Our Nation' Shame

 This article appeared in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.  This blog is short but not sweet.

“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.

Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder following a two-month trial in 2013, is currently serving a life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole. He was an abortion doctor based in Philadelphia, where state law prohibits the procedure beginning at 24 weeks gestational age. By his own admission, Dr. Gosnell regularly performed illegal late-term abortions, mostly on low-income minority women. In some cases he would induce labor, deliver live babies, and then kill them by snipping the backs of their necks with scissors.

Nick Searcy directed the film, based on a book of the same title by a married couple of investigative journalists from Ireland, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. In an essay last month, Mr. Searcy explained why he was drawn to the subject. “It is nearly impossible to find an adult person who does not have an opinion on the issue of abortion,” he wrote in National Review, “and yet how little we all know about it—how it is done, what the laws are surrounding it, how it is regulated, legislated, and practiced. I wanted to share that knowledge.”

Dr. Gosnell’s story may not change a single mind about abortion, yet the movie and book make an important contribution to a debate that continues to rage 45 years after Roe v. Wade. They offer a better understanding of what “abortion rights” mean in practice and a renewed appreciation of the tragic consequences that can result when politicians, public-health officials and the media put blind ideology ahead of basic human decency.

Dr. Gosnell had been performing illegal abortions for decades before law-enforcement officials stumbled upon him, and when they did, it was for reasons that had nothing to do with his abortion practice. In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern.

In their book, Ms. McElhinney and Mr. McAleer write that the Gosnell raid unveiled “a house of horrors.” The toilets were clogged with fetal remains.  Cupboards contained jars with the severed feet of infants inside. In refrigerators and freezers, detectives found more discarded fetuses stored in milk cartons, water jugs, cat-food containers and Minute Maid juice boxes with the tops cut off to make the openings larger. Later, authorities would discover that Dr. Gosnell employed “assistants”—who had no medical training and were paid under the table—to sedate patients, conduct ultrasounds and administer labor-inducing drugs.

Dr. Gosnell’s story becomes even more upsetting when you realize how much sooner he should have been caught. State inspectors visited the clinic three times between 1989 and 1993. Each time they discovered that no registered nurses were on staff, as the law requires, yet permitted him to continue providing abortions. After Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1994, the state Department of Health stopped all routine inspections of abortion clinics.

Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way.

Once Dr. Gosnell’s trial began in 2013, it was the national media’s turn to ignore him. Fox News gave the trial significant attention, but few other major outlets did the same. The liberal press knew the story would cast a negative light on abortion, and that concerned them much more than bringing to justice a doctor who committed infanticide and routinely risked the health of women.

Ultimately, social media shamed the press into covering the trial, and you won’t be shocked to find out that interest in the story hasn’t lasted. Some outlets have refused to run ads for the film, and almost all major publications have declined to review it. Which also helps explain why I had so little company on Friday.

Article by Jason L. Riley, October 16, 2018

Homosexuality's Current Arguments

  

H

This is a summary of a great sermon by Voddie Baucham, pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Houston, Texas.  This is on a delicate subject, homosexuality.   Those in favor of homosexuality have four arguments often used to debate Christians. His sermon is so logically done, I have summarized it in outline form.   

·         Their first argument we shall consider is that they say that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. They say, “Since you’re a Christian, you’re a follower of Christ, right?  Then why make a big deal out of something that Jesus never mentioned one time.”  Christians have typically had a weak response. Here’s your response: Jesus did address it!

a.   In Matthew chapters 5 and 19, when He talked about marriage. He referred to Genesis 2, when God established marriage was between a man and a woman—for the purposes of procreation, illustration (of God’s marriage to the church), and sanctification (to avoid promiscuity of the flesh). God is the author of marriage, not man; and God is the One who defines marriage, not man.  Therefore man does not have the right to introduce the concept of same-sex marriage.  Such a union is not marriage; it goes against God’s law in Genesis 2. 

b.   Jesus is a member of the Godhead.  There is one God who has existed eternally in three Persons—and all thoughts and actions of God’s members are in perfect unity. The point is, Jesus was there at Sodom and Gomorrah; He was raining down fire and brimstone.  Jesus is the author of Leviticus, which calls homosexuality an abomination (chapters 18 and 20).  In order to say that Jesus had no opinion on homosexuality, you have to argue that Jesus had a different opinion than the Father, who presumably authored the Bible with different doctrines than Jesus.  Or, He would have to change His doctrine, since the Bible is a revelation of His doctrine on its sinfulness. Either way, you’re talking about a breach in the Trinity—but such talk is heresy. 

c.   The Bible is one story, not many, and is all perfectly inspired (infallible), and has one goal. So if a book was written by Paul, it was written by God.  You cannot separate Jesus from the words given to Paul any more than you can separate Jesus from the Father or the Holy Spirit.  Those things written by Paul or Peter never disagree with Jesus’ teachings. So, what did Christ’s apostles teach?  Try Romans 1:26-27:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  

d.   You’re assuming that if Jesus didn’t speak on an issue, He approved of it.  A flawed assumption.  Jesus never spoke to the issue of pedophilia, either.  Are we supposed to believe that He approved of it?

