yes I am the one who is to come. He's offering him vivid proof, but beyond that he's couching it in precisely the terms that John would be most familiar with. he doesn't put him down for his question he welcomes it goes out of his way to meet John at the point of inquiry and then he does a remarkable thing he turns around and addresses the crowd the messengers go back to John and Jesus speaks about what has just happened and the bottom line I won't take you all the way through it but the bottom line is he says I tell you among those born of women none is greater than John the baptizer.

Isn't that interesting? That the greatest praise that Jesus ever gave to any human being, he reserves for John in John's moment of greatest weakness and doubt. No condemnation there whatsoever. He welcomes the question. I think you have to see behind the incident a heart attitude on John's part that he really did want to know the truth so that he could walk in it.

Some people will raise questions, theological questions, not genuinely wanting an answer, but rather because they enjoy an argument. Have you ever come in contact with that? Maybe you've played that game. Maybe on one side or the other. Sometimes questions, you know, you get to the point where if you could answer this one, another one will come up, just like a little piece of toast.

And you answer that one, up pops another. And you begin to wonder if the person really wants an answer. It's almost he'd rather be able to hold it off at arm's length with yet another question. That's not John's attitude. John wants to know. He's eager to know the truth, lest he make a mistake. And Jesus welcomes that question and meets it. You see exactly the same thing after Easter, after the resurrection.

You remember on Easter evening, he comes and he presents himself to his disciples. Now by this time Judas has gone out and hanged himself, and for some reason we're not told why. Thomas is absent. There are only ten of the apostles present on Easter evening, and Jesus comes into their midst,

shows himself to them. They're overwhelmed. They recognize him as risen from the dead and Lord of life. They welcome him, and they can't wait to tell Thomas about it. Thomas says, unless I see for myself. In fact, more than that, unless I can put my fingers in the nail prints, unless I can put my hand in his side, I'm not going to believe.

He's spent three years of his life living with these ten men, sharing all things in common. A fairly high level of trust has been built up, yet their unanimous witness to him is not enough to convince him. For that reason, he's called Doubting Thomas, Thomas the Doubter. but we read that a week later Jesus appears again he makes a special visit for Thomas sake and he says come here Thomas go ahead put your finger in the hole put your hand in my side and Thomas falls on his knees and gives the most profound

response verbally of anybody out of that original band he says my Lord and my God he's convinced notice again Jesus does not condemn him he doesn't rebuke him he makes a special visit to give proof positive exactly the proof that Thomas demanded of him he meets him at his point of inquiry once again I have the feeling that behind that incident you've got to see something of a heart attitude Thomas' words are defiant and skeptical but in fact he's longing to know the truth he wants to know for sure he doesn't want to make a mistake about something as important as this you might contrast that with other people that we meet who come on with words of great accolade and praise to Jesus who in fact are not at all sincere in what they're saying I think for instance of the rich young man who greets him, good teacher

and Jesus says why do you call me good he begins to press the issue with him ends up saying, follow me. And the young man goes away, sorrowful. He's not willing to follow Jesus. Comes on with words of praise, but his hard attitude is not one of following Jesus at all. So, don't be deceived by people's words.

Jesus isn't. He goes beneath the words to the attitude. And what I'm suggesting to you is that all the way through the New Testament, through the Gospel account, what we find is, Jesus is prepared to meet honest inquiry, honest searching, honest doubt, in fact go out of his way to do so. With evidence, he does not ask people to leave their minds at the door. That takes some kind of a leap of faith.

He meets them at the point of their need and gives them evidence, gives them proof in exactly the terms that they are most ready to receive and deal with. Jesus, on the other hand, has absolutely no time for empty academic debate or argument. He's not interested in winning arguments. He's not interested in being part of the winning debate club. People come and demand to play intellectual ping pong, and they find Jesus has no time for that sort of thing. There's an interesting incident in John chapter 7, where Jesus has been saying some very strong things about himself,

and the Jews don't know how to cope with that. He's been making extraordinary claims as to who he is, come from God, incarnate, Son of God, here in the flesh. And it says the Jews marveled. They were in wonder. They didn't know how to deal with him. And Jesus says to them in verse 17, He says, if any man's will is to do God's will, he'll know the truth of my teaching.

