Home » Posts tagged 'church' (Page 6)

Tag Archives: church

Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories

I have been thinking about this since writing my post on getting vaccinated for COVID and also my post “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.”  I am not writing this to rehash the contents of those posts.  I would encourage those who disagreed–and those who agreed–with the posts to consider the following Biblical principles before we are convinced by or share as true any conspiracy.

1.) Have I examined both sides of the case for the alleged conspiracy?

Prov. 18:13  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Prov. 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Before telling others, spreading on social media, or in any other way adopting or encouraging others to adopt a conspiracy as true, have I carefully examined both sides of the issue? Have I only read people who agree with the conclusion I am predisposed to, or have I read not just arguments for the conspiracy, but also strong arguments against it, and can I refute the arguments against it? If people challenge my belief in the conspiracy, do I take it personally and react to them emotionally–so that, perhaps, they are not even willing to bring problems with my view, and I place myself in an echo chamber where only those who agree with me are willing to say anything–or do I evaluate what contrary opinions say rationally and dispassionately?

If we do not do this, and promote something which is false because we have not read nor refuted the arguments for the contrary view, it is shame and folly.

2.) Have I exercised great care in my investigation?

Deut. 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain …

Job 29:16 [T]he cause which I knew not I searched out.

Have I made sure that sources that allegedly prove the conspiracy are not taken out of context? Am I looking at the original source, or what someone said that someone said that someone said?  Can I provide a rational mechanism for how what the conspiracy says happened could have taken place, and can I show that other, simpler or less extraordinary explanations fail?  Are the sources reliable ones?  Do I know the bias of the sources I am citing?  We should be very, very careful before assuming a testimonial, a YouTube video, or some other source that would not make it in a high-school research paper or on Wikipedia is giving us the truth while published, peer-reviewed results by people with tremendous knowledge of the field they are writing about are telling us falsehoods.  It is not impossible, but if we are going to make an extraordinary claim like this we need extraordinary evidence.

If we do not follow the two principles above we risk getting taken advantage of by shysters, con-men, and other liars.  We risk bringing reproach to the name of Christ when we utter falsehoods as Christians.  We can put at risk our lives, health, and livelihoods, and the lives, health, and livelihoods of others.

Consider also many of the principles in the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”:

Question 144

What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, (Zech. 8:16) and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; (3 John 12) appearing and standing for the truth; (Prov. 31:8–9) and from the heart, (Ps. 15:2) sincerely, (2 Chron. 19:9) freely, (1 Sam. 19:4–5) clearly, (Josh. 7:19) and fully, (2 Sam. 14:18–20) speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, (Lev. 19:15, Prov. 14:5,25) and in all other things whatsoever; (2 Cor. 1:17–18, Eph. 4:25) a charitable esteem of our neighbours; (Heb. 6:9, 1 Cor. 13:7) loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; (Rom 1:8, 2 John 4, 3 John 3–4) sorrowing for, (2 Cor. 2:4, 2 Cor. 12:21) and covering of their infirmities; (Prov. 17:9, 1 Pet. 4:8) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, (1 Cor. 1:4–5,7, 2 Tim. 1:4–5) defending their innocency; (1 Sam. 22:14) a ready receiving of a good report, (1 Cor. 13:6–7) and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, (Ps. 15:3) concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, (Prov. 25:23) flatterers, (Prov. 26:24–25) and slanderers; (Ps. 101:5) love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; (Prov. 22:1, John 8:49) keeping of lawful promises; (Ps. 15:4) studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report. (Phil. 4:8)

