Dr. MacArthur vs. Easy Believism

 

Dr. MacArthur vs. Easy Believism

 

There is nothing more important than soteriology—the doctrine of salvation, or how we can know from Scripture if we’re going to heaven.  As anybody who reads my blogs know, I am a long-time foot-stomper on how the doctrine of salvation has been weakened.  But I dug up a book where Dr. John MacArthur, one of my favorite blunt-edge guys, feels the same way, and expresses his agitation much better than I could.  After all, he was pastor of a church for 50 years, chancellor emeritus of The Master’s University, and editor and author of 150 books.  You will find, as I did, that much of this battle we outline below is a battle of words.  If you can change the meaning of a word that expresses a necessity for salvation, or if you can eliminate that expression entirely, then you have won half the battle.  So Satan—and his followers—have found.  So let’s get into just the first chapter of his book, prophetically written from 1988, “The Gospel According to Jesus.” 

 

His introduction bemoans the frequent gospel presentations today (“ask Jesus into your heart,” etc). None of them is Biblical—the gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience.  In truth, the cost to follow Him is high, the way is narrow—and few find it (Matthew 7:13). Sadly, the verse points out that the majority of people are headed for hell, whether they know it or not. The verse is a warning call.  As he puts it, “present day evangelicalism ignores those warnings.”

 

The first serious break from Scripture was from an alleged evangelist, Lewis Sperry Chafer in his book in 1918 (note:  Chafer was a founder and the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, where it can be easily proved that this heretical doctrine has been taught there).  The theory goes like this:  there are two classes of Christians, carnal and spiritual.  As he wrote in his book, “the ‘carnal’ Christian is characterized by a walk that is on the same plane as that of the ‘natural’ (i.e. unsaved) man.”  Dr. MacArthur points out that “that was a foreign concept to most Christians in Dr. Chafer’s generation, but it has become a central premise for a large segment of the church today.”  He argues that Scripture clearly has the opposite view.  For instance, I John 3:10:

 

 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

 

Of course, a Christian cannot be perfectly righteous, and will stumble, but as the great theologian B.B. Warfield put it, “the remainders of the flesh in the Christian do not constitute his characteristic.  He is in the Spirit and is walking, with however halting steps, by the Spirit.”  The Christian wants to come back to God when he sins. He wants to confess.  Such is abiding (a requirement to remain Christian, in John 15:1-6).  It is to ALL Christians that Scripture says, “sin shall not have dominion over you.”  (Romans 6:14).  But the easy doctrine (“I can still be carnal”) won the people’s love. Many people think they are Christians but have no interest in holiness, in abiding in Christ.  The carnal life is good enough for them.  What do we learn from this alleged dotrine?  That false prophecies move fastest into acceptance, through the pastors who were taught this heresy, to the people. 

 

Another crack in the surface of soteriology was forwarded by dispensationalists (who believe that God acts differently in different ages).  They assert that the Old Testament was the “age of law.”  The New Testament is the “age of grace.”  God is kinder, He is different, now.  Chafer wrote, “the age before the cross…represent the exercise of law.” God’s judgement was based on law, “while the (current) period represents the exercise of pure grace.”  Grace, of course, has a new meaning:  it means “God is kinder” to them.  That’s not the meaning of the word at all, but who cares?  Sounds better.  To attack this malign heresy is easy:  first, God doesn’t change.   Salvation has always been, whether Old or New time periods, by grace through faith, not by the works of the law.  Galatians 2:16:

 

a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified

 

Well, what saved them in the Old Testament, without Christ yet?  It was faith in God.  Let’s consider Abraham, who lived in what they call the law-period. In Genesis 15, God promises him many descendants—but he was 85 years old.  But he believed God for a miracle. He doubted, but he always came back to God. Note Genesis 15:6:

 

And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

 

Abraham was righteous with God because of his faith. So it wasn’t any different in the Old Testament than in the New.  It’s all the same—belief by faith in Yahweh, or belief in Jesus Who also was God.  But these clear verses haven’t stopped those of the “two age systems” to warp it into believing that God was harsh in the Old, but changes the rules and becomes only compassionate in the New. A problem for them, though, was faith was evidenced by works in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, where He set a higher bar than the Law had set for God’s judgement.  The false dispensationalists had to discount that Sermon, or else God’s judgement of sin would be harsher than the Law.  In the Law, a sex act outside of marriage was adultery:  But Jesus said, to look on a woman to lust after her was adultery in our heart (Matthew 5:28).  And Jesus said, murderous thoughts in our mind, such as being angry with our brother without a cause, would be judged as murder.  And He gave more of the same in that Sermon.  The point is, the dispensationalists considered these as not in accord with their doctrine—so they announced that the whole Sermon on the Mount was a doctrine for the future Kingdom age (yay, another age), where Jesus will rule for 1000 years. I guess we should say, “Whew!  I guess carnal living is still OK.”  But it could send you to hell. Dr. MacDonald saw through their fog, and called this a “lamentable hermeneutic.”  He said it “emasculates the message of the gospels.”

 

Further weakening of salvation theology continued on with those arguing the “dangers” of “Lordship salvation.”  That’s where obedience to His commands is required, as Lord of our lives. Yes, I guess that could be dangerous—especially if you want to continue serious sin. Even as early as Luke 2:11, Jesus is called Savior and Lord. Along with many other Scriptures in the same vein, these two (salvation and accepting His Lordship) clearly go together. We must do honor to Him on both counts to be saved.  He not only saved us from hell, He saved us from sin’s power.  He is to be Lord of our lives, and we are to read His Word and listen to the Spirit to make decisions to be in His perfect will. We can never be perfect in this life, but He knows what our intentions are.

