The Intersection of Politics and Christianity

(This is a twelve year old article but I find it relevant for today so post it.)

I write this under the date of March 6, 2012.  By now virtually everyone who follows the news at all has heard of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student, who testified before a portion of Congress recently arguing that birth control pills should be covered by her employer's health care plan.  She argued that it is just too expensive for students to purchase the pills on their own.

As you know the President's health care plan has a contraception mandate in it requiring employers or their insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives.  This has aroused a fight between the President and the leaders of the Catholic Church whose church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives.  They argue his mandate is a matter of the violation of the church and state relationship whereby the state is trying to force upon the church a requirement that they provide a service or pay for it that is directly contrary to their church doctrine while the President and his party argue it is a matter of women's rights and health care.

Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative talk radio personality, got involved last week by calling Ms. Fluke a slut.  Here is a part of Limbaugh's monologue quoted from the March 2nd ABC News Web Site online from the blog posted there by Mary Bruce.

"'What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute,' Limbaugh said Wednesday.  'She wants to be paid to have sex.  She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.  She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.  What does that make us?  We're the pimps.'"

The President then became involved making a phone call to Ms. Fluke to offer his support to her, commending her for her testimony, and expressing his disappointment that she had been subjected to these personal attacks.

I have written all of the above so you the reader have the necessary background information before you to see where I am coming from in the remarks I am about to make.  First, I want to tell you what this article is not about.  It is not about the use of contraceptives.  It is not about whether or not the government should mandate that health care plans cover contraceptives.  It is not about the Catholic Church or any of its doctrines.  It is not about Rush Limbaugh and whether or not he should have said what he said.  What it is about is defending that which is scripturally indefensible, fornication.

What kind of a country do we live in when we have national leaders that go to bat for unmarried college women, commending them, for basically committing fornication?  Now I fully understand that some women have health issues that may require birth control pills for reasons other than birth control.  I am fine with that but do not be misled or so naïve that you think that Ms. Fluke was advocating for that reason and for that small group of college-age women that fit into that category.  She had in mind birth control pills for college coeds who needed them for birth control pure and simple.  President Obama was not so naïve that he did not know that and yet his desire was to render support.

Paul guided by the Holy Spirit said, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9 KJV)  Paul spoke of these acts as being unrighteous.  He says those who do such things "shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

He says in 1 Cor. 6:18, "Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." (KJV)  Did you get that?  The Bible calls fornication a sin.  Now who is worse—Rush Limbaugh for calling names or our national leaders whose desire it is to defend the indefensible, defend sin?  God will decide.

In an article entitled "Rush Limbaugh Apologies for Calling Sandra Fluke a 'Slut,'" dated Sat., Mar 3, 2012, by Dean Schabner and Matt Negrin on the ABC NEWS online site, President Obama is said to have called Ms. Fluke "to tell her that her parents should be proud of her for speaking out for women."  I can tell you had that been my sister in the 1960’s testifying before Congress, unmarried, a single college student, that she needed insurance coverage for her birth control pills I don't know what would have happened at home at our house but it would not have been pretty and "proud" is the last thing in the world my parents would have been and they would have been right.  Don’t confound the holding of high political office with holiness and righteousness.

It is past time to quit calling this country a Christian nation.  It has aborted millions of babies (a holocaust), every year we have more and more states legalizing gay marriages which involve the sexual act the Bible refers to as an abomination (Lev. 18:22), we are slowly but surely destroying God's definition of marriage, and now we think it is wonderful that a college student advocate for birth control for fornication and commend her for taking such a stand.

As I write this piece I am 65 just having had a birthday about 3 weeks ago.  I think back on the days of my childhood and youth and how the morals of this country have changed.  The big push toward massive national immorality came in my college years in the late 60's with the hippie generation, the sexual revolution, Woodstock, drugs, etc.  I came from a very tiny rural community and graduated from high school in a class of 10 students.  A big class for our community was 16 which is what the class ahead of me had.  But, the point I want to make is I never knew of but one kid who came from a divorced family.  Nearly every child lived with their biological family.  I graduated from high school in 1965.

