The word IF appears many times in the New Testament in conjunction with salvation. Its first definition, per Funk & Wagnall’s, is: “on the supposition or condition that…” The abundant Scriptural use of the word should be enough to convince the student of the Bible that final salvation, getting to heaven, is not merely dependent on “accepting Jesus in my heart.” Final salvation depends on the condition of godliness, showing fruits of the Spirit. Let’s start the “IF” study with a verse on one of those fruits, forgiveness. In Matthew 6:14-15:
“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15 But IF you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Jesus has a dead-serious word of warning here: If we are unwilling to forgive, then God doesn’t forgive us. If God doesn’t forgive you—you are doomed to hell. You really need to think: Anyone I can’t seem to forgive? None of this “I can forgive but I can’t forget” excuse. Of course we can’t burn out memories, but when you see that person, what’s your emotional reaction? That’ll tell you if you forgave them.
Now I realize that I’ve commented on the above Scripture in another blog, as well as many verses that follow. But it’s a good idea to put all the “Ifs” together. From them, I advise making a list of commandments you need to turn these into and meditate on (like forgiveness). Work on every one. Develop the proper fear of God (another blog) for motivation to spur you on. It’s a difficult task to actually be objective about yourself—we all deceive ourselves and perform sins toward people that we never think about. We all develop “great” excuses for sinful behavior.
Matthew 24:24: For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, IF possible, even the elect.
Don’t be fooled by the uplifting pastor who quotes this, and says “the "if" makes this just a hypothesis, it can’t really happen.” The Bible talks much about apostasy, particularly in the last days (which this verse is about—but apostasy can happen anytime). That’s falling away from the faith. How do you fall away from something, unless you were attached to it in the first place? So we are talking about people that had faith, but are in grave danger of losing it. Don’t dismiss this verse as “hypothetical.” Losing our faith in Christ can happen, if we’re not steadfast in Him.
Luke 13:7-9 has a special meaning: Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And IF it bears fruit, well. But IF not, after that you can cut it down.’”
This expresses God’s patience, but ultimate judgment on us if we are not consciously bearing fruit. Galatians 5:22-23 shows the fruit we must develop if we’re on the Vine, abiding in our Lord. John 15:1-6 is an important parable on the vine. It has a very important warning at v.6:
IF anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
From this verse and the one above, you can see that if you’re not developing fruit, abiding on Christ’s vine, you eventually, after God’s patient wait, will be cut down—and thrown into the fire.
Telling the same story is Hebrews 6:7-9: For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but IF it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned. 9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.
Note that the author is looking for “things that accompany salvation,” such as bearing fruit—in this analogy, useful herbs--to know the person is really the Lord’s. IF you are not bearing fruit in your life, if you bear thorns and briers, you are “near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.” Serious words.
An interesting word is “hyperbole.” Common-taters say that means Jesus didn’t mean something when He said it, so you can dismiss it (they love to dismiss verses that sound like God is “harsh.”) What you’re supposed to do with hyperbole is to grab the kernel of meaning, and run as far as you can with it, obediently. Here’s a phrase actually using hyperbole. Mark 9:43-46:
IF your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—44 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ 45 And IF your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’
It’s obvious that Jesus is not into self-mutilation—so this is hyperbole. BUT don’t dismiss these verses; don’t ignore the main point: That point is, don’t let ANYTHING get in the way of you getting closer to God. Such a thing would be a sin; in fact, it would be by definition, an idol. And idols could send you to hell. By the way, there are some scary details about hell in the above verses that should provide additional motivation for you to look for ways to lead a more godly life.
Romans 11:21-23 has a harsher view of God that we don’t often hear in sermons:
For IF God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, IF you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, IF they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
As I will elaborate in a soon-to-be-published blog, this is spoken to Gentiles. And how to “continue in His goodness”? Follow His commandments; they’re all in Scripture. The phrase “He may not spare you either” is particularly troubling. Let’s not try to judge God as being harsh, using our sin-afflicted mind. Rely on revelation. Which means, read the Word more. Get to know Him. He loves that, and the Holy Spirit will give you the feeling that you are with Him.
Romans 8:13: For IF you live according to the flesh you will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
The word “die” speaks of hell, eternal separation from God, who is our Life. Note that sinful deeds of the body do not fall away, nor does goodness ossify; YOU must actively “put to death" the deeds of the body. Takes work. The Holy Spirit will help, if you are His. Call on Him.
I Corinthians 15:1-2: I declare to you the gospel…, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, IF you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
“Hold fast” means “hold firmly.” You do the grasping. These verses give you the impression that forces exist that will tear you away from God if you are not pro-active to the wiles of Satan. By the way, holding fast the Word presupposes you’re a day-to-day reader of it. And “believed in vain” suggests that with some people, belief was followed by unbelief (how else can you explain the phrase “in vain?”). They would be saved, then unsaved.
Galatians 6:8-9: For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap IF we do not lose heart.