 

Again, those who believe in this false doctrine are fighting for weakness here: They claim it is possible to receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord.  You have an option to say “maybe later” on Lordship when you are “saved.”  As if.  To some reputed “theologians,” that is the norm for salvation:  to add such a requirement as Lordship is to “add works.”  So I guess, then, that professing obedience in behavior for Christ in our life is “adding works.”  But get real.  James has a whole chapter on how faith, without works, is dead.  Such a thing is not faith at all.  Remember our brief discussion of the narrow gate above, and few getting into heaven?  Let’s look at Luke 13:24:

 

“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

 

Now if there were ever a dirty “works” word, “strive” would be it.  Yet Jesus quotes it in connection of salvation. There are many other verses that echo the same theme. The problem is, when Protestant theology was first formed, the Reformers (Luther and Calvin) hated all the sacraments, all the works, that Catholics put on salvation. The Catholics had martyred thousands of them, so the hate was real.  But they put a new definition of “works” that is man-made, and ignored a huge body of Scripture (such as in James) that points out the importance of works, for fruits.  Luther hated the book of James, calling it “a book of straw,” so he ignored it. But you cannot ignore one book, or thirty other verses, to “get what you want” soteriology to be. So they went too far to expunge what they call “works.”  With some churches, if you reveal that you have rules in your family about limiting TV watching, or requiring prayer before every meal, they will call you “legalistic.”  Let us not run so far from the Catholics, all you Protestants, that we swing the pendulum away so far from works so as to enter a fuzzy, non-existent world of complacency—do anything you want, pay no attention to laws (they are all Old T stuff, right?  Uh, no, Jesus had a few clarification commands refining Law).  No, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we must strive.  We must say “no” a lot—to the temptations of the world.  We must abide in Christ.  When Paul says, “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified,” he is simply saying, we aren’t saved by works.  God looks to our faith.  Good works follow faith, though. We will have an urge to follow Christ in our actions.  Such good works are called “fruit.”  Without fruit, we are NOT ON the VINE (John 15:1-6).  A.W. Tozer put it well: “The Lord will not save those He cannot command.”

 

Talking about the necessity of fruits, there was also a fight over the word “repentance.”  The “weaker salvation” theologians have argued that repentance is not necessary in salvation because it stresses “works.”  A dirty word to them.  But the Greek root of repent is metanoia, defined as “to perceive afterwards, implying a change in mind.”  (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words).  He adds that in Scripture, it is almost always used as an exhortation, and a change for the better. Also note that the word repent is the first word used by John the Baptist, by Jesus and by Peter at the start of their ministries (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, and Acts 2:38).  They wanted a change in heart about sin, (and of course they tied it to the sacrifice of Jesus). Or you’re not saved.  By placing the word at the very beginning of their preachment, the concept was important in the gospel. And note what John the Baptist says as proof that you really repented in Matthew 3:8:

 

 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance

 

 This clearly shows that repentance is tied to equally important fruits in salvation.

 

Yet another battle arose on the word “discipleship.”  Again, it so goes that there are two classes of Christians: ‘believers’ and ‘true disciples.’  Dr. MacArthur, in attacking yet another split, quotes the Great Commission, Matthew 28:19-20.  Note that His disciples were not asked to go out and “bring everyone to salvation”:

 

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

 

Dr. MacArthur quotes appropriately from James M. Boice (by the way, if these names are all unknown to you, it just proves that I’m older.  You can read up on them in Wikipedia). Boice wrote:

 

“In days of persecution, those who are in the process of becoming Christians have to count the cost of discipleship carefully before taking up the Cross…But in good times, the cost (of following Christ) does not seem so high, and people take the name of Christ without undergoing the radical transformation of life that true conversion implies.”

 

Boice bluntly called this two classes idea “defective theology.”

 

I trust you might have noticed a trend in the heretical theologies that have weakened salvation doctrine.  All of them want to give you a choice of one of two ways to go, after being “saved”:  you can have the option to carry on the same life as before, just with the added “fire insurance” policy of salvation for heaven through mental assent that, yeah, Jesus died for my sins.  Thanks, Jesus. They then give you the other option, the tough life, which is rejected by most people.  It says:  Leave it to the zealots to claim to follow moral law, or Lordship, or discipleship, or the saintly life.  Most “saved” people choose the easy way; they still like the carnal life, not trying for the impossible like the Sermon on the Mount.  The choice is to their destruction.

 

The Catholics have a similar theme in their doctrine.  If you are a true disciple, or saint, you go directly to heaven.  The rest of us, who want to enjoy the dung of carnality, as long as we commit no mortal sin, we can go to purgatory, and get purged of all of that scum later, and then maybe we can eventually go to heaven.  So you see, the “two-way” soteriology is in there too.

 

Well, Jesus had a Word for that.  Note the danger in His words:  Matthew 7:21-23:

 

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

 

In “lawlessness,” there’s the final word that Jesus still pays attention to moral law.  Doing things for the Lord is important, but NOT doing certain things is also important. And in the phrase “does the will of My Father,” you have the final word that there is an element of works in final salvation:  we must “do the will” of God.

 

Holiness, obeying the moral Law, the morals in the Old Testament or New, is essential.  This is giving your whole life to Christ. It’s not really asking too much, since Scripture shows how much He loved you (He died to get your sin out of the way so you can get reconciled to God). Discipleship is essential.  Lordship is essential.  Repentance from sin is essential.

 

Got it?  More than you thought?  Well, as Jesus said, count the cost. Luke 14:28:

 

 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it

 

The parable is for those who realize, from Scripture, that it’s truly a narrow way to final salvation. But the choice, as the verses point out, is...heaven or hell.  I can’t overstate how important THAT decision is.  Well, you read it here, straight from Scripture.  And crusty Dr. MacDonald.  God awaits your decision.

 

 

Church of Tares (Part 2 of 2)

 

Church of Tares (Part 2 of 2)

Last week we began studying the flaws in the New Reformation and the many Megachurches that have adopted it.  We began our third objection, namely their message is not the Gospel as presented in Scripture. (It might be a good idea to read last week’s blog, Part 1.) Let’s continue our study of that objection in Part 2.

A classic example of their feel-good doctrine, and the message it contains, came from Bill Hybels.  He did a survey of his vast church. But it found that a lamentably large percentage of his congregants were recently engaging in illicit sex (example:  41% of divorced people, 38% of single parents).  Did he call the congregation to repent for some of their rebellion against a holy God? No; he immediately exuded compassion, lest anyone feel guilty.  He said “We are a love-starved people, with broken hearts that need the kind of repair that only He can give.” Thus, he provided a great rationale for the fornicators to go on as before; also, his empathic message means an illicit party can also think that he’s been victimized, but now he has an outlet for his love-starved need (ie, sex). Can you see a lack of exhortation by the pastor there?  Any conviction being encouraged?  God wants us to confess our sin (I John 1:9), not to get help to find ways to continue in it. So these popular pastors treat gross sinners with a light touch, and condemn the Bible-reading devout by calling him a “jackass” or a “Pharisee” (words used by Steven Furtick, another pastor among their movement leaders).

