Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
PART TWO
The Quality of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
What Justifies Separation?
The recent Alistair Begg story provides a teaching moment for comparison between American Fundamentalism and British Evangelicalism. It also gives pause for judging the credibility or quality of these movements. Were the participants believing and practicing scripture?
Many evangelicals consequently gave their take on attending a same-sex or transgender wedding ceremony. The circumstance gave rise to some right teaching on the scriptural and true nature of marriage. Some usually weaker men offered strong reasons for not attending the wedding, grandma or not. They exposed Begg with their words.
Begg justified his bad counsel with the context of British evangelicalism. British evangelicalism does “nuance.” Actually, American evangelicalism and fundamentalism also both do and have done nuance in the same spirit. However, something is happening or changing in American evangelicalism for these evangelical men to turn against Begg in the manner they are. Perhaps they foresee the demise of evangelicalism without their putting a stake in the ground on more of these issues. I don’t see the dust as having settled yet either on further strong stands on cultural issues.
Fundamentals of the Faith
Earliest fundamentalism, what some call paleo-fundamentalism, did not separate over cultural issues. It did separate over gospel-oriented ones, especially what became the five fundamentals of the faith:
(1) the literal inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, (2) the virgin birth and full deity of Christ, (3) the physical Resurrection of Christ, (4) the atoning sacrifice of His death for the sins of the world, and (5) His second coming in bodily form to preside at the Last Judgment.
The fundamentals really are an arbitrary list of beliefs. Nothing in scripture says these are fundamental. Yet, fundamentalists believed they should not fellowship, that is, separate from institutions that deny one of the fundamentals.
On the other hand, evangelicals might believe the five fundamentals, but they would not separate over them. Fundamentalists separated over five more issues than evangelicals would. With greater degradation of doctrine and practice across the United States, a greater gap grew between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Even though fundamentalism started with separation over just the fundamentals, the list of reasons for separation grew. Fundamentalists chose to grow that list and also began to separate over cultural issues. They didn’t separate over everything, but they separated over much more than five fundamentals.
New Separation
Not Biblical
Evangelicals who never practiced separation now will do that. They do not teach biblical separation. However, they now separate. You can see that with the cancellation of Alistair Begg from the 2024 Shepherds Conference in Southern California. This separation does not follow the various formulas of separation of the New Testament. Scripture explains why and how to separate (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, ! Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3, 2 Timothy 2, Titus 3).
Scripture explains that a church can keep or preserve biblical doctrine and practice through separation. Without separation, false teaching and practice will profane or corrupt the true. True doctrine and practice goes by the wayside. The false teaching and practice destroys institutions. This is a strong reason why God says not to allow false doctrine into your house nor to bid it Godspeed (2 John). Those who will not separate are not standing with God.
No Mention of Doctrine of Separation
Right now conservative evangelicals will separate, but they will not mention the doctrine of separation. Begg preached at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2015 and 2023. He was slated again this year, 2024. Christian Headlines reports the following:
A spokesperson for Grace To You, the ministry led by Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, told Religion News Service that Begg has been dropped from this year’s Shepherds Conference, which is slated to take place in March.
“After Begg’s comments became public, he and MacArthur talked and decided the controversy would be “an unnecessary distraction,” the spokesman said.
“Pastor MacArthur’s counsel on that issue would be completely different from the counsel Alistair Begg said he gave an inquiring grandmother,” Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, told Religion News Service in an email. “So both agreed that it was necessary for Pastor Begg to withdraw.”
This is not the biblical method of separation. Separation is right, but adherents should practice it according to scripture. Grace Community Church does not treat it as separation. It’s a “distraction.” That’s it. This continues to show a reticence for evangelicals to separate. It actually fits more with a model of what people today call, the cancel culture. Shepherd’s Conference cancelled Begg.
Separation and Cultural Issues
Same sex marriage rises to the level of a fundamental, worthy of separation. Furthermore, it’s not just participation in a same sex marriage, but attending the wedding and even encouraging someone else to go to one. As a kind of thought experiment, what about a cultural issue like nudity? Is it permissible for Christians to get naked in public? At what point is someone practicing nudity?
As another example of a cultural issue, for a long time, evangelical churches accept nudity to some degree. They would deny it They show little to no inclination to define the boundaries of nudity. They will not separate over it. It’s a non-essential. You can lay in public on the sand wearing something less than underwear without any repercussions. Evangelicals won’t cancel pastors of churches that allow for nudity.
The determining factor for an evangelical church on cultural issues is not scripture. Evangelicals now latch on to the definition of marriage and practice a crude, non-biblical form of separation over it. They cherry pick this one issue. Many others they give almost complete liberty to practice however people want.
Confusion Over Separation
In the last few years, John MacArthur did a Q and A with seminary students of his seminary. Someone asked about this very subject, trying to figure out when and when not to cooperate with someone else in ministry for God. MacArthur was very ambiguous in that he pointed to one qualification of true faith in Christ, yet also someone shouldn’t accept woman preachers. On the other hand, baby baptism is not a deal breaker. Someone, like R. C. Sproul, can sprinkle infants — no line drawn there.
