The Spirit of Christ and Liberalism

As a result of an article I wrote in the past, I was accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage, and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied that I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ.

There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of sin and righteousness. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30).

It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him, love him, and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway, and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really!

Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore, in the next few verses, he warns those cities of what lies ahead on the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example, he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum, which he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV)

When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach, what were they sent to preach? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state, unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father.

In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts, by Peter's preaching, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens, Luke records Paul's preaching there, saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV)

But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you can live a life based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe.

For them to be right about Paul, several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17).

(2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles, recorded by Luke, then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history, then what about the book of Luke itself? Why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books.

(3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit, then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ, his detractors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles, as well as Peter's and all of Paul's, and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How?

Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John, how can we believe the things John wrote, for he might have been deceived about those things as well.

Furthermore, if this James, who is mentioned in Gal. 2:9, is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James, then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings, as well as John's, then come into question. I guess, of course, one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians, but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.

You do see, do you not, where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it.

This liberal crowd that wants to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV)

Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God, thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage, and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ, for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation.

Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc., because it would be intolerant not to be, and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They do not believe what their eyes read. They claim Christ is on their side, and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern-day liberal?

Now, how about the spirit of Christ in his own being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First, let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)

Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Finally, in Rom. 5:19, Paul speaking of Jesus said, "So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (NKJV) One cannot obey unless one has something to obey, a commandment.

Now I ask again, after quoting these passages, was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience? Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed), is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it, that is, in fact, unloving? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that?

Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about sin and righteousness than God does, as long as I believe my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

When Did Obedience Become Legalism

We seem to be living in a time in the present Christian era where people seem to feel that all that matters in Christianity is love and God’s grace, when obedience is seen as legalism, and where it is felt that people do not have to obey biblical commands for salvation except, of course, for the command to believe in Jesus as the Savior.

Grace is made cheap. Live as you like, call yourself a Christian, and God’s grace will cover you. It is said it is what is in the heart, generally defined as the emotions, that counts. Feelings and emotions are defined as love for God. God’s grace will cover a life of sin just so a person believes in God in some abstract sense. I might add if you doubt this just attend a few funerals and see if you can learn of any deceased who are not already in heaven based on the conversations you hear and the preaching that is done there.

People talk about love for God all the time. It is in their heart (their emotions). Yet, quote a passage to them like 1 John 5:2-3, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (NKJV) and you immediately have problems for that is not what they want to hear. It is not how they want love defined. Love is emotion, not obedience, in their way of looking at things.

In 1 Cor. 13 we have Paul discussing love in verses 4-8. In verse 6 of that chapter he says love “does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth.” (NKJV) Iniquity is the opposite of obedience. One can no more join love with iniquity than he can a lamb with a lion. But we have come to believe God’s grace covers everything and obedience is not necessary. We now accept iniquity because we are no longer willing to accept the Bible as the standard of authority for what is holy and right versus what is wrong.

To condemn sin as did John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus is today seen to be unloving, intolerant, and judgmental, and thus unchristian in the minds of many. Yet, in the New Testament, Paul by the Holy Spirit, commanded Timothy to reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2 NAS) and not go along with or hold his silence in the presence of men sinning. Titus was told not only to rebuke but to do so sharply (Titus 2:13, see also Titus 2:15). The Ephesians were told, thus meaning it is applicable to us as well, to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Eph. 5:11 ESV) But today that is seen as sticking your nose in where it does not belong and we are no longer to call anything short of murder, rape, or robbery and such like as sin.

Yes, obedience to Bible standards of conduct (commands) is now seen as legalism. Sin is renamed and given polite names or, as is often the case, simply dropped off the radar altogether. Fornication is an example of a sin that has dropped off the radar screen and out of sight. Hardly anyone takes it to be a sin today. It is commonly expected that just about every young person is going to engage in it and certainly every unmarried adult. It is just taken for granted as being a normal part of society and not a serious sin at all. What happened to the Bible?

Homosexuality has disappeared from the American consciousness as sinful. The majority approve of it and applaud it and gay marriage. To those who object we speak of their intolerance and hate. We call it a civil right. However, the Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” (Isa 5:20 NJKV) And surely, those who read this know the New Testament condemns homosexuality. If not, read 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

Adulterous marriages are celebrated as God-approved despite the Bible’s teaching on adultery. This listing of sins could go on almost endlessly, sins that in our culture are no longer considered sinful despite what the Bible teaches. Sin is no longer considered a serious thing in our culture.