Question 145

What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, (1 Sam. 17:28, 2 Sam. 16:3, 2 Sam. 1:9,10,15–16) especially in public judicature; (Lev. 19:15, Hab. 1:4) giving false evidence, (Prov. 19:5, Prov. 6:16,19) suborning false witnesses, (Acts 6:13) wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out-facing and overbearing the truth; (Jer. 9:3,5, Acts 24:2,5, Ps. 12:3–4, Ps. 52:1–4) passing unjust sentence, (Prov. 17:15, 1 Kings 21:9–14,10–11,13) calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; (Isa. 5:23) forgery, (Ps. 119:69, Luke19:8, Luke 16:5–7) concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, (Lev. 5:1, Deut. 13:8, Acts 5:3,8–9, 2 Tim. 4:16) and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, (1 Kings1:6, Lev. 19:17) or complaint to others; (Isa. 59:4) speaking the truth unseasonably, (Prov. 29:11) or maliciously to a wrong end, (1 Sam. 22:9–10, Ps. 52:1–5) or perverting it to a wrong meaning, (Ps. 56:5, John 2:19, Matt. 26:60–61) or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; (Gen. 3:5, Gen. 26:7,9) speaking untruth, (Isa. 59:13) lying, (Lev. 19:11, Col. 3:9) slandering, (Ps. 50:20) backbiting, (James 4:11, Jer. 38:4) talebearing, (Lev. 19:16) whispering, (Rom. 1:29–30) scoffing, (Gen. 21:9, Gal. 4:29) reviling, (1 Cor. 6:10) rash, (Matt. 7:1) harsh, (Acts 28:4) and partial censuring; (Gen. 38:24, Rom. 2:1) misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; (Neh. 6:6–8, Rom. 3:8, Ps. 69:10, 1 Sam. 1:13–15, 2 Sam. 10:3) flattering, (Ps. 12:2–3) vain-glorious boasting; (2 Tim. 3:2) thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; (Luke 18:9,11, Rom. 12:16, 1 Cor. 4:6, Acts 12:22, Exod. 4:10–14) denying the gifts and graces of God; (Job 27:5,6, Job 4:6) aggravating smaller faults; (Matt. 7:3–5) hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; (Prov. 28:13, Prov. 30:20, Gen. 3:12–13, Jer. 2:35, 2 Kings 5:25, Gen. 4:9) unnecessary discovering of infirmities; (Gen. 9:22, Prov. 25:9–10) raising false rumors, (Exod. 23:1) receiving and countenancing evil reports, (Prov. 29:12) and stopping our ears against just defense; (Acts 7:56–57, Job 31:13–14) evil suspicion; (1 Cor. 13:5, 1 Tim. 6:4) envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, (Numb. 11:29, Matt. 21:15) endeavoring or desiring to impair it, (Ezra 4:12–13) rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; (Jer. 48:27) scornful contempt, (Ps. 35:15–16,21, Matt. 27:28–29) fond admiration; (Jude 16, Acts 12:22) breach of lawful promises; (Rom. 1:31, 2 Tim. 3:3) neglecting such things as are of good report, (1 Sam. 2:24) and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name. (2 Sam. 13:12–13)

If we consider the two questions at the beginning of this post, and the principles found in the Ninth Commandment, we will in a greater way glorify the Lord.  Let’s make sure we do this before we adopt, promote, share with others, or in any other way support conspiracy theories (and consider these principles in all other areas of our life as well that involve rational thought).

If after reading this post, your reaction is to post insults in the comment section, tell me that I am just a stooge of Big Pharma, QAnon, or whatever else, and try to promote some conspiracy that you have not read, much less been able to refute arguments against, and which fail the tests found in the verses in this post, kindly re-read the post and pay a bit more attention.

TDR

Why I Got Vaccinated for COVID

I believe Scripture does not directly address whether someone should be vaccinated against COVID or not.  Within a church people should have liberty to follow their conscience. I made the decision to get vaccinated. Here are the reasons why.  Please consider them respectfully.  If you agree, that is great. If you disagree, that does not mean you do not love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I hope we can respectfully and rationally discuss our reasons, and we can still “receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God,” and still “with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6-7).

COVID-19 vaccine

1.) I got vaccinated because vaccines have saved millions of lives. Compare, for example, David Cloud’s articles on life before and after typhoid vaccines, smallpox vaccines, and yellow fever vaccines. God tells man to subdue the earth and have dominion over it (Genesis 1), and the scientific method and science are part of the way that we obey that command. I got vaccinated because I believe I am helping to stop a disease that has killed or contributed to the death of millions of people world-wide, and in this way am loving my neighbor as myself.

