My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "practice what it says in Matthew 18 when you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their expressed 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.
People who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church--should we allow them freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't simply gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've made that are anti-Christian. 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. Now, I hope you understand that if I denounce a denomination's expressed theology, that does not mean every single person in that denomination agrees with it--or even knows what it is.
Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor, here, of course, is the statements 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. Opposing them, 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 updated, or 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. I would be leery of joining a church that doesn't). Don’t get put off by people sarcastically calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge a little too proudly. Jesus, after all, said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12); but sarcastic attitudes doesn't really amount to persecution. We have it pretty good in the U.S., for religious freedom.
Here are five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of non-Christian 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 God). For an example of what we're dealing with here, Mr. Putnam 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 their knowledgeable leaders 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 didn't provide enough of a warning 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” about not judging anybody's morality.
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.
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 deeper and deeper sin under 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 in society) 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, April 26, 2016
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
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 like that 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, for my purposes, 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 those he perceives as 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 person 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 time period in world history. 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 seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized 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 then set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and 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 50-150 years 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 also 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 actually 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 on them, 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 wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, making them poor for life. They worked the same property, and their profits went to the princes. (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 his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “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 Jewish 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 insistent rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was 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.
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge: 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 liberal 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 Jewish) 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 seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to permit 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. They decided that only the people who followed Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this radical idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, 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 beliefs considered strange at the time—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 tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, 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 got it harder--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote 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 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. .
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
First, a definition: A good guy, for my purposes, 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 those he perceives as 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 person 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 time period in world history. 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 seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points. Then we know you're the good guy.
During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized 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 then set up, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And we must not forget the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and 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 50-150 years 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 also 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 actually 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 on them, 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 wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, making them poor for life. They worked the same property, and their profits went to the princes. (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 his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “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 Jewish 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 insistent rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was 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.
My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge: 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 liberal 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 Jewish) 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 seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to permit 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. They decided that only the people who followed Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this radical idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, 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 beliefs considered strange at the time—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 tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, 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 got it harder--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote 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 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. .
Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
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, or more. 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 sermons 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 60 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 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. 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 would 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. That's 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; 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 them. 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 search 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, or more. 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 sermons 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 60 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 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. 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 would 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. That's 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; 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 them. 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 search 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.
Monday, April 4, 2016
If You Were Not Repentant, You Might Not Be Saved
A well-known evangelist, Ray Comfort, estimates that 80-90%
of decisions for Christ in modern evangelism will thereafter lose their witness
and not even attend church consistently.
He cites a detailed study of the 294,000 who “got saved” in a one-year
crusade effort by a major denomination, Harvest, in 1991. They had
11,500 churches keeping close records. (PS: Evangelism sweeps don't usually do this). Only
14,000 of the 294,000 still attended church, only a couple years later. That’s
a 95% loss rate.
He also studied the works of famous evangelists of the past—such
as Wesley, Whitfield, Moody, Spurgeon, and Finney. Along with New Testament
evangelists, Paul, Peter, Steven, and Timothy. Their writings and sermon notes suggested a
much higher number of people hanging on to their conversion. Why is this loss rate gone stratospheric, he wondered? One of the things he noticed was that in
those days, the preaching by these great men would begin with how people
have broken God’s Laws. Then, after that was covered in the sermon, the
Good News was taught. This principle of sermon order has faded away, particularly starting in the
early 1900s. Nowadays, preachers consider that the “You Have Broken the Law" sermon starter is just too negative, and have shied away from it.
Modern evangelistic theory (taught in Christian colleges) assumes that most people feel they are not
worthy to be with God, so we have to emphasize God’s grace and love right from
the start, to make them feel wanted, then explaining what Christ did on our behalf. The Prodigal Son
(Luke 15) was the classic example of a good sermon, as they teach how the
father accepted his son, though he wasted the inheritance, and still smelled of pigs.
Mr.Comfort came to the conclusion that the surveys shown
above suggested the old ways were better. What's more important, Scriptures seem to provide proof of his idea. Psalm 19:7 says, in part:
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul
Well, converting
the soul is what we want in evangelism, right?
The Word lays it out plainly. You
present the Law.