God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). No. Does scripture give the guidelines necessary for biblical separation? It does. American evangelicals and even fundamentalists offer confusion. Begg defers to British evangelicalism, which brings even greater confusion. He references John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who separated from each other.
Stott continued in the Church of England his whole life. The Church of England helps explain the difference between American and British evangelicalism. Stott saw leaving the Church of England as an institutional loss. Separation meant losing all of the infrastructure and resources to the large majority liberal faction. It is sheer, unscriptural pragmatism, also explained as compassion.
More to Come
Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
Alistair Begg’s Interview
Popular evangelical preacher, Scottish American Alistair Begg, on September 1, 2023 revealed the following account in an interview:
And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.
And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”
“Yes.”
“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”
“Yes.”
I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”
“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.
I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”
This didn’t seem to get on the radar of the rest of evangelicalism until an article about it on January 23, 2024 on Christian Headlines, almost four months later. Then the evangelical internet and podcasts exploded with mainly negative reactions to Begg’s interview.
Response of Begg to Criticism
In response to the criticism and hoopla over his counsel, Begg came out fighting. This is the biggest story right now in evangelicalism. He has elevated the story with his combativeness. Begg preached an entire sermon defending himself and he said a lot to crush opponents. Among everything, he said this one paragraph:
Now, let me say something that will be a little explosive. I’ve lived here for forty years, and those who know me best know that when we talk theology, when we talk stuff, I’ve always said I am a little bit out of sync with the American evangelical world, for this reason: that I am the product of British evangelicalism, represented by John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Eric Alexander, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek Prime.
I am a product of that. I have never been a product of American fundamentalism. I come from a world in which it is possible for people to actually grasp the fact that there are nuances in things. Those of you who are lawyers understand this. Everything is not so categorically clear that if you put one foot out of this box, you’ve got to be removed from the box forever.
Begg said some very, very harsh things in public about all of his critics, but in this section, he called them “American fundamentalists.” That is a pointed insult for most evangelicals. It’s essentially calling them an odious modern day Pharisee. He actually gets worse than that.
British Evangelicals and American Fundamentalism
British Evangelicals
Begg distinguished himself from American fundamentalism by referring to himself as a “British evangelical.” However, he was not attacked by fundamentalists. I would reckon that zero to few fundamentalists even listen to Begg It was in reality many, many evangelicals who had something in public to say about Begg, not fundamentalists. Out of ten podcasts denouncing Begg, close to ten on average were evangelicals. Among them, many big-named evangelicals spoke against Begg and his position. Yes, a few also came out in public support of him, but one might say, the usual suspects did that.
Alistair Begg said that he places himself within the British evangelicalism of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. For his sermon, he relied heavily on an early book by Stott, Christ the Controversialist. I’m not one to coach Begg on the ins and outs of British evangelicalism, but I do understand American fundamentalism. I lived in it, took a class on it, read books on it, functioned among historic figures of fundamentalism, and wrote about it here.
Fundamentalist Movement
The fundamentalist movement is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented movements in world history. Fundamentalism deserves a critique, but secular historians and evangelical ones of all different stripes tend to slander fundamentalism. Calling someone a “fundamentalist” becomes then an ad hominem attack for an evangelist.
In his defense, Alistair Begg is saying that he’s just being his regular old British evangelicalism, but his critics are all being their American fundamentalism. In some ways, Begg is right that this behavior among his 95% plus evangelical critics seems like a historic outlier for evangelicalism in the United States. I would also agree that it looks like at least some type of neo-fundamentalist movement in evangelicalism.
If I were acting right now as a historian, I would say that this is a new, albeit small, movement in the United States, perhaps like that of Spurgeon during the Downgrade Controversy in England, a precursor to American fundamentalism. The critics of Begg are truly acting or behaving in the militant spirit of fundamentalists.
The Biblical Doctrine of Separation
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
American fundamentalism was a movement in the early twentieth century within evangelicalism across denominations in defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Fundamentalists stood for doctrines that would preserve a true gospel and evangelical Christianity itself. A key feature of fundamentalism was and is separation, essentially “come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Separation is a biblical doctrine found in almost every book of the Bible. The non-fundamentalist, professing evangelical does not separate. The sine qua non of fundamentalism was and is separation. Separation is of the absolute nature of God. He is holy or separate. God separates. The goal of the original fundamentalist movement was to keep the fundamentals and thus keep the gospel. The fundamentalists understood the necessity of separation for protecting the fundamentals of the faith.
Evangelical Non Separatists
Evangelicalism itself became distinct from fundamentalism. Evangelicals would not separate. Instead, they emphasized their concept of unity, which meant toleration. In order to get along and to maintain the greatest possible coalition, evangelicals look for ways to compromise.
The non-fundamentalist evangelicals in the United States began to turn into something more in nature with mainstream evangelicalism in England. Especially characteristic of evangelicals was forming bridges with or to the world through social programs. In many cases, this turned into its own form of liberalism that today manifests itself today in rampant “woke evangelicalism.” Evangelicalism turned back toward liberalism in forms of cooperation, what many labeled a “new evangelicalism.”