·      Their second argument begins with a book.  Authored by Matthew Vines, called God and the Gay Christian.  He calls himself Reformed, evangelical, and an inerrantist (i.e. he believes that Scripture is without original error).  He seems to hold to a careful exegesis.  After all that, he supports monogamous same-sex relationships. He claims that there are only six Bible passages that have to be explained away for us to accept homosexuality.  His book is highly favored even among young thinking Christians, and his idea has risen to the point that this is lately the most popular argument they use against us, namely this: That the writers of the Bible were really addressing pederasty (popular in the Greek culture of the day), not homosexuality.   Pederasty is where heterosexual men had sex with boys (the depravity is sick; imagine how they ruined the sexuality of those poor boys). Supposedly Paul was supposedly saying, “How dare you heterosexual men engage in this practice, which only homosexual men should engage in.”  (Paul would have to be incredibly insensitive to the boys’ sexuality to say that!).  Your response:

a.   We question that any person was born with a homosexual orientation in the first place, so Paul wouldn’t have said that.  Today, however, even Christians increasingly accept that there IS such a thing as a “homosexual orientation,” or that a person can call himself a “homosexual.” They’re assuming there exists in some people an immutable biological characteristic. BUT, there is no portion of the brain, upon autopsy, that can be so named.  Nor in the genes. Nor in the pheromone study either. So where is their proof?  Mostly in the testimony of the young men and women; they say, “I’ve known since I was a small child…”  Wait a minute; kids don’t think about sex that way, they’re not sexually aware, not sexually developed.  That’s a lie—and we let people get away with saying it. 

i.    The Bible does not recognize such an orientation, either. I Corinthians 6 points out that people who practiced it, by God’s grace, lost it.  This cannot be done with someone who really has a permanent orientation. If that were the case, and you cannot make it go away, Scriptural advice would be to restrain, or channel it.  Think of how Paul addressed the issue of sex in young men.  Normal sex is of course an orientation.  Paul said because of the persecution of the day, they would ideally remain single; but because of their obvious needs (their orientation), he suggested they get married so as to channel it within marriage. He doesn’t suggest that they ask God to remove their natural sexual desires, their orientation. That would not work, in most cases.  But the point is, no Scripture reads that way when it comes to homosexuality.  It is simply called perversity. The thing behind it is a rebellion against God and past hatred against people—not a made-up orientation.

b.   Finally, if we approve homosexuality because it was their “orientation,” what do we do with the pedophile, who also asserts he has “always been that way?”  Do you want me to assume that’s his orientation, too? Then you’d have to accept him like you want us to accept the homosexual.  Gee, what if my orientation were violence?  I ‘get off’ on that.  So I beat my wife, but because it’s my ‘orientation,’

+you can’t judge me either. Or, let’s say my orientation is promiscuity.  As you can see, the logical extension of this argument is ludicrous--it opens the door to waves of immoral behavior. We supposedly should shrink back into the corner and say, “It’s a sin, except where we feel deeply that we are oriented this way.”  So, you get a pass; you don’t have to pay attention to the Bible on this. Supposedly.  Sin as you like; if God has a different meaning, bad news for you.

c.   Even if we find a homosexual gene, such an attitude of freedom from guilt that you want, is still sin because the Bible calls it sin, and that should be the end of Christian speculation.  Do not be guilty of putting a hole in the definition of sin that the sinner can do whatever without feeling shame or guilt—or the judgment of God.  What God calls sin, on the Day of Judgment, He judges as sin, and the sinner will suffer the consequences that go with it.  Our enlightened reasoning does not change the ultimate penalty.  Mr. Vines says there is only six passages of Scripture that have to be explained away to get us to agree with him.  A lie.  Every passage that deals with marriage, with sexuality, and there are close to a hundred, have to be considered to formulate a proper doctrine on this subject of homosexuality.  Mr. Vines seems too eager to excuse it.

d.   If, in Romans 1, for instance, all Paul was dealing with, supposedly, was pederasty, why does Paul bring lesbian practices into the picture, too, in Romans 1? That’s not pederasty.

e.   We conclude that God is not dealing with the topic of pederasty.