There are many things in life that might cause us to lose heart; grieving over loss of a loved one, financial reversals, not being appreciated for doing good. That’s when we want to forget the sacrificial life plan Jesus gave us and do some selfish “sowing to our flesh.” We must resist this urge; think of the blessed hope of rapture and heaven.
Philippians 3:8-11 are perhaps the most glorious verses Paul has penned in the Bible. I’ll just focus on 10-11:
… that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 IF by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Verse 11 contains a troubling insecurity by Paul. If any man deserved heaven, it was him. But the closer we get to God (and Paul was very close), the more aware we are of our grossness in sin, the more we feel that we don’t deserve heaven. Yet God gives it—to the righteous. We don’t have to live a perfect life, just be persistent in goodness and avoiding sin. May we all live in thankfulness; we do not deserve the glories God is preparing for us.
Colossians 1:21b-23a: …yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard…
Because of His suffering, we who truly follow Jesus are now reconciled to God. Us and God—we who were enemies are now friends. We can be presented holy IF we continue steadfast in the faith. The faith is not a mental assent thing: we show by our behavior that we are in the faith.
A similar message is in I Thessalonians 3:8: For now we live, IF you stand fast in the Lord.
More on the necessity of "standing fast" or “holding fast” is in Hebrews 3:6:
but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.
And in Hebrews 3:14: For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end
Verses about “holding fast” and “steadfast” are in direct opposition to the “once saved always saved” Calvinist believers. They’re convinced that Christ has done all the work, and if we rely on our own efforts (through the Holy Spirit's help, even) to live righteous to attain final salvation, that means we never had true faith. Maintaining salvation (such as “holding fast” suggests), though perfectly Scriptural, is not necessary, per their teachings. Which means they’ve ignored lots of verses, as we see above. I’m convinced their system leads to dangerous complacency.
A word for fathers is in I Timothy 5:8: But IF anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
We’re talking about hell, here, since the destination of an unbeliever is hell. How could a man be “worse”? Maybe he attached himself to the church simply to take advantage of their wonderful giveaway programs. But this evil desire of his heart is not making his “worship” an act of faith; it is only to fill his family’s belly without working. In general, anyone who pretends to have the faith and then denies it by action is worse off than anyone who hasn’t received the faith at all yet. That’s because his false confession makes his heart hard, and that much more difficult to become saved (again). Plus, God makes you more responsible if you have heard His Word and then deny it, compared to someone who hasn't ever heard His Word.
II Timothy 2:12: IF we endure, We shall also reign with Him. IF we deny Him, He also will deny us
On the danger of denying Him: This is repeated elsewhere in Scripture; in Deuteronomy 31:17, for instance. Scripture, however, indicates denial may not have to be verbal: How we live can be a denial of His rule over our lives. Jesus must be Lord over you, or you are not His. But remember, even if you deny Him by life or words, God can take you back: Notice Peter, who denied Our Lord three times (after being warned that it would happen!). He repented deeply, and was forgiven. He became one of the heroes of the early church. Because he endured.
Hebrews 2:1-3: Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For IF the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape IF we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him
The author is saying, “look at all the great stories you’ve heard (and read) of the workings of faith. And you've noted how people are lifted by the Lord in the faith, and you have seen the punishment done to those outside the faith. If you read all this and ignore all that and don’t believe it, you’re leaning to hell” ("how shall we escape?") A sober word to every reader of Scripture. Of course, you could doubt the truth that the Scripture is God’s Word; but that’s a gambler’s toss—what would await you when you die if you were wrong? You’re gambling on eternity.
Hebrews 10:26 is controversial; I’ve included verses 27-31 for context:
For IF we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord.[b] And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”[c] 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God
It looks like sinning “willfully” is unforgiveable. To explain, the term “willfully” has a dark meaning, see Numbers 15:30-31:
‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’
“Presumptuously” has the same dark meaning as “willfully.” It’s defined at “impertinently bold,” sort of an “in your face” to God, publicly despising His rules. (Hebrews 10:29 gives details that suggest some had done this). Plus, we’re talking about a person who has been warned by full knowledge, and clear signs to fear God on sin, but totally ignored it. The perfect example of willful or presumptuous is to read Numbers 15:32-36 in context, right after the public warning above, wherein the spies who brought an evil report about the land God wanted them to go to, died by the plague. A great punishment! After this clear sign of God’s anger, then the people had gone up to battle without asking the Lord, and they got slaughtered. Two clear results of sin and God’s judgment. For a hat trick, they had just been given rules to live by for the Sabbath, etc. So it’s time to fear God and stick closely by His rules, right? The track is clearly laid out. So what did one guy do? On the first chance he got after that, he broke the Sabbath rules. As I say, an “in your face” to God, reproaching Him, publicly despising His law. He was immediately cut off, a severe punishment for just picking up sticks on the wrong day. But put it in context. My bet is, such individuals usually had a long history of willful sin, to be that rebellious. God knew that nothing would turn such a person around.
Hebrews 10:38: "Now the just shall live by faith; But IF anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.”