Isn't that interesting? They want proof, or so they say. Prove it. Where do you get off? What's the basis for these great claims of yours? And his answer is, it's not a matter of proof. It's not a matter of debate or argument. It's a matter of will. It's not, in fact, an intellectual issue at all. It's a moral issue.

Are you willing to follow the truth where it leads you? If you're not willing to follow the truth where it leads you, then we're not even going to play the game. If anyone is willing to do God's will, then he'll have no problem with his intellect.

And so I find, especially in dealing with students sometimes, that's the appropriate question to ask. When somebody is raising just one question after another, after another, after another, and I begin to get that uneasy feeling that they're just playing games, I usually will interrupt the whole process and I'll say, now let me just ask you something. I say, I probably can't, in fact, answer all of your questions, but just supposing I could, just suppose that I could answer every single intellectual argument that you have ever dreamed up to your complete satisfaction, would you then be prepared to give your allegiance to Christ, to follow Him?

and if they're honest they'll usually say no at that point

because they're just interested in the debate they're interested in theological game playing and at that point I have to say well you know this really is not fruitful for either one of us unless you're willing to follow the truth where it leads you this is not serving any purpose whatsoever if you're willing to follow the truth of God even if that means a radical reorientation of your life, if you could be convinced that Jesus is who he claims to be, would you be willing to give away your life to him?

If the answer to that is no, then let's stop wasting each other's time.

Well, that sort of sets a framework for where I'm coming from. This series of lectures is not designed to win arguments. But it may be of some use to some folks in terms of removing some of the barriers to belief. In other words, I'm suggesting there's a legitimate kind of doubt, and then perhaps there's an illegitimate kind. And I find that when people begin to take the gospel seriously, a whole bunch of questions inevitably arise.

They tend to be similar questions. Some of us have some of them, and others have others. But I hear the same questions, and they're the same questions I had. and it may very well be that some of you are struggling with these questions. Some of you may have already come to a real commitment of your lives to Christ in spite of which there are some real hard questions that you'd like to kind of work through at least for your own sake or possibly for the sake of other people with whom you come in contact and you're being asked these questions and you wish you knew what to say.

It may be, on the other hand, that some of you are interested in the gospel, intrigued by it, and yet you have some of these concerns and you're not prepared to give your life to them just as Thomas didn't want to make a mistake, just as John the Baptist didn't want to make a mistake. Again, I'm saying I'm not going to try to win an argument, but perhaps we can remove a barrier or two to our belief.

The first question, the one that I want to try to tackle briefly this evening,

is what does it matter what you believe so long as you're sincere? What does it matter? Or to put it more simply, isn't sincerity enough? You hear that over and over and over and maybe you're asking it yourself, isn't sincerity enough? Well, it's obvious to you that I'm about to say no,

but before I do, let's say something on behalf of sincerity.

I want to acknowledge that sincerity is a very important part of the whole picture and we don't want to run roughshod over it. It occurs to me that when people do things out of deeply, genuinely held convictions,

I would just have a hunch that most of us would respect such people even if we thoroughly disagree with their convictions,

in a way that wouldn't necessarily be true of other people with whose actions we agree, but who are just going through the motions. Is that true? You understand what I'm saying? Somebody may be doing the right thing for strictly social reasons. You know, it used to be said that, you know, people in the 50s came to church because it was part of being respectable. If you wanted to get ahead in your business, you had to show up in church, so that that doesn't necessarily prove anything.

And I don't necessarily have respect for the person who simply comes to church or who does this, that, or the other thing. He may just be going through the motions for whatever hidden motive. On the other hand, there may be somebody who does something with which I totally disagree, but I respect the genuineness of his convictions in doing so.

And I think God does too.

when the prophet Samuel was sent to find a replacement for King Saul. He went to the house of Jesse and Jesse had a whole series of sons. Samuel was all prepared to consecrate the eldest who was a great strapping, handsome guy. And he said, obviously that's God's choice. And God interrupted him. He said, no, that's not my choice.

Samuel looked at son number two, and he said, well, he's pretty good too. Not him either. He went all the way through. Finally, this little shepherd boy comes in from the fields, and God says, that's the one. David is my choice. And he says to Samuel, man looks on the outward appearance, but I, the Lord, judge the heart.