Yes, Jesus was kind to particular sinners.  Thinking of the adulteress, Jesus did not want her killed.  When He got the Pharisees to go away, keep this in mind--He told her to “sin no more.” In His work of evangelism, He opened Himself up to anybody who had experienced lives of rejection and were hungry for meaning to life.  They knew they needed help.

Current pastors needs to apply the Word to the specific sin problem rising up in the culture; let it do its proper use as a sword, helping them to see their sin, exhorting people to stop, and pruning their lives (John 15:1-6).  Our depraved society calls us hypocrites for making this “tough love” part of our counseling, but Jesus’ mission is to save us for heaven and save us from sin. Paul asked, how can a body devoted to the Lord assume that continued sin is not a problem?  God also gives us the Holy Spirit for real help. The Spirit will severely convict us of serious sin. If you haven’t felt that in sinning, perhaps you don’t have the Spirit.  Yes, sin is pleasurable; but a pastor needs to remind people of its consequences (yes, you can lose your salvation) before you dismiss it.  Also, imperfect people should exhort other imperfect people without being called a legalist, a judgmentalist, a hypocrite--as if none of us has the truth or the right to coax our brothers to turn to the right way. We should do that because we love them.

The proof of these New Reformation pastors being “vehemently anti-doctrinal” is obvious in these examples. Their movement’s church names are always non-denominational.  You could also dig into their introduction materials online, and generally fail to find much about their creed.  Those pastors spoken to were unwilling to get beyond vagueness on important matters. But they know they generally don’t have to worry about it--people I talk to in intro groups don’t care about doctrine.  What does it say about today’s culture that doctrines that people died to maintain 500 years ago are irrelevant today?

These pastors steer away from any controversy, skipping verses, even books, to prevent argument.  Many of them never deal with prophecy, even though whole books of Scripture are devoted to it. Many avoid discussing things like gay people, or the role of men or women. It would be nice to learn from our pastor something to say to witness to people what God’s Word says about a current cultural obsession. Of course, if we are regular Bible readers, we could find answers ourselves. People might even get the idea that the Bible is actually relevant, and isn’t just loving speeches on being kind, and humble. Many pastors would never preach on what Jesus said in John 6, or would call Paul a “sexist” (despite his words being God’s inspired Words), because of what he said about women’s role in church.  May I say, ignoring large portions of God’s Word is just self-deception.  As if Jesus were a kind soul all the time, and hated arguing.  That’s the view these pastors give us, but it is wrong; and they are, whether they know it or not, giving a distorted view of Our Lord.  Jesus expected radical behavior from His followers.  Look at what Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-37:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; ³⁶ and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ ³⁷ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me

Always remember, the Cross, and all that implies, is an offense to people.  Look at I Corinthians 1:18:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The real Gospel, which really begins with our sin and guilt, is an offense to people.  You must be ready to present the Word to people, even extensively, about our sin making us unworthy of heaven in speaking to a prospect.  After that you tell the good news—if they’re still around—that Jesus is willing to remove our guilt, if we put our faith in Him. Getting their agreement isn’t your goal; truth is.   Skip neither the bad nor the good.  Let the Holy Spirit shift their minds from feeling offended to feeling guilt, and then, if so moved, they grasp for relief in faith. True salvation may then result.  In this country, “bad-news-first” evangelism is fading out, since America has had wealth for so long that people think they are self-sufficient. They have savings, and don’t really need God—they think.  But God will do us a favor and not let us live under that delusion. We will be put to the test, not because God desires evil for us, but to show us to depend on Him for rescue. He knows us better than we know ourselves.

Also on the subject of changing the message, Robert Schuller (the founder of the New Reformation) had this to say: “The new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem. The church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”  My response to this is, OK, you want to put a bubble of victimization on him, since most of us who work with people who will, in most cases, knock around your self-esteem.  The sins of the world attack our soul.  It begins when we were children; wearing glasses gets your new name, “four eyes” or “Froggie.” Bullying is common, especially to the “nerds.”  Let’s not forget the words: “Life’s hard; get a helmet.”

Scripture has a way of dealing with our needs here. John 6 tells that the day after Jesus fed the five thousand, the people clamored to get more of Him.  But He exposed their motive, and also gave them a long, blunt doctrinal speech, which seemed designed to confuse and offend them away.  But His real purpose was, He wanted to be followed by real believers; only a person with faith in Him as God could accept that all the words He said were from a divine source, whether they could understand them or not—and they would still accept them in faith because they knew that He was the Son of God.  His words were not pleasant for them.  See John 6:24-27 and verse 66, which showed that they were, indeed, followers of their bellies:

²⁴ when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. ²⁵ And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?” ²⁶ Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. ²⁷ Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life…⁶⁶ From that time many of His disciples (ie, in this definition, casual followers) went back and walked with Him no more.

Bill Hybels has his own twist on changing the message.  He likewise avoids things like the blood of Christ covering our depths of sin that we deserve hell. He also has a “sin-light” definition of sin—he calls sin a “flawed strategy to gain fulfillment.”  So the motivation for the Gospel he prescribes is to make people experience fulfillment. The problem is, Jesus does not guarantee fulfillment from following Him.  In fact, He expressed the opposite to His true disciples; see John 15:19-20, 16:33:

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. ²⁰ Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also...These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

These new, sin-light definitions of Schuller and Hybels often lead to easy converts, then easy-believism, a death-knell for our real goal—which should be avoiding hell, avoiding sin, and obtaining heaven.  Easy-believism means we don’t have to change our lives, just accept Christ.  But not changing our lives means we don’t put away the sins of the world.  No problem, those who deliberately sin say; I was told that all my sins are forgiven. 

Beginning with Dr. Shuller, the cry of these pastors has frequently been: We really need self-esteem. But Scripture is full of warnings on that: We have the opposite problem; we think too much about ourselves already. God is not interested in our focus on self. See Romans 12:3 and here is Ephesians 5:29:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned…For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it

Writing articles like “Learn to Love Yourself” (Rick Warren, 2005) are unnecessary.  In fact, increasing self-love is listed among serious sins in II Timothy 3:1-5:

in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

When Jesus told us in Mark 12:31 to love your neighbor as yourself, he’s saying “try loving your neighbor as much as you already do for yourselves.” Truth is, He wants us to practice self-denial, thinking of others first.  See I John 3:16-17:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Like the felt need for self, another “felt need” people feel is entertainment.  Music moves people like nothing else. Taylor Swift will herself made over $360 million from the Era tour. Dance and drama performances in megachurches do a good job of copying methods used by popular entertainers today. The modern church music is high-decibel and fast—not exactly worshipful.  Older folks know especially well what I’m talking about. The Saddleback Church youth ministry was teaching their young people a dance called the Harlem Shake, where the body jerks lasciviously or demonically, take your pick.