Mr. Comfort gives
us a parable. Suppose you’re walking
around, and someone pops up and says, “I’ve got good news for you! Someone paid a $2500 fine on your
behalf!” Your reaction might be “What
are you talking about? That doesn’t make
sense; I can’t think of what I did wrong, nor has anybody told me thus.” They are not exactly in a receptive mood, or grateful,
right? The person would be offended,
actually--before they got around to reaching out for the money. BUT what if the following
actually happened: This person was
clocked doing 55 mph in an area set aside for a blind children’s school
nearby. There were 10 clear warning
signs stating that the speed limit was 15 mph.
What he did was extremely dangerous, negligent, and reckless, whether he
knew about it or not, and a $2500 fine was appropriate and it was the law. So this person was caught, and in court his
ignorance of the law was brushed aside (that would never bring back the life of
a child killed). He was told all the details, and then told to pay the
fine, and with agony he wondered whether he would have the money, how stupid he was to do that, how much his
family would sacrifice their lifestyle—or even how he would tell them—when
suddenly someone he didn’t even know stepped forward and paid it for him. Now his reaction would be a definition of
gratitude, right? He might even want to
make friends with this stranger, to see what motivated him to give so much so
graciously.
As you can
clearly see by the parable, the second example--explaining what he did wrong,
the Law he broke, with proper acceptance of that news, THEN giving him the Good
News of One who has paid his debt, generates a much more positive
response. Well, that’s the principle
they used to use in preaching. On the
other hand, the other approach is what we have a great deal more of now. Most people, hearing this more-recent approach,
are offended—they don’t think they are bad sinners. (Which means they haven’t been taught about God.) If I talk "grace-only" with a prospect, I pretty much can’t get
away from insinuating that they have seriously broken the law, when they have usually deceived themselves into thinking they don’t think they
have—and they resent our suggestion—and our indirectness. Or, they consider the
idea that they need salvation foolish. As
Scripture says in I Corinthians 1:18:
…the message of the cross is foolishness
to those who are perishing
Anyone “saved” by
this method is more by emotionalism, since there is confusion about why they need
to be saved and what the Good News really is—but in the cold light of the days
following, this emotionalism cools off to rejection more often than not. Which is where the 80-90% comes in.
Thus I need, in
my preaching evangelism, to take the time to speak insightfully of the Ten
Commandments and its violation in thought as well as deed, and then to also cover Jesus’
commandments in the Gospels—i.e., to show the prospect that he has truly offended a just God—then
he hopefully becomes, as James says in 2:9: Convicted of the law, as a transgressor; then the Good News of
Christ’s paying our debt will not be offensive or foolish…it will be the power
of God unto salvation.
Let’s look at
each function of presenting God’s Law. We’ll start with Romans 3:19:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it
says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all
the world may become guilty before God.
Thus, one
function of it is (1) to stop the mouth.
We don’t need to hear much of the prospect’s wisdom, justifying himself
and saying, “there are plenty of people worse than me.” (He’s either deceived or just putting you
off, really). We are the ones bearing the wonderful gift of good news, and need
an opportunity to speak.
Secondly, Romans 3:20 says this:
by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
The prospect needs to know the knowledge of sin, since self-defense and self-deception are rampant today. We cannot assume that his sin is in the forefront (or even in the back) of his memory. I John 3:4 says: sin is the transgression of the law. It would seem obvious that a person needs to know the law intimately in order to know if he has transgressed it, or has sinned. Romans 7:7 declares this more forcefully: I would not have known sin except through the law.
Secondly, Romans 3:20 says this:
by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
The prospect needs to know the knowledge of sin, since self-defense and self-deception are rampant today. We cannot assume that his sin is in the forefront (or even in the back) of his memory. I John 3:4 says: sin is the transgression of the law. It would seem obvious that a person needs to know the law intimately in order to know if he has transgressed it, or has sinned. Romans 7:7 declares this more forcefully: I would not have known sin except through the law.
Thirdly, in Galatians 3:24, the Law is not only to build our knowledge of sin, but, very importantly….
the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.
What this means, is, the Law doesn’t really help us in reconciliation with God…it shows us that we are helpless. It doesn’t justify us, it just leaves us guilty at the judgment seat. But with the Law, when we see our sin, as God sees it, we see how we have offended God, and if hell is even brought up (which it almost never is), we are, deservedly, destined for hell. Then we seek Him for some method of righteousness and deliverance. Christ is that key, as a good evangelist will point the way.