 

·         Their third argument of our paper:  The Beatles theology: “All you need is love.”  Since love is the overarching ethic of the New Testament, they argue, if a same-sex couple has love, it’s the height of the New Testament, and not wrong. Your answer: 

a.   When the Pharisees asked, “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?”  Now, know that the first four Commandments, the first table, express our vertical responsibilities to God; the fifth through the tenth express our horizontal obligation towards men. When Jesus replies that the greatest commandment is love towards God, in our heart, our soul, and our mind, that covers the first Commandment table.  Then when He says, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” that’s a summary of the second table of the Law.  Thus, when He was asked, “What’s the greatest commandment?”  He’s basically saying, ”I’m going to have to say ‘1 through 4, followed closely by 5 through 10.’”  But people carelessly read what He said and mistakenly go, “See?  He’s substituted love for law:  It’s love, not Law.”  But you need a different definition of love. Since His ‘love’ is a summary of the Law, as we have just shown, there is no war between love and the Law, as people imagine.  As Paul says in Romans 13:8, ‘love fulfills the Law.’ It is therefore a gross perversion that at homosexual marriages, some read I Corinthians 13, the Love chapter. But look at Romans 13:6:  “It (love) does not rejoice in wrongdoing…”  Thus, Biblical love must never encompass homosexuality because homosexuality is by definition wrongdoing in Scripture. Rejoicing in homosexuality is not love. 

·         Their final argument that we shall consider.  They accuse us of hypocrisy by asking “Why do you pick and choose?”  The take-off for this argument is a series, West Wing, in which a Christian woman was verbally ripped apart when she brought up the passages against homosexuality, mostly from the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).  The president sneers against her by saying, “I’m interested in selling my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7; oh, and my chief of staff insists on working on the Sabbath, but Exodus 35:2 says we should put him to death…” and such like.  As they’re not-so-subtly pointing out, she constantly talks about one area of the Law but ignores others—supposedly hypocrisy.

 

(By the way, we should consider that Hollywood always keeps one eye on its conservative advertisers; thus, for them to rip into the “Christian” like that means they are assuming that they can get away with it.  It is not a good statement on our society.  Pastor Baucham preached this sermon two years ago, and look what we have now! It is required, seemingly, to have a very nice gay person in every new series, Tommy, 911, FBI, etc etc—and it always helps to surrounded them by empathetic co-workers.  Never is Scripture discussed, of course).  TV is Ground Zero for the war to establish homosexuality.  It’s working, because in a 2014 survey (sorry I couldn’t get any up-to-date) done by Pew Research, adults, in total, who felt that homosexuality should be discouraged were only 31%; yet it was only slightly better among “Christians,” where a weak 38% felt homosexuality should be discouraged. (And that's not a good statement on "Christians.") In any event, pro-homosexual groups are actually marching their demonic soldiers into our ground, making an argument from Scripture in their favor! Keep in mind, here, that our goal in our defense is not just to win an argument on homosexuality; we want to bring the Gospel to them.  So, here is your reply.

a.   First, you cast a bait--you quote Leviticus 18:22 among your scoffing co-workers:  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Assume they will then jump and accuse us of “picking and choosing” what Law to abide, what to ignore—and accuse us of being a hypocrite.  They think that they can win this argument, but actually you have suckered them into a Biblical discussion.  Here is what you say then:  first, knock them down off their moral high horse. You say “Everyone picks and chooses. You have chosen to ignore Scripture on Leviticus 18, but how do you feel on Leviticus 19:11, which says: ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.  Or, how about verse 13?  ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. You would agree with those verses, right? You would pick with me on those, but do not choose on other verses in Leviticus 18 against homosexuality.  So you do the same thing you accuse me of doing, picking and choosing.

 

The fact is, you did not invent those ideas (about stealing or lying) of what’s moral; the Bible did.  So the Bible has shaped your morality, whether you know it or not. You can, if you wish, claim the Bible is not authoritative—but if you say that, that means you no longer believe that lying is wrong, that robbery is wrong, etc.  This is what you’d have to do if you don’t want your morality to be lined up with Leviticus. 

b.   Now you say to them:  “There is a difference between your picking and choosing and my picking and choosing.  You probably don’t know why you pick and choose.  But here’s why I do it”:  With only a small amount of hermeneutics, you could explain that there are three different types of Law.  Moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law.  Moral law is the one that transcends time and culture—they’re still true for all people in all places, and in all time. The civil law was given to Israel to have them function as a culture.  That was limited to their culture at that time; it does not transcend to us.  The ceremonial law taught Israel how to worship; those things cannot be brought over to us either. (But they are good for teaching symbols in the Old Testament--there are many symbols in Passover that prophesy Jesus' death at Crucifixion). But do not perform a ceremonial law: Here's an example of why:  Since Jesus was our once-for-all sacrifice for sin, there is no need to see His sacrifice re-lived over every week, such as the Catholic priests do.  It would be heretical for a Christian to offer weekly sacrifices for sin, since it would be a denial that He has paid the full price for our sin.”  