Mark Driscoll had an answer for a felt need—discussing sexual matters in church.  His preaching through Song of Solomon was questionable. He excused it because “I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horny.”  In the Song, he discussed, as he quotes, “marriage, foreplay, oral sex, sacred stripping, and sex outdoors, just as the Book teaches.”  (I’m thinking, “wait a minute:  I don’t recall those acts.”) I listened, in enraptured disgust, as he “preached” on masturbation. (Matthew 5:28 was not part of that discussion—so, he concludes that masturbation is not sin, so we can do as much as we want). He has also claimed to have the gift of discernment, which allows him to see the sexual sins of his congregation.  His book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, is available on Amazon, in case you forget these quotes. Oh, and “reformission” means a call to reform a flawed view of missions. 

Despite all these worldly efforts to improve churches, all is not well in megachurches. Let me give you a few quotes from Wikipedia:

Mark Driscoll: He led the Mars Hill megachurch in Seattle until 2014, when he was forced out.  His teachings on masculinity were toxic for women. He would go into graphic detail about sexual submission, they said. He left the church after the viral effects of his plagiarism, and his using $250,000 of church funds to pay a source off who knew how to game the New York Times Best-seller list, so his book could hit the list and he’d make more money—and add it to his resume.

The global megachurch Hillsong (New York City) was known for its hipster trappings, celebrity congregants and wildly popular worship music in the 2010s, but in recent years it has been more closely tied to a series of scandals, including the firing of its charismatic celebrity pastor, Carl Lentz, for “moral failures.” May 19, 2023

This next one is from a school founded by Bethel Church in Redding CA and headed by pastor Bill Johnson (its schools have had over 13,000 students):

The school garnered criticism for a practice among some students termed "grave soaking" or "grave sucking", where they would lie on the graves of deceased revivalists in the belief that they would absorb the deceased's anointing from God.

You should know that this is not some prank among immature experimental students:  It is actually within the church’s beliefs. (They are Word of Faith—evidently Part 2).  

Bethel Redding has also become associated with certain phenomena that are interpreted by the leadership and the congregation as manifesting the presence and glory of God. The phenomena include the appearance of “glory clouds” and gold dust and “angel feathers” falling from the ceiling (or perhaps from the ventilation system)

With non-denominal churches, it is not easy for a prospect to find their real vision. The church’s “intro” to the public sounds glowing:

Bethel is a congregation rooted in the love of God and dedicated to worldwide transformation through revival. The Lord has given us a mandate to be a resource center to impact cities and nations. We believe we're on the edge of the greatest revival of all time.

But you have to dig hard on the internet to find these other, sometimes wild beliefs.  Let’s give one other item:

The bigger problem stems from the theology of the Bethel Church and Bill Johnson, who was influenced by the likes of John Wimber and the false teachers of the Toronto Blessing. Consistent with others in the New Apostolic Reformation, Johnson teaches that people today are receiving direct words from God and that the offices of apostle and prophet have been restored to the church. In this way, Johnson presents a low view of Scripture (ed: and a high view of himself). Evidently, the Bible must be either incomplete or insufficient, if we must keep adding to it with the words of modern-day prophets.

Note how “direct words from God” (like vision casting) led him to wild beliefs. (Hearing from the wrong god?) What are his congregants’ reaction (especially to the angel dust routine)?  Are they aghast as the distortion of the Bible or their manipulation of people?  I mean, he has to assume people are really naïve, right? I assume they take offense at that.  Well, you won’t believe it:

The response of those in the Bethel movement is usually wonder mixed with excitement, dancing, and recording it with cell phone cameras.

So, it was great entertainment.  We can’t believe these people will do much for God’s Church in the near future. There is another celebrity pastor who has ridden off the rails, for sure.

I am ending this with Rick Warren, where we began, what is he doing lately?  He unveiled a P.E.A.C.E. plan in Los Angeles Angel stadium in 2005.  P=Promote reconciliation (he is speaking to Muslims, for instance); E=Equip Leaders; A=Assist the Poor; C=Care for the Sick; and E=Educate the Next Generation.  But he unfolded this, oddly, to the music of Purple Haze.  That song, by Jimi Hendrix, was surely about the effects of drugs like LSD.  As one source said, the song is so widely assumed to be about drugs that there is entire strain of marijuana named after it, and there are many head shops that have opened under the name Purple Haze all over the country.  Why would he launch a plan—if not religious, at least humanitarian—to a pagan song about illicit drugs?

That plan is his latest “hope for a New Reformation.”  His intent is to help wipe out the global problems and show that the church is again relevant to unbelievers. It grew slowly while he was still pastor at Saddleback for 17 more years.  When he retired, he nominated a woman as co-senior pastor.  The Southern Baptist Convention ex-communicated Saddleback in early 2023 for that, despite Warren’s appeal for them to not do that.

But he again introduces controversial ideas.  In speaking to international local workers, he is always willing to work with Muslims, or whoever has influence in the local area.  Since, he says, he’s trying to lower poverty, for instance, he will accept anyone who wants to work, Christian or not—gays, atheists, etc.  He has also told corporation leaders that they must be ready for “religious pluralism.”  But I disagree with his quoted assumption that “we’re building a bridge” thereby.  Neither humanitarian aid nor social justice done for a non-believer in any way puts anybody closer to Christ. His mention of Pluralism puts many gods on the table, not the truth of Jesus as God.  Many of these people are not grateful for the grace offered to them; they are simply glad the rich USA thought of them to throw some money at.  You can see how their money is misapplied. Best to spend money on a local on-fire preacher, let him convert a bunch in the village, then watch as the caste system and the genocide start to disappear.  Warren is offering a social ‘reformation,’ not a spiritual one. He quotes that “the first reformation (Luther) was about doctrine; this one is about deeds.”  Is he suggesting a works-gospel? He flits about, visiting the World Economic Forum (a socialist group which disavows religion), and other world groups that would definitely like a world religion, a world monetary system.  But aren’t those bad news in Revelation?  Only if their pastors will ever preach on it.