Children today do not have parents.  They have live-ins, here today, gone tomorrow.  It is mom's boyfriend, not dad.  It is dad's girlfriend, not mom.  What a life we live today but I thought everything was supposed to get better with time.  I thought it was called progress and was inevitable.  Man was to be his own master.  Maybe we just need a few more laws passed by our legislatures or a few more mandates to make us what we ought to be.  Maybe a little more ignoring of God would help (hope you recognize satire).

This article was not written with the intent to condemn or attack Ms. Fluke.  The truth is "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 KJV)  Furthermore, if people would study up on the Greek word translated fornication (the Greek being the word porneia) they would quickly learn why most modern translations have dropped the word fornication and replaced it with the more general term "sexual immorality."  Some want to argue that "sexual immorality" is too broad a term and covers too much ground for the Greek.  That is wishful thinking and reflects a lack of in-depth study.  The best study I have ever come across on the subject is a 20-page article by Oscar Miles in Faith and Facts Quarterly, April 2008, Vol 36, Number 2, pages 36-56.  It is a scholarly work with in-depth research with 39 footnotes reflecting that research.

The purpose of what I just said was to make the point that there are a lot more people guilty of fornication (Greek "porneia") than ever thought they were.  One does not have to be involved in the act of procreation to commit the sin of fornication for all sexual immorality is covered by the Greek word as accurately reflected by the more modern day Bible translations.  People commit fornication, sexual immorality, who have no need of birth control pills. 

So the article is not about Ms. Fluke specifically or even about a particular sin or group of sins but it is about a so-called Christian nation that has lost its way and no longer has any use for the Bible; a nation whose desire is to become a secular state and discard religion.  It is about government and government officials who would not know what a sin was if it slapped them in the face and who promote sin and applaud it.  We get what we want, what we desire.  We also get to reap the consequences; we get to reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7).

People on the one hand do not want to obey God and want to ridicule his outdated commandments, as they see them, but on the other hand, when tragedy strikes they want to think it could not possibly be God punishing this great righteous nation.  It is foolish for a man to say any one event is an act of God in punishment of a nation for no man can know that.  However, is it not also foolishness to think God is just going to continue endlessly to put up with our sins?

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17 NKJV)  We have forgotten God in our morality and our government.  We govern ourselves by the men and women we vote into office.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for what happens to us as a nation.  I hope I am not here when God decides the day has come for our punishment.  We are surely not a righteous nation. 

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

Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins?  The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual's part.  It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation.   It is hard to understand but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.”  And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT)  The King James Version and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”

One has to remember faith has to be defined.  When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith?  If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active.  To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question.  In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached.  Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith?  Certainly!  They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).  Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their doctrine demands it.  They would deny that but only in part.  They would say you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism.  One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral command.  Or, should we say the Holy Spirit’s oral command?  Yes, we should.

But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not be.    

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith.  We know they had come to faith for the text says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)  We know Peter’s response.  Why command people to repent who have already repented?  Peter commanded them to repent thus they had not done so even though they had faith.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin.  These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do.  The text says they were cut to the heart.  Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) but it is not repentance.  To repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.  It is a state of mind and will.  It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously.  One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith.  The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism.  Some of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that faith is a synecdoche.  Yes, I believe that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance but baptism also.  That they will not accept.  However, in Acts 2 faith is clearly not a synecdoche.  The question they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved.  The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.  

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins.  There is no truth in it but for the sake of argument let us pursue the thought.  If that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins.  You can be forgiven without repentance.  If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins.  Saved without repentance.  Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask the faith-only people.  Had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized?  Their doctrine demands that if they are consistent.  And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused baptism?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed.  But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  You cannot go to heaven without baptism. 

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.  “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved?  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) 

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

The Catholic Doctrine Concerning Scripture and Tradition

 Roman Catholics are not willing to accept the Bible as the sole authority in religion.  To do so would destroy the Catholic Church for once you remove the authority of the priests and the Catholic hierarchy there goes the authority of the church and its power over men. 