The religiously liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) say God loves all men (true) so we say we can rejoice in Christian fellowship with those actively practicing these and other sins--no repentance required. Of course, in doing so we destroy the Bible as written but the national desire today is to abandon the Bible altogether as a standard and make our own Bible even if unwritten.

The way we do that is by making the Bible we have mean anything we want it to mean and abandon all rational exegesis. We simply say it does not mean what it seems to say. It means what we say it means, not what it says. In that, we are much like the Catholics who say Jesus was the only child Mary ever had. Of course, all our conclusions are based on love, love the way we, not God, define it. We are perverting the faith and making up our own religion as did the Jews of Jesus’ day. They were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3 NKJV) and we seem to be doing the same thing.

Jesus said, “But why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46 NKJV) Does anyone have an answer? Love means obedience and obedience, despite the cry to the contrary, is not legalism.

Did you ever give it thought that if obedience is legalism Jesus was the biggest legalist of all time? He kept every commandment and never sinned once. He said, “I always do those things that please him.” (John 8:29 NKJV) He was obedient to death (Phil. 2:8). He was the only one who ever kept the law of God perfectly, obedient in every detail.

Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, not once. He condemned them for hypocrisy, for not keeping the law, for making commandments and adding them to God’s word and making them of equal force with God’s word binding them on men. We often today say they were legalists and I do not object to that designation of them but I add this for clarification--their legalism was not for God’s law but for the law they had made and added to his law.

Jesus said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:19 NKJV)

Yes, in the passage just quoted Jesus was speaking to an audience who were living under the Law of Moses but where, oh where, have people come up with this modern-day idea that Jesus just does not care about obedience anymore? Put another way, or phrased another way, what has happened to sin? When did it go out of existence? But that is where we are today and it is an idea that is fairly prevalent among a significant number of people who consider themselves to be Christians.

I give people credit in a place where perhaps some others would not. Some would say we have come to this place because people today are just ignorant of God’s word. Well, there is truth in that for sure but why is it so? Is there a shortage of Bibles? No, that is not it. There is a lack of will to read them--that is for sure. And there is a lack of a will to believe them and obey them. Peter said there was such a thing as people who are “willingly…ignorant.” (2 Peter 3:5 KJV) If we do not read and study how can we keep from falling into the category of those who are willingly ignorant?

But, as I said, I am more inclined to give people credit in the knowledge department than some others believing for the most part, people do know right from wrong. I believe the cry “legalism” against the teaching of obedience is in reality a smoke screen to cover up and make an excuse for a life lived for self, a worldly life. It is my life and I want to live it the way I want to. The claim of being saved solely by love and God’s grace provides the cover one needs for such a life to legitimize it before the public.

We all tend to try and hide the wrong we know we are doing and one of the best ways (?) of doing that is to legitimize it--get everyone else to think what we are doing is not wrong. Hey, everybody else is doing it--right? How can it be wrong then? The Pharisees of Jesus’ time were full of sin and yet to the general public they appeared to be righteous. “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men.” (Matt. 23:28 NKJV) They had gotten the people of their day to swallow their religion with all the additions and man-made commandments they had made.

The standard for a righteous man has been so lowered over the years that in the public’s eyes even if you have not worshipped the Lord in a regular assembly of the saints for the past 20 years you are still headed straight to heaven just so you are a believer.

If you had the opportunity to get a hold of an old church roll book from say 100 years ago you would probably be shocked as you would see notations made in the margins of people being withdrawn from as per 2 Thess. 3:6, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (NKJV)

Since we today have decided what love is and have taken it out of God’s hands it is no longer considered to be an act of love to withdraw from sinners who will not repent even though the purpose was “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Cor. 5:5 NKJV) That is about as noble and as loving a reason as one could have and yet today if we were to practice discipline in the church by withdrawing fellowship from those living in sin and who will not repent it would be considered unloving and unchristian even though an inspired apostle commanded it. It would be considered legalism gone wild. Have we made our own religion as did the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers of Jesus’ day?

It is getting very hard to be a preacher today unless you do not mind going along with the crowd. The trouble is the crowd is heading to a hot, hot spot and the preacher will be going with them if he does not preach against sin. The preacher is to preach the truth and support it, not go along with the crowd.

My whole point in this article is how we have come to the point in faith where the faith we have is no longer associated with obedience and obedience is now seen as legalism. The truth is disobedience is sin. Obedience is faithfulness. There are far worse things that can happen to a man than to be called a legalist by one who does not want to obey.

