TWO THINGS LIBERALS WILL NEVER TOLERATE

Whether it be political or theological liberalism, there are two things liberalism in both camps will not tolerate.

INTOLERABLE 1

The first of the intolerables is the truth that human nature can't be changed; we are as Paul said, "by nature the children of wrath." We are as David wrote, "We go forth estranged from the womb" and "in sin did my mother conceive me."

The liberal position is that what man needs is information and, based on reason and logic he will make the "right" and "moral" decision. This leads to getting people educated, so the "right" information is distributed to the schools and the schools will be the conduit to carry the information to the students, and, armed with that information, they will turn out to make the proper decisions.

The examples are numerous, but one will suffice: drug addiction, membership in gangs, and violence are seen as the problems, so in 1983, the Los Angeles Police Dept., in cooperation with the Los Angeles Unified School District, founded D. A. R. E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education).

The result of the program: Researchers at Indiana University, commissioned by Indiana school officials in 1992, found that those who completed the D.A.R.E. program subsequently had significantly higher rates of hallucinogenic drug use than those not exposed to the program. Wait. What? Yes, you read that correctly.

CALIFORNIA DREAMIN'

Indiana University didn't stand alone in their conclusion: In 1995, a report to the California Dept. of Education, Dr. Joel Brown stated that none of California's drug education programs worked, including D.A.R.E.

The  report concluded, "California's drug education programs, D.A.R.E. being the largest of them, simply don't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the antidrug [sic] message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level."

In some circles educators and administrators have admitted that DARE increased students' exposure and knowledge of unknown drugs and controlled substances, resulting in experimentation and consumption of narcotics at a much younger age. Criticism focused on failure and misuse of tax-payer dollars, with either ineffective or negative results state-wide.

To summarize the reports, they were official statements saying, "Oops. We're sorry we wasted the students' time and your money."

WRONG STARTING POINT

The political liberal and the theological liberal will turn, every time, to the government and to education to solve whatever it is that they deem as the problem, but, in reality, their presupposition that human nature is malleable and improvable is flawed from the start. Their stating point causes them to treat the with symptoms, not the cause, man's innate fallen nature. The solution isn't education. Paul wrote that human nature is such that, even when we realize what's wrong, sinful, and even hurtful, and we swear we won't do it, that's exactly what we do. (Rom. 7) Human nature can't be educated away. If it could, universities wouldn't need campus police.

INTOLERABLE 2

The second thing that both political liberalism and theological liberalism won't tolerate is authority. Liberals in both areas have a problem with keeping established rules if things don't go to suit them. We see this almost weekly, yea, albeit daily, in our society. If the results of an election don't go their way, then it's time to riot, loot, burn things down, and break stuff. If things don't go their way, demand to change the rules, eliminate the electoral college.

In school, we learned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But, liberalism says, "If it gets in the way of we want, we'll ignore it."

If theological liberalism doesn't like what the Bible says, it changes the interpretation to one more preferred. If one doesn't like God's plan for marriage: change its definition. If one doesn't like hell, eliminate it. If Jesus words offend, then say that He never said them, author made them up.

Political liberals don't like the Constitution if it gets in their way, ignore or change it by saying it's "a living document" and changes with the times. Theological liberals do the same thing with the Bible.

THE COMMIES

Ever wonder why communists and dictators of all stripes loathe and try to destroy the Bible and the church? It's because both the Bible and the church stand firm on the fact that there is an authority higher than the dictator and higher than the government and that's intolerable. For the dictator, there can be no higher authority than the  government; he is the government.

Yet, there is the Christian, there is the church saying, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear [a postitive response] to the [authority of] the Lord."

MADNESS

The closing scene in "The Bridge On the River Kwai" leads to the last line of the movie. A British officer and his men are prisoners of war in a Japanese camp. By means of a series of events, the British officer offers to build a bridge over the river in order to show the Japanese the can-do spirit and discipline of the English military. He doesn't seem to realize or care that he's helping the enemy.

In the climactic scene, the officer winds up blowing up the bridge he's spent time, energy, and men to build. The inaugural train ride is crossing the bridge and plunges into the river as the structure collapses.