Well, I’ve given you, in this short script, the story of the “Church of Tares” video.  Let me say this in my summary:  Ephesians 2:20 says that the church, which could always need improvement, MUST be…

…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Men can follow God’s Way, or man’s way.  I choose God, since He is the best organizer in all history. His way is revealed in Scripture, and was at one time highly successful (see Acts).  But, I hope you have been convinced that man’s way is where the next Reformation is going.  The consequences will be severe and fatal.  There will be a ton of people who will be denied heaven, and totally shocked, because their pastor told them they were locked in for heaven.  Just as in traffic citations, not knowing the rules doesn’t save you from the ticket.  You should have read the manual.  Well, we have a Manual, but few people read it either.  This one is different—it is eternal in its grace or judgment.

 

 

 

Church of Tares (Part 1 of 2)

 I’ve been listening to a You Tube video, “Church of Tares.”  This is a study of a movement called The New Reformation. Its Gospel message and methods began in books written by Robert Schuller and Rick Warren, and their megachurches have been a testing ground for their ideas, which are radical, as we shall see.  These books have been must-reading at hundreds of seminaries by literally thousands of church leaders. Those leaders put the same methods and Gospel message in their churches.  Because of their influence, they deserve serious scrutiny, to see if the methods and message are in accord with Scripture and beneficial for God’s Church, the Body of Christ.

First let’s start with the textbook for the movement, Rick Warren’s, The Purpose-Driven Life.  As he called it, “the best-selling book in English, in world history.” But, after some laughter, he rolled his eyes, catching the drift, and said, “next to the Bible, it’s the best-selling….” We must say, as a philanthropist, he has measurably improved lives around the world.  Also, I must add that describing him as "megachurch pastor" is in the past; he recently resigned from the sixth largest church in America, Saddleback.. But he is still super-active, doing organizing and speeches. He is undoubtedly the most influential religious speaker, today, in all of America. He is a numbers man, as all megachurch pastors seem to be.  Elevation Church, part of their movement, is unabashedly proud of that goal.  They say ”We are all about the numbers. Tracking metrics measures effectiveness.” (Effectiveness of what?) I have a different idea about numbers; we are not in control of it. Hear I Corinthians 3:7:

So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

The Holy Spirit should be given credit, not our effectiveness to draw people in. By their standards, Noah must have been a great failure; he preached for over a hundred years, yet no one outside of his immediate family believed him. In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, the judgment of the seven churches, the only churches which were not rebuked by God were Smyrna and Philadelphia—both were poor, small, and lacking in influence—again, failures by current measuring sticks. But they were faithful to God’s standards, not secular philosophy or pragmatism.  See Colossians 2:8:

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Paul appeared to some people like a failure (they said “his bodily presence is weak, and his presence contemptible”) and in I Corinthians 2:4-5.  But he did not reject his self-image, as you can see:

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

It should not bother us to feel weak in presenting evangelism, because God provides the changed heart, and the increase in His Church. We feel nowhere equal to the velvet tongues of these men.  But what secret did Paul learn that we could learn? II Corinthians 12:9 starts with God telling Paul His secret:

“And He (God) said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness.” “Therefore, I will most gladly boast all the more about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may reside in me.”

Contrast that with the statement of Rick Warren: “We slander God’s character if we preach with an uninspiring style or tone.” Yes, he has people’s  attention, but no, many of them are not saved through his preaching.

Well, I got ahead of myself--these are a taste of the debate.  If you want to know all about the facts about the New Reformation, Rick Warren has it all laid out in his books.  So let’s have a look at his main points.

• His overall goal in the church service was expressed thusly: “create a service that is intentionally designed for your members’ friends. Make the service attractive, appealing, and so relevant to the unchurched that your members are eager to share it with lost people they care about.”  So it’s like this:  If the unchurched like the music loud, we’ll do loud music. That way, we bring in more unchurched; maybe they get their lives turned around. The author of the video that critiques him (Elliott Nesch) pointed out that Mr. Warren’s church service followed Robert Schuller, who first put this “reformation” in action in the 1970s, reaching his peak in the 1990s. Warren followed Schuller’s advice in the approach to the service, even if he didn’t agree with all of  Schuller’s beliefs. Mr. Nesch quotes Warren’s wife Kay, who said in Christianity Today, “He (Schuller) had a profound influence on Rick. We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers.” One key word is “positive.”  e., not negative.  No speaking on details of sin that the audience might be guilty of, since that’s a “downer” for them; no speaking of hell or Satan. You don't want them to feel uncomfortable.
• Another approach to “positive,” upon which many sermons nowadays are based: These movement pastors constantly tell their congregants: You are not weak; you must develop self-esteem and learn to love yourself.  You are not unworthy. You have truthful thoughts from your own feelings and experience. You shouldn’t feel guilty over your sin.  God does not disapprove of you; do not take on condemnation.  You are a child of the King of the Ages.  ALL your sins are forgiven when His grace is given to you.  Bad things do not happen to you as punishment from an angry God; bad things happen to everyone—it’s how you react, how you change your thinking into positive thoughts, leading to overcoming your obstacle.  Visualize yourself as defeating the evil and the negative, and winning through power of the mind. Yes, power of your mind.
• Some of these cliches come from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, and his book The Power of Positive Thinking.  Some are from Schuller’s books Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (1982) and Self-Love (1975). These are the two philosophers that Warren learned most from. The previous bullet’s ideals for thinking the way to a better life looks like they could come from any motivational speaker. That’s the point—it’s from man, not from God. I will say more on these “positive” lines of thought later.
• The second thing we see is that the emphasis of every point in the service, including the sermon, is on the unbelievers. The messages are for anyone; they do not go deep on explaining passages (many of their congregants lack knowledge of what’s in the Bible). Peale’s words about positive thinking could be applied to anyone, believer or unbeliever; he seldom used the word “God” or “Bible” in his books.  Though he was a pastor, he is quoted as saying, “It is not necessary to be born again; you have your way to God, I have mine.”
• Schuller had the same positivity idea, but hooked into thinking better about yourself —thus, talking about God’s redeeming us from the slavery to sin, God’s power in the blood of Christ, or the sin that places us far from God, were unacceptable in speaking—because, as he put it in Christianity Today, “sin is simply a lack of self-esteem.” So… sin was just a mental thing that simply needed rethinking. If you train your mind to think more positively and learn to love yourself, you can be better. It seems to me, those concepts turn our attention away from God, and focused on ourselves.   He also was not into quoting the Bible much.  As he put it, “it doesn’t seem wise to quote a source in which they do not believe.”  In that sentence, you can see he is focusing, as did Warren, on the unbelievers.  He insists that you first need to “relax them so they will listen to you.” Hence the necessity for positiveness; so they would enjoy listening.  Unfortunately, this has nothing to say about conviction. Or repentance. The backbones of  ‘old evangelism.’
• Bill Hybels, another megachurch protégé of Schuller at Willow Creek (note: he stepped down five years ago when there were allegations of misconduct with women—but he ruled that church for 40 years), surveyed the neighborhood, and then designed Sunday morning services for them. He says, “for every sermon we preach, they (i.e., the unchurched) are asking ‘Am I interested in that subject or not?’ If they aren’t, it doesn’t matter how effective our delivery is; their minds will check out.” It seems to me that for those places that became a megachurch, they got there by appealing to the lowest common denominator of religion.
• Andy Stanley (son of the famous Charles Stanley), lead pastor at North Point, in Atlanta, with nearly 40,000 members spread out over 8 campuses, believes the same way. As he says it: I stood in front of our launch group and said, ‘Atlanta doesn’t need another church—they need a different kind of church—a church where people feel free to invite their 'unchurched friends.’ We’ve created a church that unchurched people loved to attend.”