“And having been perfected (Jesus-DS), he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)

“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.” (Matt. 7:21 NKJV) Do you want to be like Jesus? If so start condemning sin and be obedient. You will not be working your way to heaven in doing so. You will simply be an obedient Christian, not a disobedient one. Of the two whom do you think will receive God’s grace on the last day?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

King Saul--As Long As It Glorifies God

We read in Rom. 15:4, “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (NKJV)  The NIV translates the first part of that verse as follows, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us.”

Paul, the writer, had reference to the writings found in the Old Testament when he made that statement.  As we read the Old Testament we need to be thinking what is in this passage or account that I am reading that is a lesson for me today?  What is in it for my learning?  We should never read the Old Testament just as history but rather as history that is meant to teach and leave lessons for those of us today.

Every Bible student who has been a student any length of time is aware of Samuel’s encounter with King Saul as Saul returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites.  Saul had been commanded by God through Samuel to go and put to death every living Amalekite and to destroy everything they had. (1 Sam. 15:3)  He disobeyed sparing the life of King Agag, king of the Amalekites, and the best of the livestock bringing them back to Israel. (1 Sam. 15:9)  Samuel in his meeting with Saul utters the famous statement I here quote:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?  Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he also has rejected you from being king.” (1 Sam. 15:22-23 NKJV)

The word “stubbornness” found in the NKJV here is an interesting word.  In the ESV and NET translations the Greek word is translated as “presumption,” as “insolence” in the LITV, “insubordination” in the NAS, and “arrogance” in the NIV.  The meaning seems to be that Saul was determined to do his will rather than God’s.  Would he dare do it?  He did but why?  Surely he had some fear of God.

It seems Saul had the same idea many men have today who believe they are pleasing God all the while being disobedient to his word.  They consider themselves godly men and would defend themselves as Saul did before Samuel; at least he did as long as he could. (1 Sam. 15:20-21)  The idea is prevalent today that we can do whatever we want to in our Christian work and worship just so we give glory to God, or as some might say as long as God receives the glory.

That was exactly the case with King Saul.  God said to destroy all these animals but Saul’s thinking is we will take the best back and sacrifice them to God back in Israel.  He will receive glory in our doing so; he will be pleased.  There is arrogance, presumption, insolence, call it what you will, in that kind of thinking.  We will disobey God to please him.  Sounds ridiculous does it not but that is the way much of Christendom thinks today, just like King Saul.

The Bible could not be any clearer than it is on the subject of homosexuality as all know but we presume to know more than God about it and think he will be pleased when we condone it and receive into fellowship the unrepentant individual practicing it as long as we say “he is in a committed relationship.”  We see ourselves as showing love and thus God must surely be pleased with our actions.  Since our motivation is good, as was Saul’s, we can disobey God and he will be pleased.

Paul’s teaching on women preachers and leaders of the church again is as clear as can be.  Read 1 Cor. 14:34-37.  Paul closes that section by saying, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 14:37 NKJV)  Read also 1 Tim. 2:12-13.  But we are like Saul.  We will do our own thing and presume a little, be a little arrogant, be a little insolent.  We will give God glory in the way we see fit--through women preaching and being church leaders.

I never have figured out how a woman is going to be an elder, a bishop, a pastor, in view of the fact that the qualification for such is that the individual must be “the husband of one wife.” (1 Tim. 3:2 NKJV)  But when we are like Saul and make our own rules anything goes and anything does go today in the religious world, even among those mankind calls Christians whether they be that or not.

Whatever we want to do we can justify ourselves as King Saul justified himself before Samuel.  We can justify ourselves and get by with it today for we have no prophets around, no apostles, no inspired men to rebuke us.  However, we will get by for only so long for “all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Heb. 4:13 NKJV)

Samuel said this stubbornness, arrogance, presumption (depending on your translation) was as iniquity and idolatry.  Why would he say that?  The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament in dealing with this verse makes an excellent point.  I quote, “All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God.”  I see no way around that conclusion.

Saul’s sin was in actuality rebellion against God.  There was a new god in Israel--King Saul.  That was his sin and it is our sin when we decide that for all practical purposes we are going to make the Bible mean what we want it to mean despite what it says.  We will explain all of those old troublesome passages away to fit modern-day culture, our woke society.  We will make the Bible into a living document (a document that grows and changes as suits us to go along with the changing culture).  Why?  Because we are not satisfied with it the way it is.

God today speaks to us through his inspired word.  When we take it and play around with it foot loose and fancy free we do not honor him.  One cannot honor God nor give him glory by doing the opposite of what he has said to do.  Have we learned the lesson from that which was written “aforetime” (Rom. 15:4 KJV) as it pertains to the lesson we should have learned from King Saul’s experience?  I fear we have not.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]