2.) I got vaccinated because I believe it helps to save the health and lives of the Lord’s people in His churches. I know of good churches where people have died from COVID. I know of numbers of the Lord’s saints who were hospitalized because of COVID. I know of numbers of the Lord’s people that had to go on oxygen because of COVID. Some of them were elderly, but others were young. By way of contrast, I don’t know anyone who has died of the flu or had to go on oxygen because of the flu. And these are just people I am familiar with–there are countless numbers of the saints of Christ in other places who have likewise gotten sick, been hospitalized, or died.  I want to do what I can to help God’s saints be able to serve the Lord Jesus Christ on earth for as long as possible until He comes.

3.) I got vaccinated because even if one does not get hospitalized or die from COVID, it is not a fun disease to have for many people. Some people I know who got COVID months ago still have issues with their sense of smell now and have other problems. When they were sick it was not a good time for them. I would rather not risk getting really sick and having ongoing effects possibly a long time later when I could just get a poke in my arm and go about my day just like normal. My only side affect was a slightly sore arm for a short time. Also, I am much less likely to have to lose several weeks of income quarantined, and much less likely to cause other people and businesses to have to lose their livelihoods for several weeks, and I would like to prevent those things from happening.

4.) I got vaccinated so that I can have greater ministry to the elderly.  I would like to be able to go into a nursing home to preach the gospel, not limit my opportunities to go into an elderly person’s home to preach the gospel door-to-door, pick elderly people up for church, and so on.

5.) I got vaccinated so that I do not give people a reason to stay away from the Lord’s house on the Lord’s Day. They don’t need to be afraid that I am going to make them sick. I also do not want to give weak people a reason to stumble. I would much rather get a little poke in my arm than hang a millstone around my neck and be cast into the sea (Mark 9:42), but it is better to have that bad situation with a millstone than cause others to stumble.

6.) I got vaccinated so that if I have opportunities to preach or teach the Word in other countries my ministry will not be limited by being unvaccinated and unable to get into the country.

7.) I got vaccinated to defend religious liberty.  Religious liberty is increasingly under fire, especially from the left in the USA. Many restrictions on churches meeting at all were very bad, and they were justified by the threat of the spread of disease. I believe I am taking away this excuse to attack Christ’s churches and restrict them and their worship and their ministry.  If the majority–which always has been and always will be unregenerate (Luke 12:32)–thinks of churches as places where anti-vax conspiracy people spread disease all over the place, they will want to shut them down. If they don’t like churches because of the gospel we preach, that is fine.  If they don’t like us because we are taking a “stand” for something not in the Bible, like opposing vaccination, that is not good.  Assembling, as Christ commanded, to worship the Triune God, is something worth fighting for and dying for. I do not believe opposing vaccination is worth fighting or dying for. (I also believe supporting vaccination is not a doctrinal issue and should not cause division in a church.)

8.) I got vaccinated because I believe it will help our church to be able to minister to everyone in the community, not just people who subscribe to certain conspiracies or hold certain unconventional views on science.

9.) I got vaccinated because it can help with evangelism. If I am at a public transit station passing out gospel tracts to thousands of people, they might be afraid to take one from me if I am unvaccinated, or I might give them an excuse not to take one. Furthermore, I am more likely to get sick by being out with very large groups of people, and I want to be able to minister without increasing my risk of infecting others.

10.) I got vaccinated because I do not want my unvaccinated brethren in Christ, or other fellow humans in God’s image, to get sick. If a high enough percentage of the population gets vaccinated, COVID will be unable to spread as effectively, and those who do not get vaccinated will also be safe. If not enough people get vaccinated, while the vaccinated people will be protected, those who are unvaccinated will remain vulnerable. I would like to help protect those vulnerable people.