So sincerity is pretty important to God. In the book of Revelation, Jesus is identified. He identifies himself as the one who searches the minds and hearts. He's interested in our sincerity. He's not looking just on the outside. Sincerity is terribly important. And there's a world of difference between doing the right thing for the wrong reason and doing the wrong thing but having a good motive in doing it. So I don't want to dismiss sincerity right out of hand.

We pray a prayer at the beginning of our communion service. I don't know if you've ever really stopped to think about what you're praying. But what we say is, Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open,

all desires known, from whom no secrets are hid.

God searches the hearts. God knows what's going on inside. You may be able to fool some of the people some of the time.

And maybe even most of the people most of the time. You may fool me all of the time, but you don't fool God at all. God searches the hearts, and he is interested in our sincerity. But, having said all that, you can be sincerely wrong.

You can be sincerely wrong. There's a famous story about a football game between that great school in New Haven, Yale.

And I just wanted to distinguish it from New Haven College.

And another New England college, which is probably better left unnamed. I will mention that it's in Cambridge, and our 34th president went there.

It was the same school of which Cotton Mather said, can anything be done for this miserable college? You know which one I mean. Anyway, there was this football game going on, and the other, not Yale, the other college's quarterback snapped the ball, And the receiver grabbed it and ran 90 yards for a touchdown. The wrong way.

And Yale won the game because of that touchdown. Now, he was sincere, friends.

But he was sincerely wrong, okay? It's possible to be sincerely wrong. I have no doubt that the guy who pushed the wrong button on Three Mile Island was very sincere when he did it.

and if there's anything tragically certain about what's going on in Iran, it's that the Ayatollah is sincere.

So while sincerity is important, we have to say you can be sincerely wrong.

It seems to me that probably when people raise the question, what does it matter what you believe, they really have at least one of several possible presuppositions behind that question. They're not really saying that sincerity all by itself is enough. But they're saying, what does it matter because I hold one or another presupposition? And I want to mention four of them tonight and address them just very briefly and see if this might be a good beginning point. It might be that somebody would say, well, what does it matter?

In fact, it doesn't matter because belief is irrelevant.

What really matters is behavior. I mean, after all, what does it matter what you believe so long as you live out a good life? So long as you're a responsible citizen. So long as you do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. So long as you pay your taxes and be a good Boy Scout and stop beating your wife.

That's what's important. And who could care less about what you believe?

Well, I remember a man at a party who made that sort of a comment. He said, I can be just as good a person as any of you Christians and I don't need any preacher to tell me what it is to live a good life.

I wondered about that.

I said why don't you define what you mean by a good life

what does it mean to you to be good and he began to spell out some of the things that I've just enunciated responsible citizenship doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you and I said you're giving me a set of beliefs how can you say it's irrelevant your behavior is based upon beliefs as is everybody else's how can you say belief is irrelevant the irony of your position is that you have borrowed all of your beliefs or maybe I should say stolen them from Christianity or more broadly from the Judeo-Christian tradition that's where your concept of ethics and goodness comes from you've stolen it away from Christianity but what you've done is you've left yourself without any adequate foundation on which to build such beliefs

I mean if God has not revealed that to us then who's to say that's right why do we have any obligation to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us why not just go out and whomp all over others so long as we don't get caught who's to say

I notice that anyone who makes that sort of a statement of necessity has a pretty clearly defined concept of what good is he may not be able to articulate it but he's operating on it

and there's another side to the coin I don't know if you've noticed this but as a matter of fact as our Christian heritage is eroding in many ways our culture is beginning to reflect that in our behavior

in the colonial days there was about one divorce out of 350 marriages

and today in some parts of our country it's approaching one out of two and in a few places it's one out of one did you know that? Southern California has a rate of one out of one that's not to say that everybody who gets married gets divorced it's saying for every marriage there is one divorce in California today somebody has said that in fact what happens is where there's Christian faith, it will carry over in the realm of ethics for about one generation, but it won't make it into a second generation.

In other words, if the parents had faith, the children will have a high level of ethics, but the grandchildren will be lost at sea. I wonder to what extent that's beginning to become evident. There was a very high level of, At least people claim to have a high level of faith about a generation and a half ago. Statistically, you know, church attendance was at an all-time high. And we're at the end of that first generation. We're moving clearly into the second generation.