The Catholic Church in history sought to keep the scriptures from the laity.  “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament …  we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195).  At the Council of Tarragona in 1234 it was decreed, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments.”

The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI pretty much sums up the attitude the Roman Catholic Church held for centuries regarding the Bible and the laity. 

From the encyclical INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

“1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that we now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher ‘common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,’ and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.”

And more from the same source:

“12. ... In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”

The last three lines explain the fear of the scriptures on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—the fear that those who read the scriptures will have their eyes opened and reject “the tradition of the Fathers” and “the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”  That did happen, the Reformation, and we entered into the modern era where attempts to withhold the scriptures became an act of futility, impossible to do.  However, by studying history we can see what the desire had been as long as it was possible to carry it out.

Part of Catholic tradition and essential to it is to have scripture interpreted the way the hierarchy wants it interpreted.  Thus, for example, no matter how clear the New Testament text seems to be to the average person it remains a requisite to Catholicism that Mary, the mother of Jesus, be a perpetual virgin.  You are incapable of reading the scriptural texts about Mary and understanding them without the aid of the Catholic Church.  When you read about Jesus having brothers and sisters that runs against the tradition and so cannot be a correct understanding, the church will tell you what those verses are saying.  Even if you have a Ph.D. interpreting those verses will be too tough for you without their aid.

But, what is Catholic tradition?  It might surprise you.  When most of us think of tradition we think of that which developed in the past in the family or some institution-- a school, a team, a country, etc.--whereby certain activities or customs are passed on from time past into the present day.  It might be a traditional yearly get-together.  We all understand tradition in that aspect of it.

But we also understand that as tradition has a beginning it also has an end.  If you are older you have likely experienced it in your own family.  What you once did as tradition you no longer do.  That is fine in the normal course of the life of a man, the circumstances of our lives change over time, but when it comes to religion we do not expect an ever-changing God with ever-changing doctrines and commandments for us to live by.  Yet, that is exactly what you get with religious tradition in Roman Catholicism.

The change from the Mosaical Law to Christianity was not a change of God’s mind but planned before the world was established.  “He (Christ – DS) indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)  He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)  He was the seed promise to Abraham that through his seed all the earth would be blessed (Gal. 3:8, 16).  The point is that God does not change.  Roman Catholicism changes continually.

The average person not knowing any better would think that when a doctrine is based on tradition in Catholicism it would mean that the early church held that doctrine.  That is what you would think but you would be mistaken.  Under Catholicism, a doctrine based on tradition can begin evolving at any point in time.  It does not have to trace its roots back to the first century.  Why not?  Because Catholicism is its own authority.  It derives its authority from itself; it sees itself as the fountain, or source, of authority.  Thus one will find various Catholic dogmas first stated in generations far removed from the first century and the early church.    

For example, the doctrine of purgatory was officially proclaimed as dogma in 1438.  By dogma, it is meant you are obliged to believe it if you are to be a faithful Catholic.  This means you could have been a faithful Catholic and not believed in purgatory until 1438, well over a thousand years after Christ.  After 1438 you are unfaithful if you don’t believe in it.  You have a moving target for faithfulness. 

Now where do you find purgatory in the New Testament?  You don’t is the quick and accurate answer.  If they tell you such and such scriptures teach it (and I do know they rely on certain scriptures for this) then my response is “why did it take you over a thousand years to discover it?”  The point I am getting at is that Catholicism makes up its doctrines and dogmas as it goes along.  It is like playing a game where you are the sole rule maker and can change the rules as the game goes along and no one has a right to challenge you thus you always win.

Now for the Catholics, I do understand that the doctrine of purgatory evolved and began with the idea of praying for the dead.  From there one idea led to another but that is just my point—the doctrine was not given by revelation but by the philosophizing of men.  There was no revelation; there was only men's reasoning; it was “this is what seems right and reasonable to us.”  That is what all of us non-Catholics have to understand about Catholicism.  Tradition with the Catholics is often no more than the evolution of thought among Catholics, especially the Catholic hierarchy, until a dogma, an official teaching, comes out of it.