11.) I got vaccinated because, while none of us knows the future, it is very possible that this virus will keep mutating so even people who have gotten COVID already may get it again in a year or so. There are churches that have very few vaccinated people, and where for a variety of reasons they either neglect or refuse to social distance, mask, etc. COVID has gone through many such congregations, sickening many, hospitalizing some, and killing a few. At least for now if practically everyone has already gotten sick, though, they have antibodies just as if they had been vaccinated. If this is a once-for-a-lifetime situation, it would still be very sad for precious saints of the Lord to be in an untimely grave, or on oxygen for weeks, teetering on the brink of death or life, with many others unable to smell or taste properly for months. Unfortunately, COVID may become a yearly thing like the flu. It would be terrible for churches to have COVID sweep through every year and hospitalize or pick off a few of God’s sheep every year. By getting vaccinated, and getting a follow up in future years if necessary, I can do what I can to prevent a recurrence of serious and sometimes deadly sickness among the Lord’s people.

12.) I got vaccinated because I believe it fits in with the real world that God made, which is not the imaginary world of conspiracy theories from InfoWars and its kidnapped children who are in slave labor on Mars, or lies spread by countries such as Russia that are spreading vaccine disinformation. I don’t want God’s Word and His infallible truth associated with such things, or for people to associate the Bible or Christianity with such false ideas or with a failure to be able to think logically and rationally, when Scripture strongly favors a “sound mind” and commands, “come, let us reason” (2 Timothy 1:7; Isaiah 1:18).  Of course, not everyone who has not received a COVID vaccine is a follower of InfoWars or accepts Russian disinformation.  People may have many reasons for not getting vaccinated which may be better than these ones—for example, if a person already had COVID and was treated with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, in conjunction with his doctor’s advice it may be good to wait a few months before getting vaccinated.  If a husband forbids his wife from getting vaccinated, then she should not get vaccinated.  But if InfoWars or another highly unreliable Internet source is why we are not getting the vaccine, it might be wise to reconsider that reason, at least.

13.) I got vaccinated to honor my father and my mother. My family is helping to care for an elderly parent who has not yet believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.  This person does not believe in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  I do not want this loved one to get sick because of me, hindering my ability to share the gospel, or even worse, pass into an eternity without Christ, because I did not get vaccinated.  I also do not want my ability to witness to this loved one hindered by adopting anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and having this person think that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ–which is overwhelming–is like the evidence for anti-vax conspiracies, which is, at best, far from overwhelming.

14.) I got vaccinated because after carefully considering them I did not believe arguments against vaccination are as strong as the arguments for getting vaccinated. The best anti-COVID vaccine argument is that one is supporting abortion by getting a COVID vaccine. However, I do not believe getting vaccinated supports abortion or is anti-life. No COVID vaccine has tissue from any aborted children. It is true that in the 1970s and 1980s cell lines from abortions were placed into labs and used for medical testing.  We are now thousands and thousands of generations of cells away from this originally wicked act of getting the cells in this way.  The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has more involvement with abortion than Moderna or Pfizer, so I avoided the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although I do not condemn those who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. I am not killing any preborn children by getting vaccinated, nor am I supporting the way decades ago a particular cell line was originated by getting a vaccine that is made thousands of generations of cells later when there are no other alternatives. I believe I am very pro-life if I make it so that the lives of the very real people I know who have died from COVID are the end of the death from this disease.  Pro-life means I try to stop the unnecessary death of adults as well as those of the preborn.  Non-Christian religious pro-life movements such as Catholicism as well as secular pro-life groups also recognize the morality of getting a COVID vaccine, even while they (as I agree) recognize it would be better to get cell lines that originated in a different way. If a treatment for a deadly and dangerous disease was achieved by experimentation on the corpse of an adult person who had been murdered, and there were no other equally effective alternative treatments, I would get the treatment for the disease while advocating for other methods of research and development and trying to eliminate future murders in every righteous way possible. I will do the same in this situation. If you think that there is too much of a connection to abortion to get vaccinated, I respect your concern and don’t want you to violate your conscience. From the way I see, it, however, we probably have a closer connection to abortion if we ever shop at a grocery store that donates to pro-abortion causes and if we pay taxes–as Romans 13 commands–to a government that funds abortion and other terrible evils.  Maybe we have a closer connection if we are part owner of pro-abortion companies in mutual funds or other investments (find out if you are here), or if we never warn about abortion through means such as passing out the pro-life, anti-abortion gospel tract here.