c.   Quote I Timothy 1:8-11:  But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ¹⁰ for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹ according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.  Reader, did you notice that Paul is listing Commandments 1-9, in order, in those verses? Note, therefore, that the Law is called “sound doctrine.” This is proof that the moral Law in Leviticus is applicable for today’s New Testament Christian.  Also note, based on the underlined, that homosexuality is condemned within that Law.  Therefore it is also part of the ethics of our New Testament life.  Thus a ban on homosexuality is consistent with the morality and ethics of the Ten Commandments, as Paul (or, really, God) is saying. Remember that Mr. Vines claimed that there were only six problem passages to get past to accept homosexuality?  Uh, this isn’t one of the 6, but it also gets in his way.  Vines doesn’t consider the Ten Commandments.  In reality, when you consider what we’ve gone over—Jesus’ comments on marriage, this passage, and so forth; there are double, triple obstacles for Mr. Vine to worry about.  He will be buried under the contrary weight of evidence, folks. 

d.   We can’t win the scoffer’s love by knocking him off his high horse and then educating him on hermeneutics, etc.  Remember, we’re not in this to win an argument.  We must win his soul for the Lord. We do that by getting off the moral high horse that we just built for ourselves. Offer him a face-saving, truthful testimony of your life. You want to include, “You know why this is important to me? I know that I am a hypocrite.  I’m a sinner in need of a Savior. Left to my own devices, I would live in hypocrisy.  I am in need of a moral standard outside of myself. Otherwise, I would consider things that I approve of as being “moral” and things that I disapprove of as being “immoral.”  I would become a law unto myself.  So I need to search objectively for what God says is righteous or unrighteous.  Because I’ve admitted that to God, He will have mercy—and I trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, Who kept the whole Law where I could not.  He could then impute to me His righteousness, and He was willing to take on the penalty of sin that I owed.  I cannot stand before you “holier-than-thou” because my salvation was obtained by the blood of the Lamb, Who laid down His life for sinners such as me.  He is my only hope to stand before God as justified one day.  My conversation with you is just one beggar telling another beggar telling him where he found bread.” With such words you might win the scoffer’s soul and achieve the greatest win you can—a soul for the Lord!

Differences in Our Doctrine vs the Early Church (Part 2 of 2)

 In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s lifestyle—and the power God gave them that enabled many souls to saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher lifestyles:

First, They believed that obedience to Jesus' commands is essential to be called “saved.”

Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:

Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.

Many today would say, if you believe this, you are not understanding “God's unconditional grace.” But all the early church fathers said the same thing as Justin Martyr. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4 for Biblical proof:

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to follow the commandments of Christ. Thus they were fixed on the clear relationship between love and obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:

Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity....

"Wait," you say. "Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? I thought grace means we don't have to worry about the Law.  Is strict obedience that necessary?"  If you are thinking that...maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?

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

Is that verse really covered in sermons? Not in most churches. Many of them assume that with the Holy Spirit, making righteous decisions will just kind of grow on you, without intentionality.

In summary, the modern view is so weak on "casting away unrighteousness and iniquity," so fearful to talk about the details of sin that seduces us, that the gospel that will truly save us is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continual disobedience.  We get divorces, we have sex outside of marriage, without even thinking about God, just for two examples.

Second apostolic doctrine we differ: They believed on stressing, and giving,  real kindness to the poor; related to that, they believed that riches are a trap.

Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate and gave them away when he got saved (this was before the Catholics demanded it of certain groups):
 
The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing (from their faith) when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says "..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me."  If rich men did this, they would not (eternally) perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.

Did you note that riches are called "a domestic enemy and an assailant?"  (An assailant of our eternal souls).  It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he thinks wealth is bad." Well, that's the point--piling up riches, thinking about them, are not his goal.  Riches got in the way of his calling for Christ..  Cyprian's thoughts are not weird; they are rational, actually.  For proof, what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The desire to be rich is called a "temptation and a snare."  When was the last time you thought about wealth like that?  Only because the world trained us not to.  The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures and obeyed it.  No questions asked:  God's rules are best for me, so I do what He wants. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” He also said, in the Sower parable, riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: "Judgement is on you, poor guys; most of you are going to hell." What did He say about rich people and heaven?  It was almost impossible for the wealthy to get to heaven.