So what does God have to say about all that? First of all, Scripture has no such concept as “church is for the unchurched.” As Ephesians 4:12 says, church is…

….for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, ¹³ till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ

In I Corinthians 12:4-7, Paul is explaining how each member of Christ’s body has been given a gift, and how those will be used in a group for the maturity of everyone toward a goal of Christlikeness:

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵ There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. ⁶ And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. ⁷ But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all

Paul goes further in I Corinthians 12:27,28:

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. ²⁸ And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

Note that God gives these gifts to believers, not unbelievers, who are, by definition, not part of God’s Church, the Body of Christ.  The megachurch pastor sees things differently.  When frustrated members complain about the music being loud or all about feeling, or when they beg the pastor to “go deeper” into explaining Scripture, the answer is a somewhat winsome, “where have you gotten that belief?”  As Warren’s first four words of his book says, “It’s Not About You.” He meant differently, but in that title we see the secret in those words: He means church is about the unchurched. We are willing to stunt the sanctification of members; their development is sacrificed for the unchurched.  It seems to me, if you gain anything by this approach, you could lose much more.    But I will address the Scriptural idea behind evangelizing later.

But the problem is, in trying to win unbelievers, these churches lean too heavily to conform to worldly methods, so the unchurched are comfortable.  They think nothing of Romans 12:2

do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

The second major problem we have, as Scripture explains, is that all church leadership, goals, and direction, must come from a body of elders, a plural body, not from a single celebrity pastor.  Leadership is always plural in Scripture. Your version may use slightly different words, but pastors, or elders, or bishops, or overseers are described in Ephesians 4:11, Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:5,7, and three more Scriptures as ALL PLURAL.  Pastors have one vote in decisions.  But if you are in Rick's group of elders, how long will your reputation last if you question a celebrity pastor's methods? But Rick Warren’s quote here is interesting: “You must change the primary role of the pastor from minister to leader.”  When asked, “should we not talk about pastors as shepherds?”  Andy Stanley responded “Nothing works in our culture with that model.” (Then I ask, Why did Jesus treasure that model for directing His flock?  See John 10. Or, why is Paul using that model—I Peter 5:1,2).  Stanley maintained that shepherding was not leading, which is what he wanted. Scripture speaks the opposite of Mr. Stanley:  it wants leaders to think of themselves as shepherds (I Peter 2:25, and Acts 20:28), and a shepherd is humble and a minister. Consider Mark 10:42-44:

You know that those who are considered (pagan) rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. ⁴³ Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. ⁴⁴ And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all

But these men have a hunger to lead, skipping the humble ministering part, or the slowdown that a group of elders might do to their ambition.  But if they attain total control, they are moving down a dangerous path:  based on history, running the show means it’s far easier for him to ride off the rails in doctrine. Ask Schuller about that:  His weakness about doctrine, like sin, was a big part of his demise.  He only gave up the Crystal Cathedral when it was ready to file bankruptcy.  It is now owned by the local Roman Catholic Diocese.

Or, consider the questions about Mark Driscoll ruining Mars Hill Church in 2014, when he was forced out. Here is an insider’s view:

After he left, eleven of the Mars Hill Churches became independent churches and the remaining four churches were dissolved. The story of Mars Hill speaks to a broader story about evangelical America and celebrity pastors. Part of Cosper’s interest in the story was because everything happened online. “But also a lot of us kind of agree that Mark said things very loudly related to power related to celebrity,” Cosper says. “At some point, I think the church needs to have a reckoning with its relationship to power and weakness.” Historically, the church has served the poor and the sick through sacrifice — but places like Mars Hill invert that by putting wealth into power in the hands of few individuals.

One of the ways for the pastor to grab the lead more effectively is known as “vision casting.” Everyone goes into prayer for some stated time while pastor gets his vision.  Once he comes out with it, it is often “aggressively defended” (says an Elevation churches infographic—there are more than 20 of them) by other leaders.  Everyone is expected to be fully accountable and fully loyal to his vision.  If you have influence but too many questions, and stall, you may be given two options:  follow the vision or leave the church for somewhere else.  Bill Hybels calls vision casting “the most powerful weapon in a leader’s arsenal.” Getting people to work toward a united goal is admirable, but calling it a “weapon” and “aggressively defending” is a little off the chart; and pushing people out, even when done “kindly,” when they have a doubt amounts to censuring them. (See Suzanne Sataline, Wall St. Journal, 2006).  But we need to give you the Scriptural problems too: (1) Vision casting is nowhere implied or stated in Scripture as applicable to God’s Church; (2) it implies that the pastor receives direct revelation from God; this suggests his vision was “divinely inspired,” and thus cannot be questioned.  To oppose his vision is to oppose God. Your accountability moves from the Word of God to the vision, a bad idea to remove the focus away from God.  Discernment ministries are scorned by these leaders; those guys ask too many questions.  Well, all of this has led to much spiritual abuse in the history of the church. Consider II Corinthians 1:24, where Paul tries to warn us before it happens:

Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy

The third problem we have is, their message is not the Gospel as presented in Scripture. Celebrity pastors say our complaint is only on their methods; but not so— their message is a problem too. Their movement is actually anti-doctrinal to its core. Warren emphasizes “deeds, not creeds.”  His view of the Judgment seat is, “God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views.”  Well, I disagree--He will put some Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, or Mormon feet to the fire.  Believing in doctrines that don’t make Jesus God is a blasphemy that will send you to hell.  Sound doctrine has other beneficial uses besides as a litmus test for heaven.  See what Paul says to Titus in Titus 1:9:

…holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

Ignoring sound doctrine means people are not exhorted nor convicted.  But they feel good.  So, would you feel good under deception, ignorant of possibly spending eternity in hell?  Sorry for my bluntness.  These guys can be blunt.  I watched as Perry Noble, one of their group, pastor of New Spring Church in Anderson SC, actually said, “Who’s the jackass in the church?  The person who always screams “I want to go deeper.”” Screams?  Really?  I wonder, does II Timothy 4:3 apply to today?  It reads:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves “teachers” ⁴ and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Please join us next week for the conclusion of this important study

The Other Side of God

 

I would like to give you, pretty much word for word, a great sermon by Dr. R.C. Sproul, preached just before he entered the hospital for respiratory treatment that eventually took him to be with the Lord.