What I have done here with the doctrine of purgatory you can do with many other dogmas found in Catholicism.  Search out the date the doctrine became dogma and begin asking questions about it like why then and not earlier.  Why now?  What is the source, etc., etc?  Try it with the teachings about Mary.  I say that because I know you will find fruitful digging.  You will not come up empty-handed.

The non-Catholic must understand the terminology of the Catholic Church or be misled.  If you are not Catholic, but Christian, when you hear the phrase “the word of God” you immediately think of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.  With the Catholic that is not the case.  With the Catholics, the word of God is the combination of the scriptures and what they call “Sacred Tradition.”  This is the tradition we have been talking about.  Scripture alone is insufficient with the Catholic.  Indeed, tradition will overrule scripture if the need arises for scripture will be interpreted to ensure the desired outcome, one that is in accord with what they teach no matter how incredible the interpretation may seem.

Tradition ends up being whatever we want it to be in Catholicism.  It can be based on any number of things.  It can be simply what we want to believe and thus practice.  I mentioned Mary earlier.  Catholics have a doctrine called the Assumption of Mary which says Mary, after her death, was taken bodily into heaven and thus her body never underwent decay.  This teaching was not to be found in any of the first twenty ecumenical councils, not found in any creeds, only found in the writings of two of the eighty-eight church fathers so-called and both of them wrote in the 7^th century, none of the major church doctors wrote of it and only 1 of the minor doctors and he lived hundreds of years after Christ and yet, based on tradition, the bodily assumption of Mary became dogma.

How could that be?  What tradition?  It was based on the teachings of the bishops alive at the time.  The church calls these bishops and what they are teaching “the Ordinary Magisterium,” and it is considered an infallible guide to the faith.  And it was based on what the church in practice was already doing-- honoring Mary’s assumption, dogma or no dogma, by its practices.  They already had a feast of Mary’s Assumption on August 15^th, they had set up in churches sacred images of the assumption, the church’s liturgy made references to Mary’s Assumption, etc., thus in 1950 the Pope declared the assumption to be dogma.  In Catholicism what we desire, what we are doing, what we are practicing, becomes dogma if we are patient long enough and there is enough of us involved to put the pressure on.  This is Catholic tradition placed on an equal footing with the scriptures.  Abide in it?  Who can?

Well, there is one group – the Catholic hierarchy.  They have a huge stake in maintaining the status quo. 

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

Running From God

Why do men run from God?  It has been a question with me for years and one I have had the deepest interest in.  I cannot understand it and things I cannot understand when it comes to the way people behave have a way of bothering me.  I have always wanted to know why people do what they do.  I have wanted to know how men think, why they think the way they do, and thus what motivates them.   The reality is only God can know for sure for only he can see inside a person and read a person's heart.  As for you and me the Bible says, "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11 NKJV)

Our best hope for knowing another lies in their willingness to open up to us.  Even then we may end up scratching our heads in bewilderment.  They may tell us what they think but do they themselves understand the processes of the heart and mind that have led them to the point where they are at?

If there is a God (I am not expressing doubt) then by definition of what it means to be God it is clear one could not successfully run from him.  Hear David in the 139th Psalm.

"O LORD, You have searched me and known me.   You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off.   You comprehend my path and my lying down,  And are acquainted with all my ways.   For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether…Where can I go from Your Spirit?   Or where can I flee from Your presence?  If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.   If I take the wings of the morning,  And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,  Even there Your hand shall lead me,  And Your right hand shall hold me.   If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall fall on me,' Even the night shall be light about me; Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You." (Psalms 139:1-4, 7-12 NKJV)

The writer of the Book of Hebrews put it this way, "There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." (Heb. 4:13 NKJV)  To try and run from God, hide, or win a battle against him is folly and only shows how foolish a person can be.

Since man cannot run from God why try?  While we may never know a particular individual's thinking or motive for attempting to do so the Bible tells us of some who have tried to run from God and gives us their motivation. 

Adam and Eve were the first to try and run from God.  When they sinned in the Garden of Eden by eating of the forbidden fruit, breaking God's commandment, they attempted to hide from God.  Adam said to God he was hiding because of his nakedness (Gen. 3:10) but that had never been a problem before.  Sin made it a problem and thus sin caused the first man and woman to run from God and try and hide from him. 