Cultural Issues and Nuance
Cultural Issues
A major means by which evangelicals could sustain their idea of unity is to remove much of the application of the scripture, especially on cultural issues. Cultural issues are the most offensive teachings and practices of scripture. Examples of cultural issues are the unique identities of men and women, masculinity and femininity, the distinct roles of the man and the woman, marriage between only a man and a woman, parental authority over children, and the worship of God in the beauty of Holiness. There are many more cultural issues taught in scripture.
The defense by Begg is a case study of the nature of evangelicalism, especially represented in the above paragraph by the word, “nuance.” He calls out the lawyers in his church for their support on this thought. Yet, do we treat the perspecuity of scripture like we do that of federal, state, and local criminal and civil laws? The Bible is God’s Word. Almost his entire sermon performed nuance to defend what he did.
Nuance
Nuance allows for a multitude of possible acceptable positions on various scriptural issues. Nuance means permitting differences. Allowing for many different positions is the type of unity embraced by evangelicals. Evangelicals want to keep a large percentage of biblical doctrine and practice open to numerous positions. They tolerate many various positions on numerous different doctrines and practices for the sake of unity. This requires nuance with scripture.
Many evangelicals, I can see, understand now the damage of not practicing separation on doctrine and practice, including cultural issues. They comprehend now the connection between the gospel and same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Can you believe in Jesus Christ and accept same-sex marriage? I’m not saying that Alistair Begg would say, “Yes.” However, he values nuance and nuance goes both ways. Acceptance of same sex marriage starts with tolerance of it. This is akin to the progression one sees in Psalm 1:1:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Lloyd-Jones, A Fundamentalist?
Compared to John Stott as a professing evangelical still in the Church of England, Martyn Lloyd-Jones himself was a British fundamentalist. He was a separatist. A British publication, the Evangelical Times, reports:
Evangelical Times was launched in February 1967, four months after the much-discussed division between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott. . . . In 1963, Lloyd-Jones quoted the Independent, John Owen, to show ‘the duty of every saint of God’ was to withdraw from a church where ‘notorious, scandalous sins had gone unpunished, unreproved’. In 1965, Lloyd-Jones dismissed arguments against separatism as ‘sheer lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit’ in favour of ‘trusting to expediency’.
I am not a fundamentalist, but I have much more sympathy for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist, because I don’t think it goes far enough. You can’t protect the faith by diminishing doctrine and practice to fundamentals. One of the fundamentals is not “marriage between only a man and a woman.” Based on that kind of thinking, a fundamentalist doesn’t need to separate over same sex marriage. It is not a fundamental of the faith. This relates directly to this issue with Begg. This presents a problem even for the fundamentalist model of belief and practice.
Stott’s Evangelicalism
John Stott was an evangelical Anglican. How could Anglicanism coexist with evangelicalism? The framework for the Church of England undermines a true gospel. Henry VIII, who started the Church of England, didn’t deny the gospel of Roman Catholicism. He just wanted a divorce. The Church of England itself does not preach a true gospel.
Stott did not believe in a literal Hell or eternal torment. He believed and preached Annihilationism. Stott went to Venice Italy to join the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission. He denied the inerrancy of scripture.
More to Come
Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the most famous verse of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible for Jews. The Hebrew text has a complex system of accent marks that provide exegetically significant information; in addition to the accents providing one of four levels of disjunction in the text (that is, providing pauses that divide words with four levels of strength), or emphasizing conjunction (that words are to be read together). The Lord Jesus affirmed that God would preserve the Hebrew vowels and accent marks until heaven and earth pass away-the words of the Old Testament themselves, not merely the consonants, are inspired:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
Historically, the inspiration of the vowels has been affirmed, and receiving the Biblical testimony to the inspiration of the words, not the consonants only, of the Old Testament is apologetically and intellectually defensible.
So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks? You can hear the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in a synagogue, but if you do not want to go to one, and want to hear the following passage of the Torah chanted:
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Then please watch or listen to the following brief video:
or watch the video on Rumble by clicking here or on YouTube by clicking here.
Whether or not one learns to fluently sing or chant, students of the Hebrew Bible should learn to identify the Hebrew accent marks, just like they can identify English periods, commas, and semicolons. Courses in Hebrew should teach the people of the God of Israel and those who trust in Israel’s Messiah the accents, rather than ignoring them and teaching only the consonants and vowels.
This blog has pointed out in the past that the Authorized, King James Version does a good job representing the Hebrew accents in English (although the punctuation system in English is different and simpler than that of Hebrew).
You might be able to have more doors open in witnessing to Jews if you memorize at least the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4, in Hebrew. If Then share with them the truth in the “Truth from the Torah” pamphlet. If you have one of the Jewish evangelistic shirts here, by memorizing the Shema you will be able to chant the Hebrew text on the front of your shirt.
If you can at least read the Hebrew alphabet it should not be that hard to memorize this passage–the greatest commandment of all, according to the resurrected Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:37-38). Just copy the audio of the video to your phone or other electronic device and get your device to play the Hebrew over and over again, and before you know it you will have the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) memorized in Hebrew. Put these glorious words in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:6), where you can savor them, love them, and ever the more obey them.