The prison camp doctor, observing the scene, says the last line of the movie, "Madness! Madness!"

The Western World is in the grip of madness as evidenced by a statement by the commissioner of London Metropolitan Police,  after the massacre on the London Bridge by Islamic terrorists. The chief, Cressida Dick, said,

"It's desperately sad and poignant but among those who died is someone who's British, there are French, Australian, Canadian, Spanish."

"In terms of our witnesses that we've spoken to so far, out of the 300-odd people, there are about 20 different countries of origin. And the London British population comes from all kinds of backgrounds and every kind of faith and ethnicity."

"We believe of course that that's what makes our city so great. It's a place where the vast majority of time it's incredibly integrated and that diversity gives us strength."

Here's a chief of police taking pride in the various nationalities of those innocent civilians who were slaughtered by having their throats cut in a terror attack. This is madness.

Has multiculturalism and the obsession for diversity taken us that far? Few of our leaders seem to be asking how a nation can find any point of unity if it's obsessed with diversity to the point of celebrating the murders of people from five different countries. A nation must find unity or its fabric will rip apart. That's what caused America's Civil War--it came to a point to where there was no point of unity, not the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence, not anything. 

During the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, God commanded that at various times the nation would gather together to celebrate and sacrifice according to the Law that was to unify them. Psalm 133 alluded to this unity of the nation. There were the feasts, the covenants, and the Temple, all combined were to keep the unity of the nation.

In England has long since abandoned the Bible. Their churches stand both hollow and vacant. The Word of God has been covered with dust for a long time now. This has produced a vacuum. And what does nature do? Nature abhors a vacuum and therefore secularism (“Now is all there is”) is sucked into that vacuum. Because of this, like a juggernaut, things began to happen as decreed by Romans 1: “their foolish heart was darkened,” and “Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

How is it possible to be looking at five slaughtered people, with their blood running in the streets of the city you were sworn to protect, and think of how strong your city is to have such diverse corpses? How could any officer take pride in that? In only one way—such a pride comes from a darkened heart which produces a fool.

THE MANIPULATOR

1962: a novel sees the light of print. The author, hostile to Christianity, will begin to manipulate the reader. He tells the story of a Roman emperor set in the 4^th century A. D. The writer is an atheist; he’s not writing as an impartial observer. As Christ said, “He that is not with Me is against me. We see his hostility from the start—he refuses to capitalize “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” along with “Old Testament” and “New Testament.”

His hostility to Christianity begins on page one, so he immediately gets into it. But the way he begins to manipulate the reader may not be noticeable to the average person. To begin the molding of the reader’s mind to get him to find Christianity odious is to begin his 400-page book with a chance meeting of a teacher and his student.

The teacher is writing a letter to a friend in which he describes the chance encounter. The teacher writes, “I was stopped by a Christian student who asked me in a voice eager with malice . . .”

Thus our first introduction to a Christian is to one who is rude; he interrupts the instructor who’s on his way to a meeting and stops with a conversation in a voice which is eagerly malicious in tone. The reader is to understand that this student is not only rude, he has a secret agenda.

The book describes the student as “speaking slowly, watching me all the while.” Not only is he rude; he’s also sinister.

Then, still on page one the teacher, still writing his friend, says, “the bishops arrived like vultures to pray over [a powerful man who’s sick].” Then he adds, “I knew that if he recovers, they wold take full credit for having saved him.” The student is overly joyous because an inquisitor has been appointed to determine the faith of others and because “the days of toleration [of non-Christians are over.” Now, Christians are intolerant.]

The bishops become “vultures” who pray in hopes of bringing glory to themselves. So now, we have the author’s first insults to Christianity, one in the form of a rude believer, the other from glory and power hungry bishops. Then there’s the charge of not being tolerant, which he later details as the Emperor’s appointment of an Inquisitor to examine a person’s faith, along with the student’s saying, “The days of toleration are over.”

Not satisfied with the above, the author has the teacher write, “. . . that pernicious doctrine which asserts that a sprinkling of water (and a small donation) will wash away sin again and again and again.” {Now we get a further glimpse of what he’s reacting against.