This is apostasy; drawing back when things get tough. That’s why we must “hold fast.” Where God has “no pleasure in him” doesn’t speak well as to his ultimate destiny on his current path.
Hebrews 12:25 needs some explanation:
See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For IF they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape IF we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven
The Jews had a rare blessing: God spoke to them on earth in Exodus, which He didn’t do often. As we showed in Numbers 15, it wasn’t wise to ignore His Words. Well, what does this other phrase mean, He “speaks from heaven?” That refers to His Scripture, His Word. We’re supposed to read it, just as if His booming voice, and thunder and lightning, were attending the reading. By being written, Scriptures are clear, and anybody can read it and hear from God. Your responsibility for reading and obeying it is thereby greater than those living in the Old Testament who didn’t have the benefits we have today.
James 1:26: IF anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.
Another measure to tell if we’re saved—do we bridle our tongue? If we don’t, our “religion is useless.” He’s being polite, but he’s sort of implying that we might not be saved if we have a nasty tongue that spreads gossip, slander, and profanity regularly.
II Peter 1:10: Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for IF you do these things you will never stumble
It takes diligence to godliness to make certain of your election to the ranks of the saved.
II Peter 2:20: For IF, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
This reminds me of one of the unfruitful seeds of the Sower in Matthew 13:22. There, the “cares of the world” and “deceitfulness of riches” (here, the “pollutions of the world”) make the thorns grow, to choke the word the Sower is seeding. Here, someone is “entangled in them and overcome.” The Word has lots of warnings about loving the world. Don’t stretch your sympathy for this person so far as to accuse God—remember, the entanglement, the choking, the overcoming, was entirely voluntary to this person. You need to keep in mind, too, that he got lots of pleasure in the world while he was being entangled. Oh, you ask, why is it “worse for them than the beginning?” Because, as I said earlier, each time we reject the Word, our hearts get harder.
I John 1:9: IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I have detected no greater failure from pastors than their lack of preaching this verse, on the urgent need to confess our sin. When we’re initially saved, the sins we have done to that point are forgiven. Beyond that date, it’s up to you to respond to the Holy Spirit’s urging you to confess. The verse clearly says that confession is necessary to receive forgiveness for them. That’s a great Biblical rule that’s becoming obsolete. I guess Protestants don’t do it because we don’t want to copy the Catholics. Well, that shouldn’t be a problem. You don’t need a priest—just sincerely confess each sin you can think of to God in your morning devotions, or before you go to bed at night. This is great to teach to kids, too.
I John 2:3: Now by this we know that we know Him, IF we keep His commandments.
This is the first of many statements by John that we can derive the opposite. If we don’t keep His commandments, we don’t “know” God. What does it mean to say that we finally “don’t know God?” As you read elsewhere, that means hell for our ultimate destiny. Doesn’t that make you want to know what His commandments are? I’m not talking about “Love God, love your neighbor, that’s enough.” The Bible has commandments to single people about fornication, commandments to men and women who want a divorce. And there are serious consequences for those who break those commandments. God means what He says!
I John 2:15: Do not love the world or the things in the world. IF anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
If you read Scripture elsewhere, you have to conclude that you’re in danger of being on your way to hell if you love the world. We must learn how to love God. You can’t do both—according to other Scriptures. How much of the day do you think about God? Versus how much of the day do you watch TV, go shopping, spend time on Facebook, have small talk with your neighbors? Gee, you say, come on--none of those things are dangerous enough for hell. Well, tally up where your spare-time thoughts go. Loving someone means you spend a lot of time thinking about them, asking yourself (or them) what do they want. Try not to deceive yourself. If you never think about God except on Sundays--do something about it.
Revelation 14:9-12: Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “IF anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
This is a prophecy of the last days. There will be this mark of the beast given to everyone, probably a chip in the forehead or hand, which enables you to buy necessities for your family—food, clothing. IF you accept this chip, no matter what excuse you may give (such as: “Lord, of course you wouldn’t want my family to starve or die, so I’ll take the chip—but it doesn’t mean I worship the beast”), it's likely saying you will spend your eternity in hell. God is kind enough to not only warn us in His Word, but will provide an angel with a warning, which will be heard by everyone in those days. So no excuse will do. If you take the mark; Hell it is. You may think you have a Hobson’s choice like Abraham: Do I kill my family member (Isaac), or do I obey this suicidal commandment? I think the good result for Abraham (Genesis 22) through his obeying God’s Word will be repeated again, because a loving God will protect and reward His obedient sons: We’ll probably get food miraculously. Defying the antichrist, though, means your family could suffer. Keep this in mind: Better to give your life—and go to heaven forever, than to fill your belly for a couple years and spend eternity in hell.