–TDR
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
Satan
Maybe people don’t know that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31, 14:36, 16:11). Jesus uses this title of him. He is a usurper as a monarch over this world, taking the place of man and specifically, the God-man, Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Satan holds sway over the world.
As a result, “the world” in the Bible, most often does not speak of the earth, the planet within a solar system. No, it s “the world system.” “The world system” means the entire Satanic organization functioning in the world of men against the plan of God.
Subjection Unto Angels
In Genesis 1:28, upon the creation of man, God mandated him to subdue and have dominion over the earth. Hebrews 2:8 says, “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.” “His” refers to “man.” That’s the purpose of God. God will fulfill that purpose through His Son, Jesus Christ, when Jesus comes back and sets up a kingdom on the earth. Men will reign with Jesus Christ and complete that God-ordained task.
Later in the same verse in Hebrews, the author writes: “But now we see not yet all things put under him.” Okay, so if man is not in charge, then who is? An earlier verse in the chapter, Hebrews 2:5, gives a clue:
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
So the angels won’t be in charge of the world to come. What’s the deal with that? The present world, the one in which we live, is under the subjection of angels. See above with Satan. Even though this is clear in the Bible, I would say a vast majority of people do not know this. They should consider with every imagination of the world and the world specifically around them, that Satan is in charge of it. That’s a big reason it is the way that it is. This significant truth is rarely mentioned, only sometimes in preaching, but seldom. This truth that angels rule over the present world fits with what Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
You can read there “the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
“Conspiracy Theory”
What I’m writing about the world and Satan and his angels, demons, some might call a conspiracy theory. I’m saying the overall direction of this world, it’s in Satan’s plan. However, the way he accomplishes his rule is through men, who work for him. That is where the “conspiracy theory” really comes into play.
What I’m writing is not taught in schools. No one mentions Satan as a significant feature of worldly existence. No. The only acceptable worldly position is that we’re here alone, trying to troop through on our own, us men, or people. This itself is part of a Satanic conspiracy, that Satan will work unrecognized, like he is completely camouflaged in this world. Don’t look behind that door — nothing to see there.
“Conspiracy theory” as a terminology is mainly used today as communicating that someone is telling a crazed lie. It would be like saying that Jesus is God. That thought does not belong to polite society, except hovelled away in very private religious places.
The Antichrist
The human personification of Satan in the Bible is the character, the Antichrist. There have been antichrists, who are types of the future antichrist. They are antichrist, but they are not The Antichrist. When I talk about the Antichrist, I believe that it is easy to see the agenda of the Antichrist in this present world. Why wouldn’t we see a parallel agenda, since Satan will also hold sway the antichrist, even as he does his underlings today?
While Bible believing and practicing people like myself go our sweet way, doing evangelism and discipleship with results coming at a glacial pace, the path toward the fulfillment of Satan and the Antichrist’s agenda keeps moving along much more quickly. I’m all for the former. Even though I do believe it is the answer, that does not mean that the latter isn’t also occurring. It also does not mean that someone should not say something or do something to expose the present agenda of the Antichrist.
The Antichrist in the future will do his thing, as we can read in Revelation and related passages. It will occur and he will lose. What he and Satan want now is against what true believers do. Many powerful people today though are working with and toward the agenda of the Antichrist. It is a globalist agenda, a one-world-order. You hear this language today and it is easy to see how many policies pushed by the most powerful institutions glove fit with the Antichrist.
Tools of Control of the World
When the Antichrist finally takes charge, he will inculcate many of the same instrumentation or tools to control everyone and send them in a path roughshod against God. That path already exists. It is a globalist super high way pushing an agenda that accords with Satan.
If anything, one of the most important means of Satan and the Antichrist is shutting down voices that damage their agenda, that do the most to impede their goals. They want to give you the impression that you possess a suitable voice for your message, as long as you don’t stop the treads of their machinery from operating at their highest speed. Keep your little audience. Barely make a noise that will interrupt the march toward the final form of Satan’s rule over the world through the Antichrist.
Case of Alistair Begg
Counsel to a Grandmother
Consider the pressure that even professing preachers feel. A mini-explosive event occurred the last several days in evangelicalism. A fairly conservative evangelical, albeit already compromising preacher, Alistair Begg, got in trouble with prominent figures for publically encouraging a grandmother to go to her grandson’s transgender wedding. The idea here with Begg was compassion and not condemnation. In Begg’s assessment, compassion would be going to the wedding, condemnation was not going.
When Begg started getting kickback for his counsel, he did what many called, double downed. He did not retract. He would not repent of his counsel. Many podcasters went after him. Others defended him. Public leaders stood on either side of his decision.
The Pressure
What’s the pressure on a Begg to answer a public question with a weak, unscriptural answer? He lives under that pressure. The Antichrist will have pressure during the Tribulation Period to control men. He will wield many different means of coercion. Someone summed up the issue with this paragraph:
From the accounts I have seen, we are not exactly sure what we are dealing with, but it is bent however you look at it. Either the grandson was marrying a woman who pretends to be a man, in which case the marriage itself is an actual marriage, and the homosexual delusion (pretending you are marrying a man) is still a sick delusion, or he is marrying a man who thinks he is a woman, and so you have both actual sodomy and quite a different delusion, just as broken. But for our purposes here, it doesn’t really matter. The issue is the lawfulness of a Christian’s celebratory participation at an event that is truly dark.