If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, we will obey His command (part of salvation, see above), and give more away to the poor, and many lives of the givers could be saved instead of dying and waking up surprised on the wrong side of eternity. Obviously that means buying only what we truly "need," if you can re-define the word "need" properly.

Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your abundance of material possessions means that you have more faith in God. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? False doctrine often flips totally upside down--you have to know what Jesus says to see it as false. But we "like" false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.

Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:

How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed., her dress could seduces a man, he engages in sexual immorality). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.

You perhaps assume Tertullian is blaming women for exciting lust in men.  In today's #MeToo, this idea is heresy.  Well, set the current culture aside--is it not sometimes true?  Actually, few women can plead ignorance when they show off every curve in their body.  They want to appear sexy, to make the men pleased with them.  Please, I'm not recommending burqas for every woman.  I'm simply saying, if she repeatedly starts a fire, she can expect to at some point be burned.  Another thing worth mentioning:  her dressing that way stirs up lust, and she needs to realize that it's as bad for the man to do that as the adultery itself. That's his sin, but she was, shall we say, conspiratorial.  I should definitely mention:  Men are also guilty of dressing to appeal to sex.  Observe what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Just in case you were thinking that the man's lust should not be equated to adultery, I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter.  In any event, we, today, don't seem to be worried about this problem (like our lack of concern about porn), but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word, and to call attention to the sexual problem.  Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, (the real measure of morals), in I Timothy 2:9, 10:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety (propriety and moderation, today's definition, NKJV); not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wants modesty, ladies AND MEN--let’s do modesty--with gusto. I didn't say, your color scheme has to be all grays and whites.  The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, for Him and for each other, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men didn't let their minds wander so much. Wouldn’t it be an act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And how about if our goal, ladies, is NOT wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s an undesirable goal to achieve in your dressing up for work or school. 

We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and kill another to save their life. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” In the earliest churches, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 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…

Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones (my source for this blog), and particularly David Bercot (source for many of my blogs), believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the earliest church believed for the more likely correct answer between the two. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences and questions despite our sincere reading.  The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:

1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.

2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:

How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.

Thus, when two opposite doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one. The Early church fathers probably had a better handle on truth.  And truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim he is correct when his "eureka" is 1500 years after doctrines have been grounded by the early church fathers. They had attacks on doctrine in those days, and orthodoxy had stood the test of time.  And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years after it? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you means you would be "uncool," on a different path than most of today’s culture? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, on earth, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”

3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.

Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998

Differences Between Our Doctrine and the Early Christian Doctrine (Part 1 of 2)

The Church is fragmented into hundreds of different sects and groups, so much so as to say, “There sure is an awful lot of interpretation of this Book out there.” Can any of these groups say for sure that “We don’t have the ability to be deceived, or come to a wrong doctrinal conclusion”? We should be humble enough to bow and pray, and say, “God, show me Your truth!” If we really do that, we would gradually unify, which is what Jesus wants.  Unfortunately, we naturally think our view of theology is right, and everybody should think like us.

If people are really looking for the real Christian church, and its theology, they should look again at the lifestyles and words of the new Christians in the book of Acts. The Kingdom of God was so irresistible, so radical, that the church left people with only two choices when it confronted them:   Either join us, or persecute us. There was no neutral ground.  Just like Jesus said, You’re either my friend, or you’re my enemy. There’s no “gray area” with Christ. The Church, in Acts—it will make your heart pound when you read it. When you read it, don’t you have a longing in your heart to see church today like that? When you look at the radical nature of what God is doing through them, does it ever make your heart burn? Let’s examine their actions in the Word.

Acts 2:41-47: 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.

Acts 4:29-35: Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

Acts 5:12-16: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 8:35-39: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Acts 9:32-35: Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. 33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately. 35 So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

Acts 14:8-10: And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.

Acts 16:25-31: But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 20:7-11: Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.

What keeps such an "on fire" church from happening in America now? Jesus might answer by saying, Do we really want to meet Him on His terms? The problem is,  We don’t have their dedication. Are we hungry enough to get together and pray for ten days straight, as they did? If anyone in the church is lacking, would we give up our food, would we all fast to feed them? Would we give up all of our material possessions to the group to meet those in need—do we have a heart to give like that?

Also, could it be that the reason for this difference between us and them is that our interpretation of doctrine is different than theirs? After all, doctrine and lifestyle should go hand in hand. Doctrine is useless unless it transforms your life. You can think you believe something, but let's ask: Do you believe that the majority of people are on their way to hell? (It's true, Matt. 7:13-14).  Do you believe that there are many people deceived to think that they are on their way to heaven--but they are not (the rest of Matthew 7)?  To the extent that you actually believe that, you will intercede for the lost, your heart will break when you see people that don’t know the Lord, you’ll plead with people, or write a letter to a beloved, distant aunt that doesn’t know Him. You’ll be down on your knees often.