The teacher charges the Emperor’s edict against the pagans as being composed of crude Greek like the bishops use, showing a confusion of thought. [Now Christianity is made up of ignorant people.] He laments that if things keep going the way they are, if they don’t strike back at these Christians, these Galileans will destroy the world they love. [For God’s verdict on the world they love, read Romans 1:18-32.

Writing of a eulogy he wrote, he says, “I was able to bring tears even hard Christian eyes.” [Now he portrays Christians as without compassion.] Going on, the takes a sarcastic swipe at the Resurrection: “My head is a tomb quite as empty as the one Jesus is supposed to have walked away from.”

He can’t leave the bishops alone, writing that they are ferocious in hunting heresy, which the professor defines as any opinion contrary to their own. His pen continues to insult as he writes, “They are as ignorant as all mankind.”

He portrays Christians as burning people alive, stoning people, and nailing them up to a church door. To summarize his hatred he writes, “They are as inconsistent, as logic has never been a strong point of the Christians faith.” [The author of the book is as many atheists—proud, feeling superior to others, judgmental. I Cor. 2:14]

He portrays the main character’s education by a Christian teacher as tedious, boring, as his instructor makes him recite for four hours and forced to pray three times a day.

All of this diatribe against Christianity is in the first chapter. The author’s vitriol is just beginning. He’s used stereotypes, erected a straw man—he’s charged Christians with being rude, ignorant, intolerant, and fierce.

What’s going on? What’s happening is that the author is reacting, not against Christianity, but against Roman Catholicism. Even a cursory reading of the Gospel of John would show him that biblical Christianity doesn’t teach that a sprinkling of water and a small donation cleanse one of sin. His is a common error—many take the abuses and false doctrines of the Roman church and shout, “There’s Christianity for you! “

By the time the reader finishes the first chapter, he’s been set up.

Who is this author and what’s the name of his book? An interesting question, but I’ll give him no publicity, only to say that he passed into a Christless eternity in 2012, and God wept.

THE SAFE SPACE

There are those who expect colleges and universities to provide something called a "safe space." By the use of the word, "safe," our minds think the term refers to physical safety, but if that's the case, we are oh, so wrong.

WHAT'S A SAFE SPACE?

A safe space is a geographical location on campus where students can feel safe ideologically, emotionally, and good all the time. A safe space is a bubble which insulates students from the views of people who are different, ideas which upset them. The location provides psychological  protection. Brown University provides a safe space with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of puppies. These items are for students, ages 18 and beyond.

An uncomfortable idea could be anything, written or oral, such as an argument against abortion, an informal conversation which expresses the view that the federal government should not be involved in health care. Words written on a sidewalk with chalk in support of a candidate for office may so upset a student they drive him or her to a safe space. One student, upon hearing her professor say,"I'm against abortion, but it is permitted under the law," became upset; she began to cry and fled the classroom.*

A safe space is the result of the idea that people have the right to absolute emotional comfort at all times. Is that "right" in the Constitution somewhere? James Madison would say, "No, we didn't put it there."

Once in a safe space, no one will express an idea which offends you or makes you feel uncomfortable. In a safe space, there's no debate, no arguing to defend your position, and no exchange of viewpoints. In the words of academia, there's no one in a safe space to trigger you.

NO BUBBLE FOR THE BELIEVER

But for the Christian living in the Kosmos, the world arranged by Satan to leave God out, there's no such thing as a safe space. Jesus didn't provide us with one. As a matter of fact, He deliberately commanded us not to try to live in one, isolated from those who hold different viewpoints. Monasteries and nunneries weren't His idea.

When did Jesus command us not to live in a bubble? (Glad you asked.) He did so in one of the most famous statements He made, one inscribed in our churches all over the world--the Great Commission,which literally says: "After you have gone (aorist participle) disciple all the nations . . .," It has the force of a command. So, then, we're to go to the nations and nations certainly have different opinions than we do.

By saying, "After you have gone," (with the force of a command) Jesus is telling us to deliberately go out of our way into areas where we confront different viewpoints. That doesn't sound like a safe space, does it?