We live in a culture, and, sadly, in modern-day churches, that, if they believe in the existence of God, do not consider what's involved for us in God's holiness.  But if, peradventure, some may think about His holiness, they don’t consider God's divine Justice as well.  And if, with the lamp of Diogenes, we are able to find a handful of people who meditate on God's holiness and justice, it is next to impossible to find someone who will add to these elements the idea that God is a God of wrath.  Because the assumption in the world and the church today is that the love of God, the mercy of God, and the grace of God either swallows up the justice and wrath of God, or certainly trumps it. Even on national occasions, where noted people are buried out of the National Cathedral in Washington, it is commonplace to hear choirs sing or bagpipers play “Amazing Grace”--but nobody believes that His grace is amazing.  Because again the assumption is, God is love, and grace; and since that doesn't mix with He is also holy, just, and a God of wrath--we need to "resolve the contradiction" by ignoring His wrath and justice.

Let's hear from God on some Scripture regarding this.  Reading I Chronicles 13:1-6, David called all spiritual leaders in the land to form a grand procession and celebration to bring the ark of the covenant from storage back to his capital city.  Let’s pick it up from verse 7:

So they carried the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. ⁸ Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. ⁹ And when they came to Chidon’s threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. ¹⁰ Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. ¹¹ And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzza…

David was afraid of God that day.  When I (Dr. Sproul) was in seminary, I was taught that the Biblical passages that refer to the sudden explosion and paroxysm of rage that God manifested in the Old Testament, showed that the Old Testament is not the inspired Word of God, but is simply an example of a popular religion of a tribal deity from a semi-nomadic group of people who were pre-scientific and unsophisticated.  And they would say that these episodes recorded in the Old Testament were totally incompatible with the New Testament portrait of the love of God revealed in Jesus.  So what I experienced in seminary was a revival of the Marcionite heresy (Ed. Note:  popular around 144 A.D.); they believed in an attempt to expurgate from the Bible all references to this Old Testament angry deity.  But I thought that this episode, and others like it, since they were recorded in the pages of sacred Scriptures, would at least deserve the philosophy of a second glance.  So, David is going to bring the most sacred vessel of their religion to the holy place; he is going to restore the Glory to Israel to a brand new place.  So he has a new cart made; and in the middle of a jubilant procession, the ox stumbles, and tilts the cart, and the sacred ark is in immediate danger of falling into the dirt, or mud, where it would be surely desecrated.  Instinctively, out of a sense of respect for this sacred object, lest it become marred in the dirt, Uzzah stretches forth his hand.  As soon as he did, the heavens opened, and a deep voice shouted to him from heaven, “Thank you, Uzzah!”  Well…not how it happened.  As soon as he touched the ark, instantly, he was stricken.  God executed him.

Oh! The gymnastics my Old Testament professors went through in seminary, saying, “Well, that’s the way it seemed to these unsophisticated Hebrews who were watching this. Surely the man dropped dead of a heart attack, generated by his terror that he would venture to touch that sacred object.”  Or they would say, “This is evidence of whatever portrayal we have of the wrath of God in the Old Testament; it portrays God’s as being arbitrary, whimsical, capricious…” One professor even called this “the dark side of Yahweh…the demonic element within the nature of God Himself.”

Evidently these professors never read Numbers 4.  That’s when God gave the responsibility of the priesthood and the teaching to the tribe of Levi. The sole responsibility of the clan of the Kohathites was to look after the sacred vessels for the tabernacle.  But the ark was designed by God Himself to have rings on the sides; then they used long poles, or staves, inserted them through the rings, and carried the ark, on foot, balancing the staves on their shoulders on either side of the ark. The idea was that they, as human beings, would never come in contact with the throne of God. Keep in mind that the ark was designed for the purpose of manifesting God’s holiness. Numbers 4:15 explicitly says:

…the sons of Kohath shall come to carry them; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.

Jonathan Edwards has a sermon about this; he says “the sin of Uzzah was the sin of arrogance.”  It looked to me like a heroic act of humility.  But herein was the arrogance; Uzzah assumed that contact with the mud would be a greater sacrilege than contact with the hand of a human being.  What is mud?  Earth and water.  There is nothing innately sinful about dirt. If the ark touches the ground, it’s not going to do any damage.  What desecrates the throne of God is not the touch of earth; it’s the touch of man.  There is sin in the hand of Uzzah.  So he was executed for profaning the most holy object in Israel.

Now please turn to Leviticus 10:1-2:

Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. ² So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.  

 Whatever made it profane, it did not please God. These young priests were simply involved in experimental worship.  Maybe to try to change the liturgy that God had ordained, in such a way that it would be more appealing to the congregation. They missed the fundamental principle of worship: worship is to be determined not by what is pleasing to us, but what is pleasing to God.  (Ed. Note:  There was applause for Dr. Sproul here; if they’re thinking like me, they’re thinking about some of the worst of contemporary religious music, always a sore spot in church lately).

God never counts noses in the Old Testament, to decide what was the “best” form of worship; convenience to the crowd is not necessary.

The most successful worship service ever recorded, which drew more
people in attendance, with singing with so much gusto that when their voices were heard miles away, on a mountain, one of the men who heard the noise of this thought a war had broken out.  He thought the noise that he heard was the tumult that accompanies battle. But when they took time to investigate it, it was not a war, it was a worship service--for the golden calf!

Nothing attracts greater crowds than the practices of idolatry.

But these young fellows were just trying to improve on the worship of Israel; they offered a new way of sacrifice. And as soon as they did it, a fire came out and burned them to a crisp.