To the extent that you truly believe in something, it changes your life.

Did you ever ask:  What was it that the apostles believed that made their lives so radical? Let’s spend some time reading the writings of the early church fathers, whose lifestyles were the closest to the apostles. Remember, they were simple men.  And remember, they consulted no commentary.  They didn’t have to fool with interpreting Greek—they spoke it, they knew it intimately.

Here is an example of their lifestyle, as described by witnesses.  This is 125 AD,

First, from a new believer about his local congregation:  They do not bear false witness; nor do they covet what is not theirs. They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends.

Their women are pure as virgins and their daughters are modest; their men keep themselves from all unlawful unions and uncleanness. They go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. They love one another. They deliver their widows and orphans from those who would treat them harshly. He who has, gives to him who has not. They fast two or three days to supply the necessary food for the needy.  They follow the commands of their Christ justly and seriously. Every morning and every hour they give thanks to God for His lovingkindness to them. If any righteous man passes from this world, they rejoice and give thanks to God.

Now from a non-believer; his sarcasm means the local church is a good witness:

They despise the temples, as dead houses; they reject the gods. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. Oh, wondrous folly…They despise present torments, although they fear those which are future. They fear to die after death, but they do not fear to die for the present. The larger portion are in want, are cold, are laboring in hard work or hunger. And God allows it. You do not visit exhibitions; you reject public banquets and abhor sacred contests…you assume you will rise again but refuse to live in the meanwhile. Cease from prying into the destinies of the sky. What is wrong with you?

Could the church of America be accused of having such a witness statement? No, frankly. The church today, in fact, is more complacent and worldly and too often accused of hypocrisy. And, mostly, of lukewarmness. The early church had a Holy Spirit-touched lifestyle. They won souls, they turned the world upside down. The secret was in their doctrine. It was different than ours.

NEXT WEEK: So What are the Three Doctrines the Early Church Had That Have Been Radically Changed in Today’s Church That Made Us Weaker?

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, “A New Kind of Christian?” CD, Scroll Publishing

Why Will Jesus Reject Some "Christians" for Heaven? The Answers May Surprise You

 Jesus spoke many parables. A parable is defined as a story, the object of which is to learn a spiritual lesson. This narrative is of a physical story, but the hearer or reader has to make the analogy to learn the spiritual lesson. Jesus used it often in a crafty way; He wanted to point out the deficiencies of the Jewish spiritual leaders without pointing His finger directly at them. In their guilt, they knew He was talking of them, but they needed real proof to take His life.   I think parables added some time to His life. He was allowed to speak freely; He was “lucky” (but there is no such thing as luck to God's plan, right?) to have lasted over 3 years before they had Him silenced --but only for a little while, right?

One group of parables is called Kingdom parables. When you read them over, you see three basic themes dominate them. We can learn much, and they have to do with how to get to heaven—so let’s study on.

Theme #1: God’s Kingdom Would Start Out Tiny, then Grow in Number Around the World as the number of saved souls increased.

Demonstrated In: Mustard Seed, Matthew 13:31-32
                             Leaven, Matthew 13:33

Example: Matthew 13:31-32: Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

A mustard seed is really tiny. Yet it becomes a tree. God's church, His Kingdom, will start out tiny, but grow huge. This parable is also a prophecy when He delivers it, and that prophecy has come to glorious truth. There are believers all over the globe (as I have found from my readers!).

A possible argument that our opposition could make about this parable: How do you reconcile the huge number of believers this is speaking of, with Jesus’ comments 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. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

So, the argument goes--how large in number are the Kingdom residents? A huge number, as I just suggested, or "few" that are in His church (as 7:14 suggests)? Well, it could be both. It has been agreed upon by several scientists who should know, that 100 billion people have ever lived. As my earlier blog (Most Americans Are Not Saved) points out, “few” might be 6-7%. But 7% of 100 billion is 7 billion. Seven billion in heaven!  That’s “few” of everybody—but a lot of people, too.

Theme #2: Many Who Start Out As Believers Get Rejected in Final Judgment

Since Jesus has no less than 8 parables on this subject, it is obviously important. I believe, in fact, that most people are deceived on this subject.  They believe that once they are saved, they don't have to worry about it.  But in the parables listed below, Jesus makes it crystal clear why many “believers” get rejected. They were NOT rejected because “they were not saved to begin with,” or “they trusted in their own righteousness instead of God’s imputed righteousness.” Since it's possible that we have been deceived without realizing it, and even where we spend our eternity is at stake, heaven or hell, let’s keep our minds open, and seek the real reason why they were rejected, so we can avoid such tragedy.