BUT I WANT MY BUBBLE

Yet, there's the tendency to construct our Christian safe spaces. How so? If you don't want to go to a gym where there are unbelievers, there are Christian aerobics and weightlifting classes in our churches and on video. If you don't want to play on a team in which a non-Christian might be the  pitcher,  the center, or the coach, there are church softball and basketball leagues. There are cafes and bowling alleys for church people only.

If you feel like you're missing out on all the fun, in Illinois, there's a Christian night club, called "Club Jesus" where you can dance and drink non-alcoholic beverages called, "Repentance," "Faith,"and "Virgin Mary." While enjoying your glass of Repentance, you can listen to rap, jazz, and poetry. (The club is somehow justified by Ecclesiastes 3:1, and from that verse, the owner of the Jesus Club says, "God wants us to have fun.")

But, getting back to the safe spaces, Jesus didn't build one for us. He sends us out into the Kosmos of clashing viewpoints, all of which leave God out. He commands us to go into places where they don't understand us. He sends us into locations where people hate us. He propels us out where people think we're fools and what we're saying is foolishness.

The book of Acts contains one example after another of the Apostles and those early day Christians deliberately placing themselves with people who clashed over and over with them. Like the Sower in the parable, obeying the Great Commission doesn't just happen accidentally, the planting of the seed is deliberate.
_______________________________________________________________________________
*The professor was giving an example to the class of how we may disagree with a law, but we're to obey it. The student went to the dean; the teacher was dismissed.

HILLARY'S BASKET OF DEPLORABLES

During the recent (and seemingly eternal) presidential campaign, one frustrated and possibly exhausted candidate called half of those voting for her opponent, "a basket of deplorables."

That remark will go down in history as one of the worst statements ever uttered by a politician, ranking right up there with, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," and, "That all depends on what the meaning of 'is,' is," and, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

It's not a smooth move to call those who legitimately have a disagreement with you, "a basket of deplorables," when you're looking for votes. Millions of people saw that statement as a revelation of an arrogant and superior attitude, and, in a politician, or anyone else, that's a turn-off.

BUT YET WE . . .

But yet, haven't we been victimized by a misunderstanding of a text that causes us to reflect the same arrogant attitude as the doomed candidate? We're talking about a misunderstanding of Matthew 7:1-6:

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. ² For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. ³ Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ⁴ Or how ^[b]can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. ⁶ “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

In the above text, the subject is misunderstood to be that of judging others. This misunderstanding leads us into the fallacy of multiculturalism and relativism in which no one is to think, say, or believe that there is right and there is wrong, that we aren't condemn any belief or practice as "wrong" because absolute right and wrong do not exist. That would be "judging."

Not only that, but the common misunderstanding of verse 6 leads us to violate the principle of grace and conflicts with the Parable of the Sower. Matthew 7:1-6 is erroneously presented as stating that there are those who are "dogs" and "swine," the deplorables who aren't worthy to hear the gospel ("that which is holy" and "your pearls") because they will attack, ridicule, and abuse the one who gives it to them, and should never have had it given to them in the first place. The result is, the misunderstanding says, that you've got to judge who's a dog and whose a swine before you speak to them about the gospel, lest they turn and attack you.

Back when John Wycliffe was translating the Bible into English, the Roman Catholic hierarchy condemned him by citing Matthew 7:6, declaring, "By this translation, the Scriptures have become vulgar, and they are more available to lay, and even to women who can read, than they were to learned scholars, who have a high intelligence. So the pearl of the gospel is scattered and trodden underfoot by swine."

Is that what Jesus is saying? The misconstruing of the text has it contradicting itself, that is, telling us not to judge, then telling us to decide who's a dog and who's a swine. That doesn't make sense, does it?

According to this misinterpretation, we're told to evaluate a person before we witness to him: is he a dog? is he a swine? If so, don't give "that which is holy, the pearls, to him."

ENTER THE SOWER

But this interpretation also has another problem: it contradicts the Parable of the Sower in which the Planter is generous with the seed (the gospel--Luke 8:12); he throws it everywhere--on the beaten path and on three other types of soil. And (very important!) the generous Sower doesn't evaluate the soils on which He throws the seed. He just throws it all over the place without discrimination. The Sower never considers who's worthy and who's not, the Sower never disqualifies anyone, to do so would violate grace.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON IN MATTHEW 7:1-6?