I want to ask you this question: What do you suppose Aaron’s response to this was?  I mean, he’s their father; “God, what are You doing? These are my sons.  All they did was tinker a little bit.”  And he speaks to Moses.  Moses said to him, as it were: “Do you remember what the Lord said at your consecration?” We can find it in Lev. 10:3:

By those who come near me, I must be regarded as holy, and before all the people, I must be glorified.

But instead of regarding God as holy, Nadab and Abihu came to God in profanity. Do you realize how the Lord God Omnipotent considers our profane worship?  When we dare to come into His presence without considering Him as holy?  And without seeing our primary responsibility in our celebration of worship is displaying before the whole congregation, the glory of God.

What does it say that Aaron did when Moses gave him this reminder?  In typical masterful Biblical understatement; the verse says, “So Aaron held his peace.”  There was nothing else for Aaron to do, no room for debate. “I am the Lord, there is none other; and I will be regarded as holy by anyone who comes near to Me.”    The story goes on and Moses calls others to:

…come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

This seems that God is being gracious now, and we assume they will get a proper burial.  No, uh-uh.  Verses 5-7:

So they went near and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said.  ⁶ And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, “Do not uncover your heads nor rend your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people. But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord has kindled. ⁷ You shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die, for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.” And they did according to the word of Moses.

You see what He is saying through Moses?  “I don’t even want their bodies in the camp.  And I don’t want anybody rending their garments and lamenting in dust and ashes.  I don’t want a wake for these guys. They’re polluting My sanctuary. I want their bodies, and anything associated with them, carried outside the camp—because they have profaned Me with their false worship.”

You know, the most famous sermon ever preached in America, was preached in the 18^th century in Connecticut by Jonathan Edwards.  You all know the name of that sermon:  Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.  I had to read that for the first time in college, where it was required reading as an example of “sadistic preaching.”  And I thought, even then, if Jonathan Edwards were sadistic, which he wasn’t, and if he believed in hell, which he did, a sadistic preacher would do everything in his power, gleefully, to tell his congregation that there was no such place as hell.  And, if I were sadistic, I would secretly enjoy the inevitability of their being plunged into it.  Edwards was no sadist; he loved God, and he loved His people—and he cared about their ultimate destination. Almost everybody in America has heard the title of the sermon; almost no one is aware of the text for that sermon—from Deuteronomy 32:35:

….their foot shall slip in due time

Edwards’ sermon has also been used in classrooms because of its graphic imagery of the wrath of God.  God is poised as a dam building up water until it is ready to break, to pour forth upon mankind; as a man with a bow drawn, aimed and ready to let go and pierce the heart of a sinner, all visualized in discomforting detail.  But the only thing that keeps you from falling into hell is the hand of God.  So the sermon is on the wrath of God, but also on His grace of His stayed hand.

That sermon wouldn’t scare anybody in our culture or in our churches, because nobody, really, believes in hell anymore.  Hell, if it exists, is a place for maybe six guys--the worst of humanity.  And the greatest lie, the most monstrous lie, the most brazen lie of all, is the lie that people tell themselves, “I have nothing to worry about from the wrath of God.  My god is a god of love.”  Well, your god is an idol—and no God at all.

Edwards challenged his congregation, and said, “Can you give me any reason, since you got out bed this morning, why you haven’t fallen into hell?”  Apart from the Gospel, dear friends, I couldn’t answer that question.  I couldn’t give any reason why I’m alive this afternoon, and not in hell—apart from Christ.

My favorite illustration of how calloused we typically become, goes back to the second year of my teaching career, when I was given the assignment of teaching 250 college freshmen a course in the introduction to the Old Testament.  They were given three short term papers, due September 30, October 30, and November 30.  On September 30, 25 of them fearfully admitted to not having their paper.  They timidly added their excuse.  I graciously gave them 3 extra days, and they were most appreciative. They took Adderall, and most completed it in the three days. On October 30, 50 of them did not have their papers.  They explained calmly that it was mid-term, homecoming games, etc.  I graciously again gave them 3 extra days.  They started to sing, spontaneously, 250 voices, “We love you Prof Sproul, oh yes we do…” And I was the most popular professor on that campus—until November 30. This time, 150 students came in without their papers. I watched them walk in as cool and as casual as they could be, and I saw one of them, a Marine veteran, and I said, “Johnson—where’s your paper?”  He said, “Hey, HEY.” (Happy Days TV.) “Don’t worry about it, prof, I’ll have it for you in a couple days.”  I picked up the most dreadful object in a freshman’s memory, a little black book, opened it up, and said, “Johnson, you don’t have your term paper?”  He said, “No.”  I said “F.” “Nicholson, where’s your term paper?”  “Don’t have it.”  “F.”  And then, out of the midst of this crowd, somebody shouted what you know they would shout, “THAT’S NOT FAIR.”  I turned around, “Fitzgerald, was that you who said that?”  He said, “Yeah. Not fair.  Right.”  “Weren’t you late last month with your paper?”  He said “yeah.”  I said “Fitzgerald, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. If it’s justice you want, it’s justice you will get.”  And I went back, and changed his grade from October to an F. There was this gasp in the room.  And I said, “Who else wants justice?” I didn’t get any takers. It reminded me of a song similar to My Fair Lady: “I’ve grown accustomed to his grace.” What had happened was, the first time they were late, they were amazed by grace.  The second time, they were no longer surprised, they assumed it.  By the third time, they demanded it.  I developed a lax hand, in my desire to be liked.  They believed grace was an inalienable right, an entitlement to which they all deserved.

I took that occasion to explain to my class, “You know what you have done when you said “that’s not fair?”  You have confused justice and grace. The minute you think that anybody owes you grace, a bell should go off in your head to remind you that you’re no longer thinking about grace—because grace, by definition, is something you don’t deserve, it’s something you can’t possibly deserve.

You, my friends, have no merit before God—except demerit. And if God should ever, ever, treat you justly, outside of Christ, you will perish. And your foot will slip in due time.

Any time there is a group this large, assembled, I don’t care for what reason, even a church service, I know that there are people in this room, right now, who are that far from hell (holding his fingers close together). And they’re assuming they’re not going to go there. But if there is a God, and there is, and if He is holy, and He is, and if He is just, and He is, He could not possibly be without wrath. And if you have not been reconciled through the blood of His Son, the only thing you have to look forward to—is His wrath.  Which is a divine wrath. Which is a furious wrath. And it is an eternal wrath. Because God must be regarded as holy by anyone who comes near Him.

So, my beloved, if you would come into the presence of God, consider the nature of the God you are approaching—that you may come covered by the righteousness of Christ.