Revelation 22:18-19: For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: IF anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;19 and IF anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Bad news if you are kicked out of the holy city in that day; the only other housing is hell. Keep in mind: there are books that in some “Christian” denominations are given equal status to the Bible—but that in effect adds to the Bible, a violation of this command. Those authors and leaders are bound for hell. On the other hand, to work to remove some Bible verses that "don't belong there," maybe because they aren’t politically correct, or you’re uncomfortable with the supernatural, is committing the opposite disastrous sin. In any event, messing with the sacred Word is not a play that you should be engaging in. These verses are important enough that they are the last words of Scripture. And the last word of my paper.
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
The Battle Between Mainline Liberal vs. Evangelical Conservative Churches
My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "do Matthew 18 to brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their beliefs, these people are not members of the “church,” as Scripture defined it. And how do I privately approach these people in the first place? In my defense, too, St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.
Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus, after all, said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).
Here are five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.
Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that's Jesus paying the price for our sin).” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.
The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “claims” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” Following through with that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”
They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”
The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time later on in the argument, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).
The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter "non-believers" with the sword? Religious people.
Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?
Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.
Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus, after all, said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).
Here are five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.
Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that's Jesus paying the price for our sin).” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.
The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “claims” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” Following through with that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”
They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”
The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time later on in the argument, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).
The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter "non-believers" with the sword? Religious people.
Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?
Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Persecution: Figuring Out Who are the Good Guys and the Bad Guys?
I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…
First, a definition: A good guy, now, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again. He is impassioned about his loyalties to Him—but, as Jesus commands, he does not hurt his enemies. Matthew 5:44:
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you
If a guy doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Let's say he was violently brutal with his enemies, in a violent period. But we don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and they were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the Lollards and John Huss (followers of Bible translator John Wyclif). The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were long before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes. The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.
On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?
But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them. (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal suppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and had revealing sentences like the following: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience—but Luther felt he had to make clear which side he was on. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.
This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent plan of action for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s terrible rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. His works carried on long afterward, and he is quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.
Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.</b>
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand—as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, came upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jews) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course—but it was not challenged by the Lutheran Reformers either. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to allow them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. Only the people who followed Christ, then, were the church. The civil court said “no” and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, Zwingli’s indecisiveness, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to read Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”
I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some strange beliefs—not taking oaths, not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they remained, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, the magistrates got their confiscated property, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their “radicalism” (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups were either drowned or tortured and burned at the stake. But even their enemies said what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine.
The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.
Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning. A cowardly act. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12. Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach things is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts:
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements--but he did get some important changes to liturgy and doctrine. Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Stay away from the bad guy label, though.
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
First, a definition: A good guy, now, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again. He is impassioned about his loyalties to Him—but, as Jesus commands, he does not hurt his enemies. Matthew 5:44:
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you
If a guy doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy." Let's say he was violently brutal with his enemies, in a violent period. But we don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and they were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the Lollards and John Huss (followers of Bible translator John Wyclif). The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were long before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes. The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes gave them away to the “right” people as well—such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.
On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?
But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them. (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all, it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal suppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and had revealing sentences like the following: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience—but Luther felt he had to make clear which side he was on. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.
This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent plan of action for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s terrible rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. His works carried on long afterward, and he is quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.
Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.</b>
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand—as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action. Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (used to support the church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, came upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jews) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course—but it was not challenged by the Lutheran Reformers either. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to allow them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. Only the people who followed Christ, then, were the church. The civil court said “no” and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, Zwingli’s indecisiveness, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to read Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”
I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some strange beliefs—not taking oaths, not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they remained, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, the magistrates got their confiscated property, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their “radicalism” (following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups were either drowned or tortured and burned at the stake. But even their enemies said what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine.
The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered just because they were different. Even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.
Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning. A cowardly act. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12. Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach things is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts:
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements--but he did get some important changes to liturgy and doctrine. Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Stay away from the bad guy label, though.
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Fear of God
The fear of God is an important, yet little studied topic. Let’s start by examining Acts 2:41-47, using the New King James (NKJ):
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
In these verses, we ask, in light of the tremendous power the church had, being close to God, sharing their assets compassionately with one another, and “having favor with all the people”—were any of these wonderful things caused by their fear of God? It wouldn’t seem possible—such a negative emotion leading to a good result. Let’s explore this mystery together.
We start by defining the Greek they used for the word “fear:” phobos. (From which we get “phobia”). According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, phobos means (1) “dread, terror, always with this significance in the four Gospels.” Let’s keep that in mind; whenever Jesus is quoted saying “fear,” that’s the meaning. The other meaning of phobos is less intimidating: (2) “reverential fear of God as a controlling motive of the life; in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a dread of displeasing Him.” Examine your hearts: when you're thinking of sinning, do you have a real dread of displeasing Him? Is your fear of what He might do, enough to make you stop? Is the fear of God a controlling motive in your life? I suspect the only thing keeping us back from many sins is the fear of being discovered by our friends or family and losing our reputations. The serious dread of displeasing God is often just not there; we just don’t think about Him.