Why would a godly leader not tell the grandmother not to go? The grandson will feel the sting of her rejection. He would not experience suitable affirmation. Begg knows this too. But it really isn’t that. It is that the present world, the one so against God, requires approval.
Approval of the Counsel or Activity
Who was for the counsel by Begg? The world and its groups that support transgender ideology. They would not throw him much of a biscuit, but they would look maybe somewhat admiringly. Who would be against? Godly people. People against the world system. There is very strong pressure to please the former at the risk of the latter. Just say you’re sorry to your people and they’ll understand. Some Christians will applaud, because they also want approval from the acceptable, appropriate people in the culture of the world.
The Antichrist will ask for full approval from everyone in the world. His forms of coercion will surpass whatever kind Begg presently feels to impel him to give the kind of counsel he did. It still follows that this is what Satan and the Antichrist want to become irrelevant, something that is an abomination to God. They gladly accept the capitulation in the present. The trajectory of such counsel is the future total domination of the Antichrist agenda.
More to Come
Surprisingly Harsh Words from Jesus to Dispense Now with Contempt
The Flesh
What the New Testament labels “the flesh” is just one nasty piece of human fallenness still possessed by every person living on earth. “The flesh” operates in both true believers and unbelievers. Unbelievers function only in the flesh. The old nature offers up no opposition, so sin dominates the life of an unbeliever.
On the other hand, God changes a believer. He gives him a new nature. God justifies the true believer and the Holy Spirit indwells him the moment of his justification by faith. Scripture describes many different ways the victorious new life of the believer through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
A born again believer must recognize the continued operation of the flesh in him. God persists at saving him by sanctifying him. A believer can still see though certain objective evidence the ongoing action of the flesh in himself.
Inferiority of Self Righteousness
Overestimation of Self Righteousness
Believers and unbelievers both overestimate their own righteousness. The Lord Jesus typified this in Matthew 5 with his six illustrations of the inferiority of self righteousness (verses 21-48). People overestimate the quality of never having killed anyone. A spotless clean lifetime slate for murder says very little about a person’s culpability for murder before God.
Jesus Unmasking Self-Righteousness
Until Jesus said what He did in Matthew 5:21-22, people maybe didn’t understand the severity of having and then showing contempt of and to others. Contempt for others is very common for anyone. Jesus says some surprisingly harsh words as to the true nature of contempt:
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There’s actually a lot to unpack in just these two verses. The “judgment” in verse 21 refers to a civil court. It isn’t the judgment of God. It’s the judgment of men like “them of old time.” This isn’t Moses. These are the men in the Talmud or Mishnah, their interpretations the tradition men followed. Their judgment of murder fell short of the glory of God.
Thou Shalt Not Kill and Murder
Physical Murder
Exodus 20, it’s true, in scripture, one of the ten commandments, says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Numbers 35:30-31 affirm the truth of the danger of judgment for murder. Those are both scriptural. However, the Talmud and Mishnah, the expressions of Pharisaical tradition do not account for the Divine judgment of murder itself. Jesus reveals that in three different ways in verse 22. For this post, I want to focus mainly on one of those three, the second, which says:
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council
Raca is an untranslatable epithet, so is not translated. It is transliterated. The Greek and English word both are “Raca.” It’s essentially any expression of contempt toward another person, treating that person as worthless. It’s an easy way to objectify and marginalize someone. It casts someone instantly into a category, treating the person as less than human.
Contempt toward Others
Self-righteousness tends toward seeing self as better than others. The righteousness compares with other people, not God. No one stands up to the righteousness of God. However, he can see himself as righteous compared with other people. An indicator of his own worth or value is seeing others with contempt. Others do not rise to the standard, so are worthy of the put-down, like “Raca.”
Striking at the Image of God
In Genesis 9:5-6 after the Flood God mandates the death penalty for murder, what someone might call the Divine institution of human government. He says to Noah and the few people left alive on the earth:
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Notice that the reason for the death penalty there is that murder strikes at “the image of God” in man. I’ve read one person who called it “hanging God in effigy.” Murder makes a false judgment on another person, an ultimate act of contempt toward a person, treating him as without the image of God, a falsehood.
Assessment of Contempt
Before someone strikes at God’s image by murdering someone, he sees that man with contempt in his heart. He takes an idolatrous role of usurping God’s judgment on a man. God says, “he’s in my image.” You say, “False, I judge him not in the image of God.” This is contempt.
Murderous Contempt
Before anyone does the killing of murder, he murders in his heart with contempt of another human being. God says that person is in danger of indictment. He deserves the death penalty. When we move along in the verse, the ultimate for contemptuous judgment is the danger of hell fire. In other words, eternal damnation.
According to Jesus, God ranks contempt with murder. For almost everyone, this is surprisingly harsh. It says that we’re all guilty of murder and we all fall short of the glory of God.