Every case of running from God or away from God has been caused by sin in a man's life.  “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”  (John 3:20 NKJV)  Those who love God and obey his commandments do not run from God.  "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)

God is man's great benefactor.  Why run from one who is the only one who can give you eternal life and save you from hell?  There is only one reason, the fact of sin in one's life, sin that has not been repented of or forgiven.  Every reason we can list as motives for man's attempt to run away from God will in every case come back to the matter of sin in the person's life.  But the question remains why?

What was the reason behind Adam and Eve's sin?  There are some things here that we can learn.  Eve was willing to listen to someone other than God for guidance.  Eve listened to the serpent.  Adam was willing to listen to Eve.  The world is full of people whose desire is to get you to listen to them and follow them and their lead not only out in the world but even in what is styled Christendom.  What folly!  The word of God lies in the hands of the man or woman who holds the Bible, there and there only will you find God’s guidance.  God's word is the only sure guide man will ever have.

In the Christian faith, God speaks to us through the pages of the New Testament.  There we are told how to become Christians, how to worship acceptably, and how to live the Christian life.  We are warned much like Adam and Eve were.  We are neither to add to that word nor take from it.  There is a simple reason for that – whatever is added is not God’s word but man’s word, whatever is subtracted leaves God’s word incomplete and thus not whole.  In the latter case, you end up with partial truth, not the whole truth.  

Adam and Eve were God's children.  Eve sinned by listening to another who was enlightening her, so she thought, who knew better than God himself.  We ought to learn a lesson here.  If you cannot quote book, chapter, and verse from the New Testament for your practice or doctrine you have listened to someone other than God and need to leave it alone.  Adam and Eve did not have a Bible but they had God's word directly spoken from his mouth.

In our dispensation of time, the New Testament is the last will and testament of Christ our Savior and thus God's word for man to live by until time shall end and Jesus shall return.  God “has in these last days spoken to us by his Son.” (Heb. 1:2 NKJV)  Peter in his sermon in Acts 3 speaking of Moses' prophecy concerning Jesus said, “For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord you God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren.  Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.  And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV)

If we are not listening to Jesus’ words (the New Testament) we are listening to men or to ourselves.  We must also remember that adding to God’s word in how we worship or otherwise is as bad as subtracting from that word.  It is only, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.” (John 8 31 NKJV)  That is what Jesus said about it.  God’s word has boundaries.  Adding or subtracting, either one, changes those boundaries

But, why did Eve do that, why did she listen to another?  Because she liked what she heard from the serpent more than she liked what she heard from God.  So the second thing we can learn from Adam and Eve is to not allow our personal desires to guide us.  “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” (Jer. 10:23 NKJV)  Always remember it is not what seems good or right or desirable to you or me that counts with God but whether or not we are obeying him by obeying his word. 

I don't know that a man can have too big a heart but I do know our great love for a wife, a husband, a child, a parent, a friend, or whoever can lead us to reject God's word to have them saved.  We then start running from God.  The person we love will either not accept or obey the gospel or if they have done so go off into false doctrine or apostasy and we want them saved so badly that we start looking at scripture differently.  Suddenly we find the word of God changing and old passages that used to teach us one thing now seem to be teaching us something entirely different.  What has changed?  Has the Bible changed or has it been our heart?

Our great passion for and love for our fellow man can easily result in our rejection of God's word for the word we want it to be rather than the word it is.  Adam’s love for Eve seems to have overwhelmed him.  The Bible says Adam was not deceived, Eve was. (1 Tim. 2:14)  Did Adam love Eve more than he loved God?  Love is a wonderful thing but we must love God foremost.  "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.  And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me," said Jesus. (Matt. 10:37 NKJV)  Love for a person or persons can cause people to run from God.

Do we think God is unjust in condemning those who will not believe the truth and obey it?  Do we think we love more than God who gave his only begotten son on the cross to die to give man a means of salvation?  Do we think we love more than Jesus who died for us all?  Do we think God is just too strict, many do.  However big your heart is I can assure you it is not as big as God's but do we really expect God to save unrepentant sinners and people who do not love him?  If he did how would heaven be any better than life on earth? 