Many sermons are expounded on God’s love, few on His hate--of sin. Many on our loving God, few on fearing Him. This paper will attempt to show how many verses there are on how fear of God is good for you. It’s a desirable attribute. Hopefully after reading it you can introspect on His holiness and get to know His “dark side” more. Like medicine, it will seem unpleasant—but it’s good for you. Let’s begin with Genesis 20:11, where Abraham sees the good side of men fearing God: They would be less likely to murder him and take his beautiful wife:
And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.
In Genesis 22, God is testing Abraham’s willingness to obey Him implicitly, regardless of how illogical His instructions seem. He is asked to sacrifice his son. Note that Abraham doesn’t delay, doesn’t ask himself: “God wants me to kill my son? The son He promised? Let me argue that, or get a second opinion.” He knew that God loves him, that following Him regardless, will all turn out well. Have we developed that trait? Note that God commends him on his fear of Him. His fear led him to obey God without question. God respects his obedience, and no harm is done--as we see in verse 12:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
In Genesis 31:42a, Jacob has a name for God: The Fear of Isaac. Nowhere does God disapprove of this name. Note how Jacob appreciates this-named God as his God, connecting it with His protection for him. Finally note how the three patriarchs of Israel, giants in the faith, are all given to fearing God:
Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you (Laban) would have sent me away empty-handed.
In Exodus 1:17, the children of Israel are slaves in Egypt. The pharaoh, fearing for their numerical advantage, has instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies as soon as they arrive out of the womb. But the midwives refuse to do it—even though disobeying pharaoh endangers their own lives—because of their fear of God (fear of His judgement for murder). Note His blessing on them because their fear of God was greater than their fear of the pharaoh.
But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive... because the midwives feared God…He provided households for them.
Maybe we’d have fewer abortions if the mothers or attending nurses had a real fear of God today. In the 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v Wade, these women did not have enough fear of God to dread His ultimate punishment for murder. How many have read Galatians 5:21, which says that (unrepentant) murderers “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and would spend an eternity in hell?
In Exodus 14:31, after God’s great plagues, after the exodus, and His killing the pursuing Egyptians, then the children of Israel finally feared God. After that they really believed Moses and God. So, a real belief in God, with obedience following, results from a fear of God.
Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt; so the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD and His servant Moses.
In Exodus 18:21, Moses is to select men as judges, an extremely important function. The first requirement for such men? You guessed it; they need to have a fear of God.
Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds…
In Exodus 20:20b, the Ten Commandments are given. The very first words that Moses says at this momentous occasion include the following:
God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”
The Ten Commandments is supposed to awaken the soul to a proper fear of God. The Commandments are His the rules--but it still takes a fear of God to obey the rules consistently. Once again, God’s Word is saying that fear of God reduces sin.
There are plenty more in the Old Testament, but to make this paper short enough to be readable, let’s skip ahead to the New Testament; what did Jesus say about fear? Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
People experience “peer pressure;” they shrink back from declaring for Christ, particularly in public spots. And so it was for the Jews, who did not want to go against the Pharisees, who could be a genuine threat to your life if you followed Jesus. But Jesus was unsympathetic for those feelings; He has a stark word (one of many—He talked a lot about hell): basically, "it’s them or me, you can't have both. Follow me, and the worst they can do is take your life. But you get an eternity in heaven. Follow them, you’ll have friends in the world, but then your worry should be about hell—which is forever."
We definitely need an injection of fear for God in this attractive world, to keep us out of hell. (Don’t forget, we said in the two definitions of “fear” that the meaning in the Gospels here is “dread, terror.” Jesus was blunt. Your terror of what God can do to you should be greater than your terror of what people can do. People can take your lives, but God can take your eternity).
You want mercy from God? We all should, because the depth and frequency of our sin means we need lots of mercy. Luke 1:50 tells us how to get mercy:
And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
Luke 5:26 gives the peoples’ reaction when they see Jesus healing: Fear. Why? Of His supernaturalism, of things which they do not know.
And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!”. Today we wold be more cynical and sophisticated about healings. Which is the better reaction? Note how their fear didn’t stop their glorifying God. Another good result from a supposedly negative emotion (The same thing happens in Luke 7:16).
In Luke 23:40-41, one criminal on a cross next to Jesus rebukes the other. The one who feared God admitted his execution was proper punishment for his deeds, a good thought--but something few criminals do. He also judged Jesus as innocent, something the people and the Pharisees couldn’t do. Fear of God allows you to judge people properly, and to be humble. Also, wonderfully, the one who feared God got saved. The other one was going to hell.
But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”
Now we go to the book of Acts. God’s stamp of approval was definitely on the man who was the first Gentile to receive the Gospel. Cornelius was that man. How did he get to be first in line for such a wonderful event? Because he feared God, among other positive features. A description of him is in Acts 10:2:
…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
Note that fear of God is listed ahead of his giving to the poor, and ahead of his passion for prayer. I’ve heard lots of sermons on giving and the power of prayer, but none on the power of fearing God.