Contemptible Contempt
Contempt and murder are works of the flesh. As characteristics or lifestyles, they exhibit the lost condition of someone. The Holy Spirit does not indwell this person.
The believer can still show contempt towards people. It’s become far too acceptable for those who call themselves truly saved. Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. God is not contemptuous toward His creation. He loves mankind.
When someone possesses imputed righteousness, he does not claim self righteousness. He does not see himself as better than others and so justify his contempt for other people. You can see this contempt in the New Testament for the beggar Lazarus and the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair. This contempt is not righteous at all. It is murder.
King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism
Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:
Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.
No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6
Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.
Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.
Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX
In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.
Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.
Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?
1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.
2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.
3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.
–TDR
Embracing An Unstoppable Advantage For Guaranteed Longstanding Victory (Part Three)
War Against the Soul
A non-stop, real war exists through the history of the world between light and darkness. As a part of that war, Peter expresses an unstoppable advantage for guaranteed longstanding victory. He says in 1 Peter 2:11:
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.
The appropriate part of the verse to declare an aspect of war and victory is at the end: “which war against the soul.” What wars against the soul? “Fleshly lusts” do. Abstinence from fleshly lusts eliminates a crucial component for losing this war with darkness. .
A question might and should arise, “How do fleshly lusts war against the soul of a person?” Fleshly lusts cause spiritual and psychological disadvantages in the war against the soul. You need your soul and spirit operating in an optimal way and fleshly lusts wound them.
Confidence in Christ
Confidence in Christ functions within the soul and spirit, not the flesh. Six different thoughts come to my mind on this, not necessarily in this order.
Persuasion
First, confidence is persuasion (peitho). You can behave with strength, because you have confidence, confidence in the Lord (2 Thess 3:4) and not in the flesh (Philip 3:3-4). Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you alway” (Matt 28:20). Jesus is sanctified in your heart, so you’re ready to give an answer of the hope within you (1 Pet 3:15). Readiness comes by fortifying the soul.
Uppermost Affections
Second, you can please God by faith because God abides in the uppermost of your affections (Heb 11:6). You live like He’s your Judge and He does not lie. This rest in Him provides a settled peace that isn’t moved.
Thinking on These Things
Third, anxiety comes not from victimhood, but from not thinking on what is true, honest, just, etc. (Philip 4:8). You’ll remain anxious if you adopt victim status. You’re not one. The peace of God keeps you through Christ Jesus, but only by thinking on it. That’s in your soul.
Sidelining Deflation
Fourth, Satan wants you a casualty, someone out of the fight. He uses those fiery darts that penetrate the heart, not in a deadly manner, but in an injurious or incapacitating way. The Apostle Paul had an open door in Troas, but because he had no rest in his spirit (2 Corinthians 2:13), he missed an opportunity. People become incapable of fulfilling God’s will because they subject themselves to fear and discouragement. Their deflation keeps them sidelined.
Boldness
Fifth, Paul twice asked church saints, once of Ephesus and once of Colossi, to pray that he would have boldness. Boldness comes when the Spirit fills a believer in his inner man. He speaks the truth in love and the Spirit encourages him.
Filled with the Knowledge of God’s Will
Sixth, Paul prayed that the knowledge of God’s will would fill the saints of the church in Colossi (Col 1:9). Furthermore, he says this knowledge of God’s will is in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. God’s will is not arbitrary. It is based on wisdom and understanding and not a feeling proceeding from the flesh.
Fleshly lusts debilitate everyone, both believers and unbelievers. It is a very sad tale when they strafe the souls of believers. They bring this on themselves. Believers have all the resources in the grace of God to abstain. They just won’t. The worst thing very often that you can do to one of these professing believers is exhort or admonish them about it. They are quick to speak, slow to hear, and quick to wrath.
Beach Heads or Gates
John Bunyan clued true believers to the methodology of fleshly lusts. Before him in Pilgrim’s Progress, it was James 1:13-16. The gates through which fleshly lusts pass are akin to the allies taking the beaches in the South Pacific and at Normandy. The flesh forms a beach head through the eye gate, the ear gate, and the three other lesser senses: touch, taste, and smell. Abstaining from fleshly lusts means guarding those gates, stewarding them.
The Nazis had deadly holds on the Beaches of Northern France. Those required removing for victory to occur. Allied soldiers eliminated them at great cost. Professing believers instead contribute to the fleshly strongholds in many different ways. They talk like God gives them liberty to keep those deadly beach heads.
More to Come
Embracing An Unstoppable Advantage For Guaranteed Longstanding Victory (Part Two)
Fleshly Lust and Priesthood
Peter commands his readers (1 Peter 2:11): “Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” It is a crucial or key verse in 1 Peter as Peter moves into the primary message of his epistle. It’s also a mandate or instruction, or at least similar one, as in other passages and from other authors.
In the Old Testament, being a priest was a privilege. The priest could go directly to God unlike an average Israelite. Jesus, however, makes every believer a priest, as seen in 1 Peter 2:5:
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
You can see in that very verse: the New Testament priest “offer[s] up spiritual sacrifices,” ones that are “acceptable to God.” The priesthood requires responsibility. The sacrifices are a sacrifice. And the sacrifices are spiritual and acceptable unto God. The priest can’t give to God just any old thing.