Demonstrated in: Parable of the Vine, John 15:1-10
Sower, Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23
Wedding feast, Matthew 22:1-14
Five foolish and five wise virgins, Matthew 25:1-13
The faithful and wise servant, Matthew 24:45-51
Talents, Matthew 25:14-28
Separating the Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:31-46
Houses built on the Rock and Sand, Matthew 7:21-27

I picked three of the above:

Example #1, the Vine: John 15:1-10: “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 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. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

These are some of the best Words from Jesus in the New Testament, aside from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is the Vine; some of us become His branches (when we were saved). We derive (eternal) life by staying attached to Him, and getting our nourishment from Him.  True, these verses don’t say how to get on the Vine in the first place, the initial salvation (it takes repentance and faith, explained elsewhere in Scripture).   But these parables, from the lips of Truth, Jesus Christ, do a wonderful job of explaining the second part--how do I live the rest of my life?  That part, and I cannot stress this strongly enough, determines whether you end with salvation. (You realize I'm saying you can lose your salvation).  You need both (initial and final) salvation to get to heaven--sticking to to Jesus brings that about. As these verses clearly show, to finally get to heaven, and not be tossed out as withered and dead, we must abide in Christ--and bear fruit.  Bearing fruit is crucial, since the verses above says we must bear fruit for final salvation. If we don’t abide in Christ, we are “cast out,” we are “withered,” we are thrown into the fire, and we burn. An obvious reference to hell. The word “abide,” in the Greek, is defined as “continue, remain, tarry.” It suggests a relationship of bonding which we seek with our Savior.  We pursue with intentionality to get to really know Him.  Since by His death in our place, He gave us heaven instead of hell for eternity, we see the love He had for humanity, and we owe all of our lives to Him. He also gave us ways to keep from sinning in the present life, which few people pay enough attention to. If we want to stay in an abiding relationship, we build, by voluntary acts, a great desire to find out and obey His commandments, His commandments, though the world calls "restrictive," are the best path for our life. We get help from the Holy Spirit to obey Him, and abide in Him.  Beside the requirement to obey His commandments, we must produce fruit. The word “fruit” might be best explained by Galatians 5:22-24:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

This theological concept of initial and final salvation seems revolutionary, since it's seldom preached on, but it's in Scripture, where it is set forth plainly, and the earliest Christians saw the connection (see my blog, “Initial and Final Salvation”).  This is not Catholic, not really Protestant either.  Protestant Reformers like Luther didn’t get it; he spent most of his time trying to be the opposite of the Catholics. If they said “works are big,” he had to say “no works, grace.” I don’t deny grace. It is all grace for God to pay any attention to us sinful creatures. Catholics distorted their idea of works (they say a relationship with Christ is not necessary; just say your rosary, attend Mass, Confession, etc). But Protestant Reformers also distorted grace (they say a relationship with Christ is not necessary; just accept Him, and you are saved forever, through His unconditional grace, whether you sin little or a lot). Both these theologies are lies, and put you in danger of hell.  The real truth is, a relationship with Christ IS NECESSARY to be saved, as Scripture clearly points out. That required abiding, that relationship will start out weak, of course, but then it bears a little fruit, that gets pruned, so it starts to grow more each year. We gradually learn to obey Him and love the world and its idolatries hardly at all, and Him more.

Example #2,Sheep and Goats: Matthew 25:31-46: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So the issue for final salvation is not a theologically proper definition of grace, but Jesus is asking, simply, “What did you do with your life? Did you love your fellow man? Did you care for the poor and the sick?” Caring for the poor, and loving, being merciful and forgiving, are commandments and fruits. But these rules for life we break frequently.  The most serious commandments are broken by "Christians" without a thought of the danger of doing so.  For instance, Scripture speaks clearly that God hates divorce; Scripture shows that it frequently brings on sexual sin, and it hurts the children, (though they deny it).  But "Christians" still divorce, or accept it in others, at the same rate as the pagan world.  They have nary a thought of their God's offense or anger. I NEED to be happy, they say.  But God's commandments are the way to happiness.  If we don't trust that, then that shows we do not abide in Him.   You may have had a theology that encourages you to feel "secure" after you had your moment with Christ.  Since you "accepted Him," Church members don't dwell on penetrating questions about your honest sin; they often merely encourage you to go to church, it's OK to commit a few "bad judgment calls," and so you can assume you're Christian and saved--yet in eternity, many are shocked as Jesus rejects them, and they go to hell. Just like in this parable, designed to show who is saved and who isn't, Jesus will ask:  Did you give money to feed the poor, when you had monumental savings and plenty of income? Giving to your church might not satisfy that requirement, because less than 10% of what you give to church goes to poor.  You need to give some to organizations outside the church.  Such a sin of a refusal to give proportional, would be called a sin of omission (vs. sins of commission such as stealing, murder, etc).  Few people even think about sins of omission. Lots of "Christians" might assume poor people are just lazy, and they don't think twice about what Jesus is saying above about the goats.  They seldom apply Scripture to themselves.  Are they assured of heaven?  These verses say no; they're the goats that go to eternal fire.