The misunderstanding occurs because verse 6 is ripped from verses 1-5. The context is that Jesus tells the disciples, "Judge not that you be not judged" (verse 1). Then, in verses 2-6, He explains the command.

We can't live without making judgments, scores of them everyday. We judge whether something is right or wrong. In John 7:24, Jesus commands the disciples to "judge a righteous judgment." In I Corinthians 14:29, the church is to judge whether a speaker has presented true or false doctrine.

Jesus isn't talking about "judging;" He's discussing a particular kind of judging--one that's hypocritical (remove the beam in your own eye) and judging someone over trivial matters (the splinter the other person's eye.)

SANCTIFIED SARCASM

To understand what He's teaching us is to realize that He's explaining why we shouldn't judge people over trivial matters and hypocritically. And, He uses sarcasm to do so.

Jesus is saying, "Don't judge hypocritically and over trivial matters. Don't give [what you consider to be] your "holy" advice, do not give what ]you consider to be] your "pearls," to [those you consider to be] dogs and swine, because they will turn on you and retaliate. Therefore, "judge not [hypocritically and over trivial matters] that you be not judged" [in the same way you're judging them.] Therefore, we see that verse 6 is tied directly back into verse 1. Verse 1 commands, "Don't judge so that you won't be judged." Verse summarizes, "lest they [those you are judging' turn on you and judge you in the same way."

BE GENEROUS

With that understanding, the Parable of the Sower isn't in conflict with Matthew 7. But, there's more: just as the Sower [Christ] is generous with the gospel, just as He doesn't prejudge the soils, so are we to be.

This parable forces us to examine ourselves, and is therefore convicting, isn't it? Am I generous with the gospel? Am I discriminating against someone because I've judged him to be in a basket of deplorables and therefore unworthy to hear it?" We're all unworthy to hear the gospel, but in grace the Sower casts it everywhere. We can easily fall into the trap of being selfish with the gospel by telling ourselves, "He's wouldn't be interested." "He'd just reject it."

Be generous.  Give a tract to the repairman who comes to your home, along with a "Thank you" for coming. Leave a tract for the waiter with a compliment for good service written on the back. Create opportunities to cast the seed everywhere like the Sower did.

Jesus cast the seed toward the immoral, the adulterer, the religious, those that society shunned, the rich, the poor, the hostile, the disinterested, the young and the old. He sat by their wells and at their dinner tables. He invited them to come to Him and He went to them.

He is THE generous Planter.

THEY CAME, THEY SAW, THEY READ

This is encouraging!

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25-26 KJV)

Those words are on a plaque inside Washington's Tomb on Mt. Vernon. I've seen them, but up until that time two years ago, I never knew they were there. (Um . . . has something been blocked from my education? Why was I never told?)

I got to wondering, "Who else has seen those words on that plaque in the tomb of one of the greatest men in American or world history?" Who's read that text from the Gospel of John inscribed at Mt. Vernon.

In 1860, all the members of Congress gathered at Mt. Vernon at the tomb, so they read it.

On October 5 of that same year, President James Buchanan and the Prince of Wales, accompanied by the British press read the words.

Jumping to 1916, inventor Thomas Edison came to the tomb and saw the plaque.

Then a "first" occurred: in 1939, King George VI became the first ruling British monarch to come to America made it a point to go to Mt. Vernon, so he read the verses.

Then, from that great year of 1942, there's a picture of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill standing in front of the tomb and the plaque with the verses is visible behind them.

Then, another first: in 1943, it was the first time that a Chinese national addressed the Congress, as well as the first time the body had been addressed by a private citizen. Additionally, she was just the second woman to address both houses of the American Congress--she was Madame Chiang Kai-shek and her visit to the tomb on February 22, 1943, occurred on George Washington’s 211th birthday.

In 1944, Charles de Gaulle came from France and made his pilgrimage to the tomb. Although not a household name today, Saudi Crown Prince Amir Saud visited in 1947.