If the priest must offer spiritual sacrifices, then he must abstain from fleshly lusts. Fleshly lusts run in absolute contradiction to spiritual sacrifices. God will reject a fleshly sacrifice. Evangelicalism offers non-stop fleshly sacrifices to God. He rejects those offerings. Yet, evangelicals will count them as accepted because of their feelings. What they feel, they feel is acceptable to Him. They even very often think they feel the Holy Spirit in an ecstatic experience produced out of their passions.
Deprivation of the Soul and Idolatry
Posing as Worship
What does rejected worship do for someone’s soul? It deprives the soul. Fleshly lust hollows out a professing priest of God, leaving him spiritually famished. In the realm of spiritual warfare, this fleshly lust wars against his soul.
Professing Christians pose as worshipers. Like the priests of Baal with Elijah (1 Kings 18), they major on their expression of worship. It originates from their own passion, just like sin arises from their lust (James 1:14). True worship humbles itself before God, subjecting to the truth, which is only His truth. That is authentic worship, not the unique expressions of ones own feelings, but that proceeding from Words of God.
Fleshly lust parallels with idolatry, as revealed by Paul in Colossians 3:5, when he writes:
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Mortification
Mortify your members, Paul writes. The members are body parts. Passions arise from body parts. Fleshly lust abides in body parts, as does indwelling sin. Body parts must be brought under subjection. Then they become instruments of righteousness unto God.
The first falling domino that ends in fornication is idolatry. Next is covetousness. Functioning in the realm of fleshly lust betrays fruit of the Spirit. It’s why Paul also commanded in Romans 13:14: “make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”
“Abstain from fleshly lusts” and “make not provision for the flesh” relate to idolatry. Both result in not offering spiritual sacrifices unto God. God doesn’t accept worldly and fleshly worship, which also means the perpetual offering of a person as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2).
Soundtrack for a Life
Commands and Disobedience to Them
Christians walk according to the soundtracks of their lives, what they might call their playlist. The reformed theologian and author, Douglas Wilson, who wears the mantel of father of modern classical education, wrote this:
While working on this post, to take a snippet of my playlist at random, I have listened to “Feelin’ Alright” by Joe Cocker, “Rivers of Babylon” by the Melodians, “96 Tears” by ? and the Mysterians, “Lonestar” by Norah Jones, “Almost Hear You Sigh” by the Stones, “Watching the River Flow” by Dylan, “Motherless Child” by Clapton, and you get the picture. Now here is a quick quiz. Get out your Bibles, everybody. Is that playlist worldly?
Not too classical. Education, probably not either. That playlist disobeys two commands: “abstain from fleshly lusts” and “make not provision for the flesh.” And actually many others in the New Testament.
Internal Procession of Unrighteousness
Paul writes in Galatians 5:19, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest.” The works of the flesh are evidence. Like faith is evidence, the works of the flesh are evidence. One of those works is “lasciviousness,” which means “sensuality.” The soundtrack of a genuine Christian is not sensuality.
The viewpoint of “abstain from fleshly lusts” corresponds to the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. God’s righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20). The examples or illustrations of Jesus (Matt 5:21-48) then deal with the internal procession of unrighteousness. It’s not just murder, but hate. It’s not just physical acts, but the lack of abstinence from fleshly lusts. This clashes with the nature of God, the true identify of the believer, the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Fleshly lusts do not retard corruption. They speed it up.
More to Come
My Daily Bible Reading: The KJV Bible Read Out Loud, Free
Do you listen to the Bible read out loud? I have listened through the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, read out loud, numbers of times. (Alexander Scourby is my favorite.) Someone whom we know, mainly as a matter for him to make sure that he is spending time in the Word each day, recorded himself reading the entire Bible aloud this last year on YouTube. He described his YouTube channel’s purpose as:
The goal of this channel is to provide daily accountability to read through the whole Bible and more in one year from January 1 to December 31! God’s Word is a Lamp to our feet and a Light to our path. May this channel help us get strength, encouragement, rebuke, doctrine, and guidance each and every day!
So if you would like a free, albeit non-professional, reading of the entire King James Bible through in one year, feel free to listen to the My Daily Bible Reading channel and prepare to be edified by the Spirit through the Word.
Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.
I personally spend a certain number of minutes each week reading the Authorized, King James Version and the Hebrew Old Testament Textus Receptus, as well as reading a certain number of verses in the Greek Textus Receptus. I also work on studying through an Old Testament book (I am currently in Proverbs, reading it with Bruce Waltke’s valuable commentary on Proverbs; before that I read Psalms through with Spurgeon’s excellent Treasury of David) and Matthew, reading through the book with a rather brief dispensational Moody Bible commentary, the New International Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew (useful exegetical insights, but generally dry as dust and anti-verbal inspiration because of source criticism and redaction criticism although “conservative”), and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew (helpful exegetical and devotional thoughts if the paedobaptist Calvinism can be set aside). I also spend a certain number of minutes reading the Septuagint or LXX (I am in Numbers and Psalms). Some days I will focus more on one of these and some days more on another, and at the end of the month I see how many minutes I spent on them all in comparison to how many I am supposed to spend; whatever I have spent less time on, I plan to spend more time on the next month, and whatever I have spent more time on, I can focus upon less.
