Disturbing snippet from sermon today

Today I listened to the sermon in our church where the elder said that Jesus main goal to come on earth was not the cross but so that we could be in heaven in fellowship with him. He further stated that the bible nowhere states that he came in order to be crucified.

When I heard this, my heart sank. It felt like a hit into the stomach.

Jesus did in fact come to earth to be crucified. He told his disciples three times about the upcoming crucifixion. He had set his face firmly towards this cosmic event. He installed the Lords supper to commemorate his death.

Isaiah foretold the Messiah's mission in chapter 53. Only the crucified Christ gives us access to heaven. We can only have Christ crucified and resurrected, otherwise we are yet dead in our sins. People want to go to heaven but they do not want to come to the cross and deny themselves bearing the cross. There are people who call themselves Christians but are enemies of the cross of Christ as described by Paul in

Philippians 3: 18
For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

They had already forbidden me to pray publically during the worship time because they felt it "interrupts the music performance”. This is a sad experience, but it happened to me a couple of times before. I will see that I can speak to them about it, but it will not be pleasant.

Find another church...

Revelation 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

He was slain from the foundation of the world, brother. He came to be crucified, as you already know.

There are 3 things you can do in this situation.

1) You can ignore it and harden your heart. This will result in the destruction of you and others as well as the erring brother.

2) You can immediately flee. If you flee, as has been suggested, then if this brother could have been corrected and brought into a better understanding of the doctrine in which we believe, you have removed one of the agents (yourself) who could have done so.

3) You can go to him and show him scripture and correct him in a loving, gentle way. If he does not listen to you, bring another brother or 2 with you. If he still doesn't listen, then bring him before the church. If at that point he still doesn't listen, then let him be to you like an unbeliever (Matthew 18). But if he is an elder, then you need to speak to him as if you were speaking to your own father--do not disrespect him.

I think you should start out on option 3 and if necessary move to option 2.

Perhaps you should go to a meeting with everyone (pastor, assistant pastor, etc) and bring a Scriptures that show Jesus did come to be the One last sacrifice that man needed. And if they will not renounce it, leave and stop at the door, remove your shoes and shake the dust off your feet at the door as a testimony against them.

And then move on to where Jesus leads you.

God bless you,
Lisa

Narrowpath, did he explain what He meant by this?

Like you, that makes me sick, but when I re-read your OP, I thought, "is that ALL he said?" Because there IS a very small, constricted context where someone might accurately say the "main goal was not the cross" and "the bible nowhere states that he came in order to be crucified".

Hear me out. I am indeed splitting hairs.

Jesus' own words never limited His purpose to the cross; there is a sense where many people ignore everything else Jesus said and did and the reasons for them and simply point to His death on the cross and profess that. You will find lots of folks whose testimony starts and ends right there. That sounds poignant but these folks never really walk IN Christ, never live BY Him and are not in love WITH Him, but live seeking their "destiny" or some other "blessing" that is disconnected from transformation into Christ and foreign to the Way. But, they say, "Jesus died for me," as if that stops any objection or correction.

Now, to be more complete, those same kinds of folks will adapt the "have a relationship" language and say, "God sent Jesus to the cross so I could have a relationship with Him," and they recast "relationship" to mean the kinds of things that worldly success and comfort provide. An Osteen-Prince-Meyers-Word of Faith kind of false gospel. They turn the cross on its head so that Jesus died both FOR them and UNTO them instead of for them and unto the Father.

Anyway, there is a way to understand the brother's remarks as simply a rejection of the cross-as-tool-for-happiness in favor of cross-as-means-of-reconciliation-and-transformation. He didn't come merely to be crucified. If so, He could have accomplished that without all the teaching and without all the things that staked His claim as God the Son, Messiah of Israel, King of Glory. He could have gotten Himself innocently killed in any number of ways.

Now, is there anything else he said that we can hear from you so that we all have assurance, like you have, that he meant something really off base? I believe you have the exactly right read on his statement, but I am simply holding out that he may not have meant to imply what he did imply.

I think the only thing the Bible never says is Jesus came to take us to heaven. Did he give any scriptural proof for what he is confirming (Jesus came for taking us to Heaven) and what he is denying (Jesus came to be crucified)?

Thank everyone for your replies.

As to Tim's reply, the elder leans toward a soft gospel, so his remark is somewhat consistent with his theology.

I take on board what havok20 said. I could be that I can help his soul to disentangle himself from this theology. There are not many voices around here that would dare to confront him.

Good observation, Sree, I could turn the tables on him with your question.

The thing is, I had these conversations with pastors and preachers over and over again. It usually goes like this and at the end the "L" word will come out:

"We appreciate that you are passionate about Jesus but you should not raise the bar too high lest we scare away those who are just opening up to God. We are past those times where we call people sinners and hit them hard with the bible. God is love and you got to love them into the kingdom. We acknowledge there are different approaches for different people, but we want to promote harmony and refrain from using harsh words and confrontation. We no longer paint a God who satisfied his wrath by killing his own son . That is the God of the Old Testament, we no longer walk in legalism (that is the "L" word) but in love and grace."

Maybe I have to do it again and be like Abraham moving from place to place.
I will ask Jeremy and David to give me a bottle tears.

Lord help me

I was thinking along the lines of havok20k about approaching the elder about possible clarification or explanation. Though he is "soft on the gospel" as you say, he may reconsider if you approach him with proper humility and respect which I have no doubt you would do. I would hope that this brother would appreciate having a person like the Bereans and would have the humility to be open to correction (Col. 3:12-14; II Tim. 3:16-17).
Concerning the second point about the crucifixion, I am quite mystified about this brother's comment, as the Old Testament is replete with images and references to our Savior's going to the cross. Is it possible that he did not put in adequate preparation time?

Scott