It doesn't seem to be carrying over. I read just yesterday a medical doctor's statement that in many of our nation's hospitals, He said, and this is a quote, it is becoming commonplace for unwanted and deformed babies to be left to starve to death.

So we're not only practicing abortions to the extent of a million a year or more, but apparently now we've taken the next step, and if the baby is born and we don't want him, we're simply letting him starve to death. What's happening? Our belief system, as we're devaluing the sanctity of human life, is having dramatic repercussions in the area of behavior. Belief determines behavior. So I'm afraid I can't say, I can't agree that belief is irrelevant.

That one won't wash.

Let's just push it one step even further than that.

Do you notice that the person who says belief is irrelevant is articulating a belief?

And that's a hopeless self-contradiction. A hopeless self-contradiction. If belief is irrelevant, then his belief is irrelevant. The belief that belief is irrelevant is irrelevant. All right? It's kind of like the guy who says that we're just machines, you know. And we have no real humanity. It's just a matter of electrons rearranging themselves in our brains, and it's one big machine.

That makes thought a matter of mechanics rather than rationality. But if thought is irrational, then the statement, thought is irrational, is itself irrational.

You understand what I'm saying? It's a hopeless self-contradiction.

Well, somebody might alternatively say, what does it matter what you believe? Because of a different kind of a presupposition, and I hear this all the time, that all religions are basically the same. And therefore, what does it matter what you believe? We're all basically going the same direction we're going to end up there by whatever route you happen to go. That's a much more positive statement than the first one, but I think in the long run it ends up being just as hopeless.

It certainly is a confusion. Some of you may have gone through some of the series on comparative religion. We have a whole set of tapes on it, so let me just summarize very quickly and commend that to your further study if you haven't. I would generalize this way, that there is a point to that statement. Yes, the religions of the world have a tremendous amount in common with each other if what you're talking about is ethics. How we get on with our fellow man. Yes, they agree with each other at that level.

They agree with the very statement we've been looking at, that we ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. Every religious figure that the world has ever known has said that. Confucius said it, Buddha said it, Mohammed said it, Hillel said it.

everybody but Nietzsche said it as far as I can tell. Plato said it, either positively or negatively. Yes, the religions of the world agree with each other if the subject is relations with our fellow man. Okay?

But if the subject is relationship with God, they are wildly divergent.

Wildly divergent. They are not saying the same thing at all. as a matter of fact let's sharpen the question even more than that if you were to look at the great religious leaders down through the ages I think you'd begin to notice something about all of them except Jesus all of them are pointing away from themselves pointing to God or to God's way away from themselves they're saying don't look at me at best I'm a mouthpiece or a window the issue is God or God's law or God's way.

Moses is petrified to represent God. He says, please send somebody else. He argues with God for about three chapters of the book of Exodus on that one. Isaiah says, depart from me, O Lord. I'm a man with a dirty mouth. My paraphrase. Sinful lips, okay?

acknowledged God or the gods, but in a vague abstract way, they were totally irrelevant to what he was really concerned about, and that was being a gentleman, pouring your tea properly, getting on with all the amenities of life. The gods were part of the tradition in the background, but they had no practical bearing on day-to-day living. Buddha, at best, was an agnostic all his life.

Did you know that? At best. Some scholars would say he was an atheist. When Buddha was asked by some of his followers, tell us about God, he said the subject isn't even worth discussing. It's totally unprofitable.

Far from inviting men to believe in him as God, He said, I don't even know if there is one. I don't even care if there is one. His concern was the four noble truths and the eightfold path, how you live your life again.

Mohammed, who called himself a prophet of God, there is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. Mohammed made a very interesting comment just toward the end of his life. He said, it gives me great pain to realize that I'm no closer now to Allah than when I began my ministry. And my sin keeps me from him.

If you came and knelt down in front of Mohammed after the fashion that I mentioned Thomas came to Jesus and said, my Lord and my God, Mohammed would have beheaded you like that. Because his message was, there is one God, Allah. I'm his prophet. but don't confuse me with Allah. That would be the height of blasphemy as far as he was concerned. He did not invite men to worship him, to follow him as God, follow him as a prophet, yes, but he's pointing away from himself to Allah.

