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.]

The Modern Day American Mindset

Fewer and fewer people believe in absolute truth today (a postmodernism effect), believe the Bible is verbally inspired and without error, or that man must submit to its dictates or suffer the consequences if he does not.  Sin is now generally accepted, and no attempt is made any longer to hide it as long as the law of the land will allow it.  We abort babies (a holocaust), commit fornication (taken for granted these days), and become adulterers thinking God wants me to be happy or else we do not care at all what he thinks or, for that matter, even believe in him.  One of the things that have amazed me recently in my own neck of the woods is the push for gay marriage among groups of people whom you would have thought never would do such a thing which illustrates the state of mind of many who confess to be believers today.  (Let the reader note that this article was originally written before gay marriage became the law of the land.)

 

One man was quoted in a local paper as saying that there was no scriptural justification for denying gays the right to marry.  I just could not believe that a person who knew anything at all about the Bible could say such a thing as that.  Another wrote that he was a born again Christian and he was a supporter of gay marriage.  Please tell me how a person can read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and get that we ought to support gay marriage.  "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-11 ESV, my underlining for emphasis)  There is a footnote in the ESV for the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" which reads as follows:  "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." 

 

Now I ask should we Christians be in the business of helping people sin by giving our consent to it and striving to pass laws to promote it.  If the passage above is not enough for you about God's will in this matter try Jude 6-7, Rom. 1:24-27, and 1 Tim. 1:9-10.  When I wrote on the subject, which I did, one lady wrote in telling me Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.  Is that right?  Did Jesus ever mention Sodom?  Check out Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:23, Matt. 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29.  In most of these passages, Jesus is saying with regards to a specific city that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than it will be for that city.  But I ask the question why does he use Sodom as a standard for comparison?  Was it not because it was infamous?  Had not all the Jewish people heard of what was done to Sodom and Gomorrah and why?

 

No doubt he used Sodom as a basis for comparison because all were aware of how evil it was and the consequences it reaped as a result.  Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah were to serve as an example "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 6 NKJV)  He gives the reason as well saying they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh." (Jude 6 NKJV)  So don't tell me Jesus never talked about homosexuality.  When you talk about Sodom you are talking about homosexuality.  

 

Yes, I oppose the whole manmade concept of gay marriage and I do so on scriptural grounds but the thing that is even more troubling to me is the loss of faith in the word of God by those who call themselves Christian and yet opinionate that God approves what he has clearly condemned.  In the Old Testament, he even calls the homosexual act an abomination (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).  Where is the faith in statements of scripture that cannot possibly be misunderstood?

 

The words of the Bible seem to no longer have meaning among a certain class of people that would like for others to think they are God-fearing.  They speak of love and grace as though the commandments of the Bible can be tossed aside as of no consequence and God be mocked in doing so.  If they decide among men that an act is holy and righteous that overrides everything the Bible has to say about the matter.  Jesus spoke of just such a group when he said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8 NKJV)  I don't think any gay marriage advocate will ever have the gall to say that gay marriage is from God but if it is not from God where is it from?  Whose tradition is it?  To ask is to answer.

 

Eve had trouble accepting the word of God when presented with another option.  Today's generation ought to learn from history or do people ever learn from history?  Sometimes it seems we do not.  Eve set aside God's commandment on the say-so of another that it would be okay.  Are we not being told to do the same today?  We are when we deny the words from the passages I have quoted.  Read 1 Cor. 6:9-11 again and then take on the role of the serpent and tell people it will not matter.  Tell them like the serpent told Eve, "You will not surely die." (Gen. 3:4 NKJV) 

 

For those advocating gay marriage based on love the Bible says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  You and I as mere men do not have a right to define love when God has already done so.  What are you going to do, are you going to override God?

 

To endorse gay marriage is a violation of the golden rule and of love.  "Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 7:31 NKJV)  I do not want any man to encourage me to sin.  To do that to me is to sin against me and it carries a consequence.  "Jesus said to his disciples: 'Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come.'" (Luke 17:1 NIV)  Those who are presently encouraging gay marriage are encouraging people to sin and there will be a consequence. 

 

For those who think the homosexual act is sinful outside marriage, just as fornication is, but would be acceptable to God in a marriage relationship they need to give that a second thought.  There is a difference.  God has never condemned the sexual act between a man and woman as sinful in its own right.  In fact, God said to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply." (Gen. 1:28 NKJV)  "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Heb. 13:4 NKJV)   But note the sexual act outside of marriage, fornication, is condemned so it depends on the relationship between a man and a woman, are they married or not?

 

That cannot be said of the homosexual act between man and man.  That act God has declared to be sinful in itself and that is the big, big difference.  As for marriage, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's wife and thus a marriage designed by God.  Nowhere in scripture will you find God making a marriage between man and man.  Thus such a thing is an invention of men, and of men, not of God.

 

Postmodernism would say there is no absolute truth thus all my quoting of scripture amounts to nothing with a postmodernist.  That my friends is the day and age we live in and the mindset that seems to have captured so many of our people.  Let the Bible as the inspired word of God take a hike.  That is depressing to me to know we have come to that state of affairs.  Faith is now the invention of man, each making his/her own faith, making their own truth, thinking all the while that all is A-okay.  We will see.  We will see.  

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