Once again, for brevity, we have to skip lots of verses, and move on to the Epistles. In Romans 3, Paul is enumerating the horrible sins of those bound for hell…”Their throat is an open tomb,” etc. He then describes sin that gets worse and worse as men get farther away from Him. And how does he end it with, what phrase did he use as the worst, the source of all this defiant sin and rebellion? It’s in Romans 3:18 (just before the gospel is explained):
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
In Romans 11:20-22, Paul is justifying why he is bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles—it was because the Jews (the natural branches of Jesus, the Vine) rejected it and got “broken off” the Vine. So God turned to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles might get haughty (“we’re smarter than the Jews”). His solution for that? They needed to fear God, or else He could cut them off too (God hates pride). Further, note that God is called “severe.” Haven’t heard any sermons on God’s “negative” qualities revealed here:
Because of unbelief they (Jews) were broken off, and you (Gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but FEAR. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Does God sound antagonistic there? Well, deal with it; change your definition of God’s love. He is in charge of the universe, and makes the rules. We should be grateful that He reveals Himself to us so we know what to do to get on His good side, and what gets on His bad side.
In II Corinthians 7:1, Paul has the method to be holy (necessary for salvation, as my other blogs discuss): Fear God.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
In Ephesians 5:21-22, women are going to dislike me for this, but Paul has a solution for women who can’t submit to their husbands because they don’t trust him. Now I realize that there are other qualifiers for wives and husbands, but it clearly says that fear of Him is the key in submitting to one another. I’m reminded of our verses above, where Abraham was ready to do something illogical because he trusted God. And it worked out, because God honored his fear of Him--He made sure all was well. Women, take a hint—trusting your husband is really trusting God, because you’re obeying His commandment to submit. He will honor your trust in Him and make it all work out. The verses are broadened to include all of us acting unselfishly and trusting all the brothers and sisters. One more time--What makes us take a chance and submit to others? Fear of God. I have never heard a sermon on this angle of husbands and wives. Putting these two verses together is called “context.”
…submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Once again, brevity demands a stop. I’m sure I missed some great verses. All you need to do is go to biblegate.com and “google” the word “fear.” But I think you’ve gotten the message. Fear of God is absolutely necessary to reduce sin and to be more holy, to obey God. A lot more people would be saved if they had this attribute. The only question is, how do we develop this fine characteristic? Here’s a few suggestions: (1) Read more of the Old Testament. Lots of judgment and hellfire for disobedience. Not pleasant, but you need to see how much God hated sin. Don’t fall for the argument, “God was different then.” If you believe that, you haven’t gotten the right message about Jesus, either, so that leads to suggestion (2) Read the Gospels just to study exactly what Jesus said. Do you notice how much He talked about judgment? Well, there you go. God doesn’t change, after all, in how much He hates sin, between Old and New Testaments. Write down everything that suggests what it really takes to be saved (or read my blog on initial and final salvation for a quickie summary). When you’re reading, be careful to “update” Biblical words like “idols.” Maybe you think that’s just for primitive folk, wood and stone. So it doesn't apply to me, you say. But read a Biblical definition of idolatry, then spend some time asking yourself if you’ve been into idolatry, in its modern applications. In other words, spend some time asking yourself about the sins you’ve done, and the effects on the family, placing yourself above God (that’s idolatry too). And then think about God, who loves you more than you can imagine, watching you sin. You (and everyone) could do much more with your life if you dedicate yourself 100% to Him. He would make you so happy. So why don’t you? Examine that—is it simple selfishness? Greed? Fear of being laughed at? Then imagine yourself at the judgment seat—we will all be there—when you give your reasons, your lame reasons. What are your Scriptural gifts? You don’t know? Have they been given to God? Do you know what the fruits are, a requirement for you to have them for heaven (John 15:2)? How about your time with God? A person you’re in love with, you talk to daily—how much time do you spend during the week talking with God? Maybe you conclude that you don’t really love Him? That’s not good, read I John when it separates saved vs unsaved, measured by the love you show. It’s never too late to change.
As you can see, lots of Scripture reading and introspection are needed. Please, take time for this. Most people’s mind goes ten different ways when trying to be quiet and meditate on Scripture. Or they sink into this, “I’m just a worm and can’t do anything.” (Maybe appealing for sympathy to get out of being judged always worked when you were a kid; it doesn’t work with God). Developing a fear of God would be frowned at by most ministers today, but who cares what they think? Their “moral leadership” is why we’re in a mess in the U.S. Better to read Scripture like the above to get the real truth about qualities God loves to see. Like fearing Him.
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
In these verses, we ask, in light of the tremendous power the church had, being close to God, sharing their assets compassionately with one another, and “having favor with all the people”—were any of these wonderful things caused by their fear of God? It wouldn’t seem possible—such a negative emotion leading to a good result. Let’s explore this mystery together.