When modern evangelism abandoned the "old" principle of discussing the Law and how Christ saves us from wrath, it needed to seek another reason to attract us to Christ. So they invented the term “life enhancement.” Following Christ will benefit us. We will have peace, love, joy, fulfillment, and lasting happiness. At this point, Mr. Comfort provides another useful allegory:
Two men are sitting in a plane. The first is given a parachute, (the only one receiving the offer), and told that it will “improve his flight.” He is skeptical and even thinking the flight attendant is wacko, as he knows that airlines never reveal any doubt about "good times are ahead," but he puts it on—just as a trial. But it weighs his shoulders, and gives him difficulty in sitting upright. But he perseveres. After a while, though, he notices that other passengers are laughing at him due to his unusual clothing accessory. Feeling humiliated, he can’t stand it anymore, and he throws the parachute to the floor. Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because as far as he was concerned, he was told an outright lie.
The second man was given a parachute, BUT he was told a different reason, in alarming detail: at any moment, without warning, a faulty flight could mean he would be jumping 25,000 feet off the plane. He takes it to heart: He doesn’t notice the discomfort of the parachute, because his mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen to him if he had to jump without it. He develops a deep-rooted peace in his heart knowing that he shall escape a sure death no matter what happens. He can deal with other passengers’ mockery—they need to do what he did. He might even engage them in intense conversation about their need for this safety device.
You can see what we’re saying. Under modern evangelism, this man-centered “improvement” approach is a guaranteed failure. People will take on Christ as an experiment to see whether their life does improve. But they get what the Scripture promises to them--temptation, tribulation, and persecution. They are humiliated by others, disillusioned about not seeing a rosy path develop for them. They take off the Lord Jesus, and are rightly embittered. They are now inoculated against evangelism in the future, and their latter end is worse than the first. Modern evangelism has promised them what God has not promised. The opposite of their expectation occurs. After all, God has every right to test us to see if we can really endure. Modern evangelism does not ask a crucial question: Are we able to drink of the cup that Jesus drank of?
We should take the second parachute approach, boldly telling every man, as Hebrews 9:27 says:
it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment
He must understand the horrific consequences of breaking the Law. He must be told to escape the wrath which is to come, when God judges the earth in righteousness. The issue is not one of happiness, but of righteousness. Then he will flee to Christ, and experience true peace and joy—the fruits of salvation. But don’t speak of peace and joy as a “draw card” for salvation, or sinners will respond with impure motives, lacking repentance. The man correctly taught will have much more motivation to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. When bad times come, he doesn’t throw off Christ—because his reason for taking on Christ is not for rosy paths, but to save him from future wrath. He has been re-taught to ignore man’s reasoning. If anything, trials will drive the true believer closer to the Savior—life will be that much better in heaven, and he will be looking more for heaven when life on earth gets miserable.
Mr. Comfort then told of an evangelistic crusade he preached in Australia. He preached of the Law, Hell, and wrath. He told of how few people came forward, and how the atmosphere felt tense. He felt the usual disappointment in people’s deafness. Perhaps he thought of Noah, “a just man, perfect in his generations..walked with God” (Gen. 6:9), who despite being “a preacher of righteousness” (II Peter 2:5), never was able to save a single soul outside his family. The Spirit lifted him up, told him to simply carry on. Mr. Comfort confessed that this lack of results wore him down, and had pulled him, at one time period, unwittingly to preaching a man-centered Gospel—to get happier results. For that time he got lots of results—that was nice. The original numbers of people “saved” are higher that way, and there is less tension. People are happy to have Jesus take a turn at getting them out of the mess they’ve made of their lives. But--they are not clean from the wrath to come because we don’t tell them of the wrath to come. That was a glaring omission in his message. In the end, people should be asking what David, the Prodigal Son, and Joseph asked: How could they sin against God? After all, He is also a God of wrath, and we can’t just ignore that—it’s one of His personality traits. Real repentance is understanding that the great offense here is against God, not just “horizontal” repentance against your fellow man. Mr. Comfort calls this “horizontal only” approach “superficial and experimental.” The prospect should be seeking something called “godly sorrow” to obtain true repentance, an important element in salvation. As II Corinthians 7:10 says: …godly sorrow produces repentance. In evangelism nowadays, we are missing discussing sin against God.