Gandhi, who's been called the noblest Hindu of all time, made almost the identical statement shortly before his assassination. It gives me great pain that I'm no closer to God now than in my early days.

you could put it this way

if you got up tomorrow morning and you read on the front page of the Washington Post that some scholar had proven irrefutably had come up with evidence to prove that Siddhartha Gautama was not in fact the author of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path

that would not make one iota of difference for Buddhism.

Okay? Because if Siddhartha didn't teach it, somebody did. And it was not a matter of a person at all. It was a matter of a way of life.

If some scholar could prove beyond any argument whatsoever that Confucius didn't write the Analects, that would not make one iota of difference to Confucianism because if he didn't write them, somebody did. And again, they're a way of life. They're a set of truths. They're not dependent on the person.

But if you got up tomorrow morning and you found on the front page of the Washington Post irrefutable evidence, some scholar had in fact dug up the bones of Jesus and disproven the resurrection, demonstrated that Jesus' claim to divinity was false, that he was a phony, and that the whole thing was just a confusion at best and a lie at worst, Christianity would collapse like a house of cards.

Because whereas all the other religious leaders of the world are pointing away from themselves, Jesus is consistently pointing to himself. He's saying, come to me. If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Before Abraham was, I am. I am come that you might have life and have it in all of its fullness. I have power to forgive sins.

I also have power to condemn you to hell. You must deal with me. He claimed a position of absolute radical preeminence. He claimed to share equality with the Father. And the bottom line of all that is, no man comes to the Father except through me. He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to God except through me.

You see, all religions are not basically the same. There's no two ways about that statement. Either that's true or it is hopelessly false.

Now that may lead into a third presupposition or possibly objection. Somebody might say, what does it really matter what you believe? Because after all, how could a good God condemn anybody? I just said, Jesus says, I not only can forgive you, but I can condemn you. I will come to be your judge. And somebody will object to that and say, well, how could a good God possibly condemn anybody?

And I reject the notion that it matters what you believe because after all, God is not going to condemn anybody to hell no matter what they believe.

Well, again, I just would parenthetically raise the point I did on the first objection. Where do we get the notion of a good God? What do we mean by that? What is the content of that? If you ask the person who says that, What do you mean by calling God good? I suspect that he'd begin to articulate, well, a loving, gracious, merciful, forgiving Father.

And I say, that sounds awfully much like what I read in the New Testament. How do you know God is like that?

You see, he's doing exactly the same thing again, borrowing or stealing a concept of God and hanging it out there in mid-air with no foundation under it. How do you know that God is a good God?

But the problem is that he's infused into the notion of goodness something that doesn't really fit there. He's saying, how could a good God condemn somebody to hell? The issue isn't condemnation at that point at all. The issue is that if love means anything recognizable when we speak about it in relationship to God, It means that God can no more impose it upon us than we can impose it on each other.

If I say I love you,

and you say, well, so what? I can't stand you.

How can I impose love on you?

The more I try to impose love on you, the less loving it is.

Has it ever struck you that even in male-female relationships,

the very same physical act can either be an expression of great tenderness, devotion, union, or it can be an act of despicable and utter violation. Has that ever struck you? The very same act.

If imposed, becomes the exact opposite.

I can't impose love on you and have it still be love. I can't force you to love me. No way I can do that. And if love means anything recognizable in relationship to God, He can't impose it on us either. And the issue is, He didn't want us to be a bunch of little automatons, little robots that He wound up, little puppets whose string He pulls in order to get us to do the right thing, jump through the right hoop.

He wanted us to be creatures able to respond to His love in love. But that means we've got to be free to reject it as well.

God can't impose His love on us and have it still be love any more than we can impose it on each other. It's not a matter of condemning people to hell. People condemn themselves by refusing his overtures.

Well, I think of one-fourth possibility. Somebody might say, what does it matter what you believe because after all is said and done, you can't know the truth anyway. I mean, you have your beliefs and I have my beliefs and we're never going to convince each other and you can't know. That's what it means to believe.

Mark Twain defined it as believe in what you know ain't so because you can't prove it.

But that begs the question,

what if you can know it? What if you can know it?

Luke begins his gospel this way. It says, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you've been informed. He says, lots of people have already begun writing down the gospel of Jesus. People who were themselves there to see it, to be eyewitnesses.