If I listen to the Bible read out loud, I take the amount of time I spend listening and divide it in half, as I find it easier to get distracted when listening to the Bible then when reading it. We should be especially on guard against our flesh seeking to lead our minds to wander when we are engaged in a spiritual activity like reading God’s Word. I can say with Paul: “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Romans 7:21).
In any case, I am thankful for the hours I have been able to spend listening to the Bible read aloud. Perhaps the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube channel will help you to read and/or listen through God’s Word (at least) once this year, meditate upon what you read, and obey it in reverent love.
The books I referenced above that are linked to on Amazon are affiliate links. I would recommend comparing prices on books here and then clicking through a portal as described here if you are going to buy a book online.
–TDR
Embracing An Unstoppable Advantage For Guaranteed Longstanding Victory
Supply Chains and Tripping Hazards
Something I never heard before 2020 were the two words, “supply chain.” I looked into those two words and didn’t find them used together before the last half of the twentieth century. Google books gives just one page of examples for the whole century and none in the nineteenth century. Examples explode in the last twenty years.
Now that people use “supply chain,” historians provide supply chain advantage as the primary reason for victory in World War Two. It was easier for the United States to get its supplies in Europe than for Germany to get theirs. The Americans, over two thousand miles from home, had more and better supplies than the Germans, only hundreds of miles away.
The success of the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War were short supply chains, essentially tunnels, jungle trails, and near limitless volunteers. Among an assortment of lesser causes, this led to their victory over a superior foe.
To achieve success in life requires eliminating as many possible factors that impede that success. Next week Monday, I’m supposed to have a hip replacement. The booklet to prepare for it explains certain fundamentals like removing threats of tripping from the walking surface of your floors. As you read that, it seems a bit of a “duh” moment. And yet, people leave tripping hazards all over their lives.
Supply Chain Dysfunction
Life became more difficult for many people beginning in 2020 because of “supply chain” dysfunction. The price of homes increased because it’s harder to get the supplies. It’s also more difficult to find the people to build the homes.
God in scripture points out factors comparable to a broken supply chain and a tripping hazard. Peter expresses one in 1 Peter 2:11:
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.
Paul begs and commands those traversing their life’s path on earth, “Abstain from fleshly lusts.” He didn’t say, “Stop sinning.” Saying “stop sinning” is like saying, “Win the war.” You want to win the war, but more basic than that is “build and sustain a supply chain.” Remove tripping hazards.
Professing Christianity today acts like an industrial complex for fleshly lusts. It isn’t abstaining. It riddles the floor with tripping hazards. If the goal is winning the war, not abstaining is a losing strategy. It creates a disadvantage so large that it guarantees failure. Fleshly lusts destroy the supply chain.
Winning the War
People might say they want to win the war. They might publish multitudes of magnificent war victory posters. Until they want to abstain from fleshly lusts and then abstain, they won’t. In fact, professing Christianity today campaigns for feeding fleshly lusts. It thinks its worst enemy is the command. Professing Christianity reacts most harsh to the threat of abstaining from fleshly lusts than the fleshly lusts.
A popular phrase, reaching cliche status, I will still use because of its appropriateness. Professing Christians shoot themselves in the foot when they do not abstain from fleshly lusts. They might not like the idea, but they are in a war, a war they should desire to win. Instead, they provide the way for their own defeat. They have multiple bullet holes in both feet. I think we should say that they want to lose. Losing must in fact be their goal. They are going to get tired of losing, they’ll lose so much.
“Dearly beloved” or “strangers and pilgrims” in this world find their interests in the world to come, not this one. They instead plan their lives around a future kingdom and a heavenly city. They invest for eternity.
Still, 1 Peter 2:11 expresses a command to believers, an unpopular mode of communication. True Christians still participate in fleshly lusts, so Peter commands them to abstain from them. Commands are not options. He also provides the consequence of not abstaining. Psychological problems, soul problems, are the worst ones people have. They obliterate people and families like Sherman’s march tore through the South at the end of the Civil War.
Fleshly Lusts and True Christianity
Fleshly lusts cannot characterize true Christianity. If fleshly lusts do, it isn’t Christianity. It’s something else, not Christianity. Someone who laps up fleshly lusts is not a Christian.
Biblical Christianity, true Christianity, is more than just a series of things someone doesn’t get to do that he might want to do. It is wanting to do what Christ wants Him to do and liking it. Loving it.
The soul that will operate in a godly manner will unhitch itself from fleshly lusts. A soul that continues in its pursuit of worldly pleasure is not “converted” or “restored” (Psalms 19:7, 23:3). God does not possess that soul. It remains in the realm of the wicked one. This is not a person who has lost his life (psuche, his soul) for Christ’s sake. He still loves the world and the love of the Father is not in Him.
More to Come
Recent Comments