We have preached the cure without telling them of the disease.
AB Earle, who had 150,000 converts to his ministry in the mid-1800s, made the following quote:
I have found by long experience that the severest threatenings of the Law of God has a prominent place in leading men to Christ. They must see themselves lost before they will cry for mercy; they will not escape danger until they see it.
Mr. Comfort has noticed that there are many people who have been “saved” several times, yet their lives don’t show change. They’re still fornicating, still blaspheming, and so on. What they’re doing is: Using the grace of God for an occasion of the flesh. They don’t esteem the sacrifice and don’t understand how great the sin. It means nothing to them to trample the blood of Christ underfoot. The problem is: They’ve never been convinced of the disease that they might appropriate the cure.
When you study the Word, you find that Biblical evangelism is always Law to the proud and grace to the humble. Never do you see Jesus giving the gospel to proud, arrogant, self-righteous people. With the Law, He breaks the hard heart and with the Gospel, He heals the broken heart. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. The proud and highly esteemed are an abomination to God (Luke 16:15). Note who gets the good tidings in Isaiah 61:1. The poor, the brokenhearted and the captives are those who are there spiritually:
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Only the sick can
appropriate a cure. In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus gave the lawyer Law. Why?
Because he was proud. Note v. 29
for that in part of the story below:
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” 29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves…(the rest of the story is of the Good Samaritan).
Jesus knew this Jewish lawyer
didn’t like Samaritans. Then the Master
Debater came to the climaxing point:
36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to
him who fell among the thieves?” 37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said
to him, “Go and do likewise.”
The lawyer had no response—he
could see his own lack of love, compared to this generous Samaritan. He could see that he was a
Commandment-breaker. The Law has done
its job again—stopped his mouth, maybe convinced him of sin.
Note that a similar event happens
when the rich young ruler visits Jesus.
We read of it in Luke 18:18-23:
Now
a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life?” 19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’
‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your
father and your mother.’ ” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my
youth.” 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and
distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow
Me.”23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for
he was very rich.
Again, Jesus did not begin with
the Gospel to this person. (Today, as soon as he asks, “what shall I do to
inherit eternal life?” we would engage him in a salvation prayer). But Jesus sees a proud person underneath (v.
21), who was not ready for the Gospel.
So in verse 20 the young ruler gets the Law—the “horizontal” part-- and is still convinced
that he has never missed a stroke (an advantage that only Jesus can
claim, really). Then Jesus slyly points out his
lack of the first commandment (Thou shall have no other gods before me) by
showing him that his real god is his money.
Once again, no argument.
In contrast, we see Nicodemus, in
John 3. While a leader of the Jews, he
was humble of heart, acknowledging the deity of Jesus (verse 2). He receives the Gospel, and perhaps the
greatest verse in His Word, John 3:16.
Consider also Nathanael, in John
1:47-51. In him was no deceit. Since that is a tool of the proud, he does
not have that quality. Plus, he
acknowledged the deity of Christ (v. 49).
Jesus gives him the honor of prophesying about Himself and His future
coming. Part of His glorious good news.
This kinder approach goes for the Jews who gathered on the day of Pentecost, in
Acts 2. These were devout (a word which
denotes humility) men, v. 5. What did
Peter preach to them? Not the Law, but
the Gospel. (But he doesn’t hesitate to
lay blame on them for His crucifixion, v. 36).
Think of two verses to the
great hymn, “At Calvary:”
Years I spent in vanity and pride, Caring not my Lord was crucified, Knowing not it was for me He died On Calvary. |
|
By
God’s Word at last my sin I learned; then I trembled at the law I’d spurned Till
my guilty soul imploring turned To Calvary.
May God bless you as you
search for His ways of presenting His precious Words to the lost in your environment. In the light of our first few paragraphs,
remember the saying: “Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
There is a lot of insanity
in evangelism these days.
Acknowledgement: Ray Comfort, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret," audio and book from Livingwaters.com.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)