So, what lessons have we learned from Adam and Eve?  (1) Sin led them to run from God.  (2) This sin was caused by or the result of listening to the words of another who was not God.  (3) Eve listened to another other than God for she desired the doctrine he brought more than the doctrine God gave.  (4) Love for one's mate, or for others, even for all of humanity cannot supersede one's love for God and if it does so it will only result in disaster.  Are you and I immune today from falling into one or more of the same traps?  No, not at all.  

Jonah is another example and with little doubt the best known example in the Bible of a man who attempted to run from God.  God sent him to Nineveh to preach against that city's wickedness.  Jonah did not want to go and do that for fear that Nineveh would repent and God would not destroy its inhabitants but rather forgive them and spare them (see Jonah 3:10-4:2) which is exactly what ended up happening.  The story is well known.  Jonah wanted to see the city destroyed and fearing that preaching God's message to the people there would end up saving the city he tried to flee from God, got caught up in a storm on the sea, a storm God sent purposely, and was tossed overboard by the sailors to save their own lives.  He was thereafter swallowed by a great fish, one that spit him out after he repented of disobedience to God's command.

Once again then we have another example of a man running from God because of disobedience to God but what was his motivating factor in his disobedience?  In Jonah's case, the motivating factor was a lack of love for his fellow man.  One could call it hate.  He wanted to see the people of Nineveh die, 120,000 of them.  Jonah had a heart problem. 

When a person has a heart problem they will want no part of God and will naturally flee from him.  Not every sin is heart-related.  One might sin out of ignorance for example but when sin is in the heart man wants no part of God and will seek to run from him.  The heart must be changed to change the man.

Then we come to the rich young ruler we find in the New Testament who thought he wanted eternal life and came to Jesus seeking an answer as to how to obtain it.  We find this account in Matt. 19:16-22, Mark 10:17-22, and Luke 18:18-23.  Jesus invited the young man to sell his goods and come follow him.  The young man could not bring himself to do that and ended up walking away from God.  Why?  Because he loved his wealth, his money, more than God and eternal life.  He had a heart problem, the love of money.

There is another account found in John of those who ran away from God.  The text says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:42-43 NKJV)  Again, the problem lies within the heart of the man.  It is men wanting the wrong things out of life leading them into sin and away from God.

In the example just given the rulers were going away from God but headed out to the synagogue for worship.  They wanted to be religious but just not Jesus’ way.  In today's world men will search and search and search to find the denomination that will teach it the way they want to hear it so that Paul's prophesy finds its fulfillment.  "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Tim. 4:3-4 NKJV) 

You tell me what it is you want to hear today and I think I can find you a place to go if you will let me research it just a little.  You can find the doctrine that comforts you in whatever state of sin you are living in and in whatever beliefs you are holding if you will only search awhile.  You may well end up in a place you do not want to be in the next life but for here and now you can find a place of comfort, a place where they will tell you the lie you are living is nothing other than God's truth.  

The Bible only teaches one church and one faith and it does not teach a thousand different competing doctrines.  "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:4-6 NKJV)  Churches today have people in them who are in reality running from God but are not willing to admit it to themselves.  They left the old place and came to the new so they could persist in their sin rather than be cleansed from it.  

Yes, we can run from God; we just cannot stay hidden from him.  We must give an account.  The day of accounting will be a terrifying day for many for in that day the heart of man will be revealed and we will all have to come clean.  Why did we believe what we believed?  Why did we practice what we practiced?  Was it because of God's word or was it because we had a heart problem we would not admit to or face up to?  Is your faith and trust in your own heart, in your own mind, in what seems best and right to you, or is it in the words spoken by the Holy Spirit?  God's word is just an extension of himself.    Jesus is called the word (John 1:1-2, 1 John 1:1)  He is revealed in his word.  Are you running away from God?  I hope not for I can promise you he will find you in the Day of Judgment when you do not wish to be found. 

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