Skip to main content

Catechism #39



Q. How is the Word of God made effectual for salvation?
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading and the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners.

Some people like to pose the question, “If a man on a deserted island dies and never hears about Jesus, will he go to hell?”

While that is a most unlikely hypothetical question, I believe that God will do whatever He has to in order to give that man the chance to be saved (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4,). God could send an angel, appear in a vision, or let the beauty of creation lead him to the truth (Psalm 19:1).

But for those of us who are not on a deserted island, God has chosen the manifestation of His Word as the vehicle to bring the lost to salvation. Any person can pick up a Bible and read Romans 10:13: “Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

But God’s desire is for salvation to be both personal and relational. That is why God established the pastor to be the human shepherd, lovingly leading the sheep to Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:21 says God has chosen “the foolishness of preaching” to save the world. God doesn’t need any human agent to bring salvation, but that is what He chose to do.

The proclamation of the gospel is not reserved for only the vocational pastor or evangelist, though. The commission to preach the good news is given to every redeemed child of God.

While it is important that our conduct back up our message, this so-called lifestyle evangelism only goes so far. We should not let hypocrisy and sin in our lives be an obstacle that prevents someone from coming to Christ, but we also need to realize that our actions do not save people; only the properly presented message of Jesus does that.


The Word of God is made effectual for salvation whenever a person reads the Bible or hears the Bible preached. Are you helping to spread the Word?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the