We start by defining the Greek they used for the word “fear:” phobos. (From which we get “phobia”). According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, phobos means (1) “dread, terror, always with this significance in the four Gospels.” Let’s keep that in mind; whenever Jesus is quoted saying “fear,” that’s the meaning. The other meaning of phobos is less intimidating: (2) “reverential fear of God as a controlling motive of the life; in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a dread of displeasing Him.” Examine your hearts: when you're thinking of sinning, do you have a real dread of displeasing Him? Is your fear of what He might do, enough to make you stop? Is the fear of God a controlling motive in your life? I suspect the only thing keeping us back from many sins is the fear of being discovered by our friends or family and losing our reputations. The serious dread of displeasing God is often just not there; we just don’t think about Him.
Many sermons are expounded on God’s love, few on His hate--of sin. Many on our loving God, few on fearing Him. This paper will attempt to show how many verses there are on how fear of God is good for you. It’s a desirable attribute. Hopefully after reading it you can introspect on His holiness and get to know His “dark side” more. Like medicine, it will seem unpleasant—but it’s good for you. Let’s begin with Genesis 20:11, where Abraham sees the good side of men fearing God: They would be less likely to murder him and take his beautiful wife:
And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.
In Genesis 22, God is testing Abraham’s willingness to obey Him implicitly, regardless of how illogical His instructions seem. He is asked to sacrifice his son. Note that Abraham doesn’t delay, doesn’t ask himself: “God wants me to kill my son? The son He promised? Let me argue that, or get a second opinion.” He knew that God loves him, that following Him regardless, will all turn out well. Have we developed that trait? Note that God commends him on his fear of Him. His fear led him to obey God without question. God respects his obedience, and no harm is done--as we see in verse 12:
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
In Genesis 31:42a, Jacob has a name for God: The Fear of Isaac. Nowhere does God disapprove of this name. Note how Jacob appreciates this-named God as his God, connecting it with His protection for him. Finally note how the three patriarchs of Israel, giants in the faith, are all given to fearing God:
Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you (Laban) would have sent me away empty-handed.
In Exodus 1:17, the children of Israel are slaves in Egypt. The pharaoh, fearing for their numerical advantage, has instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies as soon as they arrive out of the womb. But the midwives refuse to do it—even though disobeying pharaoh endangers their own lives—because of their fear of God (fear of His judgement for murder). Note His blessing on them because their fear of God was greater than their fear of the pharaoh.
But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive... because the midwives feared God…He provided households for them.
Maybe we’d have fewer abortions if the mothers or attending nurses had a real fear of God today. In the 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v Wade, these women did not have enough fear of God to dread His ultimate punishment for murder. How many have read Galatians 5:21, which says that (unrepentant) murderers “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and would spend an eternity in hell?
In Exodus 14:31, after God’s great plagues, after the exodus, and His killing the pursuing Egyptians, then the children of Israel finally feared God. After that they really believed Moses and God. So, a real belief in God, with obedience following, results from a fear of God.
Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt; so the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD and His servant Moses.
In Exodus 18:21, Moses is to select men as judges, an extremely important function. The first requirement for such men? You guessed it; they need to have a fear of God.
Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds…
In Exodus 20:20b, the Ten Commandments are given. The very first words that Moses says at this momentous occasion include the following:
God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”
The Ten Commandments is supposed to awaken the soul to a proper fear of God. The Commandments are His the rules--but it still takes a fear of God to obey the rules consistently. Once again, God’s Word is saying that fear of God reduces sin.
There are plenty more in the Old Testament, but to make this paper short enough to be readable, let’s skip ahead to the New Testament; what did Jesus say about fear? Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
People experience “peer pressure;” they shrink back from declaring for Christ, particularly in public spots. And so it was for the Jews, who did not want to go against the Pharisees, who could be a genuine threat to your life if you followed Jesus. But Jesus was unsympathetic for those feelings; He has a stark word (one of many—He talked a lot about hell): basically, "it’s them or me, you can't have both. Follow me, and the worst they can do is take your life. But you get an eternity in heaven. Follow them, you’ll have friends in the world, but then your worry should be about hell—which is forever."
We definitely need an injection of fear for God in this attractive world, to keep us out of hell. (Don’t forget, we said in the two definitions of “fear” that the meaning in the Gospels here is “dread, terror.” Jesus was blunt. Your terror of what God can do to you should be greater than your terror of what people can do. People can take your lives, but God can take your eternity).
You want mercy from God? We all should, because the depth and frequency of our sin means we need lots of mercy. Luke 1:50 tells us how to get mercy:
And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
Luke 5:26 gives the peoples’ reaction when they see Jesus healing: Fear. Why? Of His supernaturalism, of things which they do not know.
And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!”. Today we wold be more cynical and sophisticated about healings. Which is the better reaction? Note how their fear didn’t stop their glorifying God. Another good result from a supposedly negative emotion (The same thing happens in Luke 7:16).
In Luke 23:40-41, one criminal on a cross next to Jesus rebukes the other. The one who feared God admitted his execution was proper punishment for his deeds, a good thought--but something few criminals do. He also judged Jesus as innocent, something the people and the Pharisees couldn’t do. Fear of God allows you to judge people properly, and to be humble. Also, wonderfully, the one who feared God got saved. The other one was going to hell.