President and Mrs. George Bush went to Mt. Vernon in 2007 and in 2015 Charles, Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall paid their tributes to Washington.

As far as I know, none of the above rich, famous, and powerful remarked on the text from John 11. If they did, their thoughts weren't recorded for posterity.

Then, of course, there are the people like you and me, the average folks, who've been there and taken off their hats and caps to the great man and read Jesus' words on the plaque.

It's encouraging to read of those who've read Jesus' promise at Mt. Vernon. I wonder about the small and the great who've been there: did they think about those words? Did those words trigger them to search the Scriptures. Who knows? 

But one thing we do know: one day, we'll all be standing before the One who spoke them. There will be those who heeded His words and trusted Him and what He said (II Cor. 5:10) and then later, those who didn't.

Like John said, "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne . . . (Revelation 20:12).

WHAT WE GOT HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

That line, spoken by the villain Strother Martin, stands at Number 11 in the the American Film Institute’s top 100 movie quotations of American cinema’s first century. He said it in a movie that came out in 1967, and people have been repeating it decades later.

OOPS!

A classic failure to communicate happened during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It occurred as Mrs. Clinton was planning to finally do what her staff had been begging her to do--go on national television and explain the mushrooming e-mail/private server scandal that was in the process of threatening to bog down and burn down her campaign.

Here's the report of what happened:

"A miscommunication between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin led to a brutal grilling in her first national TV interview at the beginning of her campaign for president.

"It was May 2015 when her aides wanted to know who Clinton would like to have interview her about the scandal. Communications director Jennifer Palmieri asked Huma Abedin to find out — Abedin told Palmieri "Brianna," which she thought meant CNN anchor Brianna Keilar.

"However, Clinton actually said 'Bianna,' referring to Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo News, married to Peter Orszag who worked for the administration of former President Bill Clinton before becoming budget director for former President Barack Obama.

"By the time the mistake was realized, it was too late to pull back,"

The result was that, instead of a softball interview by the friendly Bianna Golodryga, Brianna Keilar's interviewed turned out to be a brutal grilling that had Mrs. Clinton staring darts at Brianna during the entire ordeal. Oh, the difference one letter can make.

A speaker saying one thing, the listener hearing another.They're talking past each other. That's why books on public speaking advise, "It's not what you say; it's what they hear."

SAY WHAT?

We encounter this failure to communicate when giving the gospel. We say, "Grace," meaning, "unmerited, undeserved favor," the listener thinks, "Peace," "Mercy," "Smooth of movement like a figure skater." We say, "Repentance," meaning, "A change of mind," the listener thinks, "Feel sorry for sin," "Turn your back on sin," Give up sinning," or "Be willing to give up sinning." We say, "Heaven is a free gift," the listener agrees, but illogically thinks, "It's free, but you have to earn it." We say, "Believe" or "Trust," the listener thinks, "There's more."

The New Testament says that one problem the unbeliever has is that he doesn't understand the good news message of faith alone in Christ alone. Like one lady I talked to: She defined grace with its theological definition, right on the money: "Undeserved favor."

She knew the definition, but it had no impact on her; it didn't register. She could quote Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;  not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." 

The problem was that she understood neither the definition of grace nor the meaning of the verse. From the confusion a cult had given her, she included dying to sin and the need to be baptized and the need to speak in tongues in order to be saved. To her, there were 3 steps to heaven: Her death to sin, her burial (her baptism), and speaking in tongues (her resurrection).

IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Yes. It's impossible for a person to be saved by the gospel if that person doesn't understand the gospel. He can't believe something he doesn't understand. He can define the words, quote the verses, but if he doesn't understand them, there is no salvation (Matthew 13:18). This is why some Lordship salvation teachers say that a child can't be saved. He can't understand Lordship salvation. They're right on that account, no child could understand such teaching. But faith alone in Christ alone, they can understand.

This is why, when we give the gospel, we must probe, ask, and delve as deeply as we can to see if, although he might define the words correctly, although he might quote Eph. 2:8-9 with 100% accuracy, that he connects the dots to understand that when he says, "Heaven is free, but you have to earn it" he's speaking nonsense.