Example #3, Rock or Sand: Matthew 7:21-27: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

As anyone can read, hearing His commandments and DOING them is building a foundation of rock, and keeps our spiritual house together.  But hearing and NOT DOING, no matter how much “service” you do at church, you are headed for spiritual rejection. We must “do the will” of our Father. For instance, we like to have a large savings account, so we can control our lives, not God--and so we can covet material things of the world.  Such an immature approach means we have no clue how His Spirit moves us; so when a huge decision is to be made, we go by our feelings, and tell everyone that the Spirit is leading us.  It’s the same theme: Having been saved, then consciously doing His commandments gets you on God’s “good side” in judgment. Saying a prayer and accepting Him, no matter how sincere, might get you initial salvation; but follow through is necessary. It will mean nothing if you don’t persevere in a relationship with Him as well. Living your life as you wish and ignoring God’s desire for relationship and His will for you puts you back on the road to hell. Sounds like a "works" salvation, but we believe that the Holy Spirit will give you the grace you need to obey Him.  And don't tag something with a name without thinking seriously about what God's Word is saying.

For a little more proof, I cite John 5:28-29:

28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

This is what Jesus preached; since you can lose initial salvation through no fruit, no obedience when the chips are down, final decision is made on faith and follow up, doing His will, versus who has ignored His commandments through commission or omission.

Maybe this idea is different from what you hear at church: But are you willing to ignore this blog, well-proven through Scripture?  Are you going to possibly twist the obvious meaning of these parables? Or are you going to say, "It looks too dense for me.  Pastor will explain."  But pastor won't save you.  It looks clear: “Doing good” gets you final salvation: the resurrection of life. (PS: Don’t forget initial salvation—you won’t produce fruit without His Spirit’s guidance; abiding in Him). If this seems to disagree with what Paul seems to say about ignoring the law (especially in Romans and Galatians), you need to keep context in view.  The apostles had to deal with Judaizers—new Jewish Christians who wanted us to keep all their man-made laws to be saved. “Let’s get all the male believers circumcised, too,” they said. “They have to follow the law of Moses to be saved.” That’s what Paul couldn’t stomach. He didn’t want us to just follow (Jewish civil or food) laws; he wanted us to have a relationship with Jesus. (I have other blogs on “Paul vs. James” on this subject.

Theme #3: God’s Kingdom People Would Have Non-Believers Among Them; Let God Weed Them Out at Final Judgment

Demonstrated in: Wheat and Weeds (tares), Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43
                             Dragnet, Matthew 13:47-50

In the interest of space, we only comment on one.

Example: Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43: Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”…(ed, now speaking only to disciples) “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

In His kingdom, defined as the real church, they have meetings of worship.  But in every one of those meetings, there will be fakers and there will be sincere. That's the way Satan plans; wheat and weeds together--saved and unsaved people. Suppose we take my above words to heart, and we want to find out if Others are doing the kinds of things that show they're saved?  Then we want to remove the tares (supposed Christians who show no fruit) from the assembly.  But can we tell who is a genuine Christian? Many Scriptures says we can't.  Since church is supposed to be for saved people, does that give us the right to watch every move people make, every word they say?  Having a "case" against someone, shall we remove anyone that seems to be unsaved?  So does church mean casting judgmental eyes about?

Jesus said, in these verses, Don't worry about all that; the angels will pull out “those who practice lawlessness.” Elsewhere He says to focus only on our sins, "pull out the plank" in our eye, vs. focusing on others.  Things like the Spanish Inquisitions or the Salem witch trials usually come out of "judging." Thus, it's clear that we are to let everyone attend who wants to attend.  Let's let Jesus do the deciding, in the last days. Let’s love the foot-draggers among us and encourage them to do better; and let us build His church missions accordingly. It may go slower, but it’s a good test of love. I’m not saying, forget church discipline. If these people's purposes are stirring up division or they are in active gross sin, we should remove them.

Well, think awhile on these important parables. Don’t twist them to meet your previous theology. Don’t ignore them, thinking them too hard to understand with their couched language. As you can see above, Jesus’ language is really quite clear. We often just don’t like what He’s saying.

Acknowledgement: David Bercot CD, “Kingdom Parables,” Scroll Publishing