He says, I wasn't there. I am not an eyewitness. But I'm a very careful scholar. He makes that claim. And it turns out to be an incredibly accurate claim. Scholars with no religious or theological axe to grind have said that Luke is the most careful historian of anybody out of the ancient world. He reads more like 20th century historical narrative than anybody out of the ancient world. He's the one to whom we would look for the chronology. He's the one who consistently bends over backward to give us external secular data by which to identify things.

So-and-so was the governor of this and the tetrarch of that and the procurator of this and it was such and such a year and so on and so on. He says, it seemed good to me, having followed all things for some time, to write an orderly account

that you might know the truth concerning the things of which you've been informed. He says, that's what I've written for. Here's the evidence. Read it for yourself.

See what you make of it.

John concludes his gospel with this statement. The end of the second to last chapter, he says, Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. These are written that you might examine the evidence. Not all of it, but enough.

There's sufficient evidence here for me to win my case, says John. Any court of law, I'll go before any judge. Examine the evidence. These are written that you may believe and in believing have life. Paul wrote to the Romans, I want you to understand this mystery. He prayed for the Ephesians that you may have power to comprehend. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch, Do you understand what you're reading?

These are the active verbs that we find in the New Testament. That you may know. That you may believe. that you may understand, that you may comprehend. This is why God has come among us in the person of His Son to demonstrate on the arena, on the stage of human history, in real historical space-time evidence

who God is and what He's like.

Have you really looked at the evidence?

scripture says no one has ever seen god the only son who's in the bosom of the father he has made him known that's his purpose in coming it's there's a kind of a there's a common misunderstanding you'll hear this over and over again the god of the old testament is a god of wrath judgment fire and brimstone anger right god of the new testament is a god of love and mercy weakness, and light. The person who says that has never read either.

You go back into the Old Testament, you'll find just as many statements of love and mercy, forgiveness and compassion, and God's desire for people to be reconciled to him as you'll ever find in the New. You go into the New Testament, you'll find just as many statements about people's cutting themselves off from God and having to face the consequences as you'll find in the Old.

And Jesus himself lays an extravagant claim to the Old Testament. He says to the Pharisees, you search the scriptures. That means the Old Testament, that's the only scriptures they had. He says, you search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life. Yet I say to you, they're written about me.

He says, if you didn't believe Moses,

neither will you believe me. For he wrote of me. Now that leads to a startling conclusion with which we'll conclude.

Jesus did not come to start something brand new.

He didn't come to give us a radically new truth or a new view of God. he didn't invent the gospel he wasn't the one who thought up the idea of forgiveness and reconciliation he comes and lays claim to the whole of the Old Testament witness and he says I have come not to change it but to fulfill it you remember he says not a jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled I've come to fulfill it my purpose in other words in coming among you is that you might see and know the truth of which you've been hearing throughout all these previous generations I've come to live it in human terms that's my purpose not to start something new to demonstrate the truth that God has been claiming of himself down through countless ages through the prophets You understand what I'm saying?

And so that leads to a challenge, I think, to consider the evidence.

And if you do so, I'm absolutely sure that you're going to be driven to one of three conclusions.

And they exhaust the logical possibilities. If you take an open-minded look at the evidence for yourself,

you will have to conclude that Jesus, who is called the Christ, is either the worst blasphemer who has ever lived, claiming to be God in the flesh, but of course knowing he's not, in which case he got just what he deserved.

Or, secondly, he's a pitiful lunatic, thinking he's God, can you imagine thinking that you're the creator of the universe and he needs our pity rather than our condemnation and anger

or he is who he claims to be in which case my total world view has to be rearranged if he is who he claims to be then he deserves my allegiance my unqualified commitment and obedience. See, he's either right or he's wrong and if he's wrong, he's either sincere or he's insincere.

He's either crazy or he's lying if he's wrong. But if he's not wrong,

then he demands my life, my all.

So I conclude tonight that belief is relevant. In fact, it determines everything else. That the religions of the world are not basically the same. No, God doesn't want to condemn you, but neither will He force Himself upon you.

And the Gospel is that He sent His only begotten Son into the world that you might know the truth. And the truth will set you free.

let's bow our heads for just a minute

what does it matter

what you believe

it matters infinitely

Lord guide us into the truth

that we might follow it with our lives

for we ask it in your name

Amen Amen.