But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”
Now we go to the book of Acts. God’s stamp of approval was definitely on the man who was the first Gentile to receive the Gospel. Cornelius was that man. How did he get to be first in line for such a wonderful event? Because he feared God, among other positive features. A description of him is in Acts 10:2:
…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
Note that fear of God is listed ahead of his giving to the poor, and ahead of his passion for prayer. I’ve heard lots of sermons on giving and the power of prayer, but none on the power of fearing God.
Once again, for brevity, we have to skip lots of verses, and move on to the Epistles. In Romans 3, Paul is enumerating the horrible sins of those bound for hell…”Their throat is an open tomb,” etc. He then describes sin that gets worse and worse as men get farther away from Him. And how does he end it with, what phrase did he use as the worst, the source of all this defiant sin and rebellion? It’s in Romans 3:18 (just before the gospel is explained):
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
In Romans 11:20-22, Paul is justifying why he is bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles—it was because the Jews (the natural branches of Jesus, the Vine) rejected it and got “broken off” the Vine. So God turned to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles might get haughty (“we’re smarter than the Jews”). His solution for that? They needed to fear God, or else He could cut them off too (God hates pride). Further, note that God is called “severe.” Haven’t heard any sermons on God’s “negative” qualities revealed here:
Because of unbelief they (Jews) were broken off, and you (Gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but FEAR. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Does God sound antagonistic there? Well, deal with it; change your definition of God’s love. He is in charge of the universe, and makes the rules. We should be grateful that He reveals Himself to us so we know what to do to get on His good side, and what gets on His bad side.
In II Corinthians 7:1, Paul has the method to be holy (necessary for salvation, as my other blogs discuss): Fear God.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
In Ephesians 5:21-22, women are going to dislike me for this, but Paul has a solution for women who can’t submit to their husbands because they don’t trust him. Now I realize that there are other qualifiers for wives and husbands, but it clearly says that fear of Him is the key in submitting to one another. I’m reminded of our verses above, where Abraham was ready to do something illogical because he trusted God. And it worked out, because God honored his fear of Him--He made sure all was well. Women, take a hint—trusting your husband is really trusting God, because you’re obeying His commandment to submit. He will honor your trust in Him and make it all work out. The verses are broadened to include all of us acting unselfishly and trusting all the brothers and sisters. One more time--What makes us take a chance and submit to others? Fear of God. I have never heard a sermon on this angle of husbands and wives. Putting these two verses together is called “context.”
…submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Once again, brevity demands a stop. I’m sure I missed some great verses. All you need to do is go to biblegate.com and “google” the word “fear.” But I think you’ve gotten the message. Fear of God is absolutely necessary to reduce sin and to be more holy, to obey God. A lot more people would be saved if they had this attribute. The only question is, how do we develop this fine characteristic? Here’s a few suggestions: (1) Read more of the Old Testament. Lots of judgment and hellfire for disobedience. Not pleasant, but you need to see how much God hated sin. Don’t fall for the argument, “God was different then.” If you believe that, you haven’t gotten the right message about Jesus, either, so that leads to suggestion (2) Read the Gospels just to study exactly what Jesus said. Do you notice how much He talked about judgment? Well, there you go. God doesn’t change, after all, in how much He hates sin, between Old and New Testaments. Write down everything that suggests what it really takes to be saved (or read my blog on initial and final salvation for a quickie summary). When you’re reading, be careful to “update” Biblical words like “idols.” Maybe you think that’s just for primitive folk, wood and stone. So it doesn't apply to me, you say. But read a Biblical definition of idolatry, then spend some time asking yourself if you’ve been into idolatry, in its modern applications. In other words, spend some time asking yourself about the sins you’ve done, and the effects on the family, placing yourself above God (that’s idolatry too). And then think about God, who loves you more than you can imagine, watching you sin. You (and everyone) could do much more with your life if you dedicate yourself 100% to Him. He would make you so happy. So why don’t you? Examine that—is it simple selfishness? Greed? Fear of being laughed at? Then imagine yourself at the judgment seat—we will all be there—when you give your reasons, your lame reasons. What are your Scriptural gifts? You don’t know? Have they been given to God? Do you know what the fruits are, a requirement for you to have them for heaven (John 15:2)? How about your time with God? A person you’re in love with, you talk to daily—how much time do you spend during the week talking with God? Maybe you conclude that you don’t really love Him? That’s not good, read I John when it separates saved vs unsaved, measured by the love you show. It’s never too late to change.
As you can see, lots of Scripture reading and introspection are needed. Please, take time for this. Most people’s mind goes ten different ways when trying to be quiet and meditate on Scripture. Or they sink into this, “I’m just a worm and can’t do anything.” (Maybe appealing for sympathy to get out of being judged always worked when you were a kid; it doesn’t work with God). Developing a fear of God would be frowned at by most ministers today, but who cares what they think? Their “moral leadership” is why we’re in a mess in the U.S. Better to read Scripture like the above to get the real truth about qualities God loves to see. Like fearing Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)