Another anti-COVID vaccine argument is that testing has been insufficient. We certainly can always do more testing, and more testing is always commendable, but I believe the likelihood of health problems arising from getting vaccinated is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of getting health problems from actually getting COVID.  I don’t know anyone who had to go on oxygen or is dead from getting vaccinated, but, sadly, I do know numbers of people who have from actually getting COVID. Testing requirements for vaccines in the US are very rigorous, and the competing companies have every incentive to expose their competitors if another firm’s vaccine is unsafe. Thousands of lawyers hoping for a class action lawsuit, countless doctors, millions of people who simply want safe vaccines, and many other competing interests that make it very difficult for a vaccine known to be unsafe to continue to be marketed in the long term.  Also, concern that the vaccine utilizes mRNA and therefore, according to some anti-COVID vaccine conspiracy advocates, changes one’s DNA is simply entirely unsubstantiated and highly inaccurate scientifically. (See also here.)  Claims that thousands of people are dying because they got vaccinated, based on misunderstood VAERS data, are simply misinterpreting the data in question and confusing the fact that with millions of people getting vaccinated thousands of people would die afterwards by simple probability does not mean that they died because of the vaccine–one could equally point out that thousands of people died within 24 hours of reading a book or within 24 hours of getting a good night’s sleep and conclude that getting enough sleep or reading books is deadly.

In my opinion, I did not think that other anti-COVID vaccine arguments were very strong after examining both sides of the issue using critical thinking and scientific principles, as commanded in the Bible.

One of the weakest arguments against vaccination that, sadly, I have heard a lot, is that people are only getting vaccinated because they are afraid, while opposing vaccination is the way to be free from fear. In my view, it would be a lot better to make rational arguments rather than imputing motives that one cannot know to the millions of Christians and the many godly preachers and godly households who have gotten vaccinated. For myself, I know that I got vaccinated to honor and show love for the Lord Jesus Christ, to show love for others, and to be a good steward of the life the Lord has given me. I do not doubt that there are many people who have gotten vaccinated because they were afraid of getting COVID and its sometimes serious effects and a lot of people who have not gotten vaccinated because they were afraid of the very rare instances where vaccines have serious side effects. However, I don’t think it would work to go up to a Christian who opposes vaccination and tell him he is just foolishly full of fear and that is why he is anti-vax. That would not get me anywhere. I would probably be more effective if I could show that he was much more likely to be killed on his morning drive to work than he is likely to be killed from getting vaccinated. Nor, if I were against vaccination, would I go up to a Christian who thinks vaccines are blessings from God the Father that save many lives and tell him he is only vaccinated because he is full of fear. If he actually was not full of fear, he would view my false accusation as ridiculous. Instead, whichever side I was on, I would attempt to find logical and scientific arguments for my view instead of assuming things only God knows about other people’s hearts and minds.

So those are the reasons why I got vaccinated against COVID. (Oh, and here is one more–I am tired of wearing masks and look forward to a time when enough people are vaccinated so we can stop wearing them, although I will still wear one when I am supposed to until that time, since I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says not to wear one if a private company tells me to on their own property or the government God has ordained (Romans 13) tells me to do it.)

People can be very godly and can know nothing about science, can be very godly and know very little about how vaccination works, be very godly and be very into conspiracy theories, can be very godly and can disagree with this post for a variety of other reasons that may be a lot better than those ones, etc. There is a godly man I know in the United Kingdom who thinks the sun moves around the earth, and says he can prove this because if you jump up and come back on earth the earth does not move away while you are in the air. I am thankful for his being able to serve the Lord.  He could well have much more eternal reward in heaven than I will have.  If you are reading this and you are an anti-vax Christian, please don’t take this post as a personal attack and get angry.  Please think about it rationally instead of reacting emotionally.  I would also encourage you, if you don’t already, to remember that “he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13), so make sure you are reading both sides of an issue, not just finding people who agree with you on opposition to vaccination. If you have never read a Christian biology textbook such as those by BJU Press, I would encourage you to check one out and make sure your arguments against vaccines, or against the COVID vaccine in particular, do not require the abandonment of basic biology.  If you have never read an article on PubMed by one of the top medical journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, try reading a few and try avoiding YouTube and social media as sources for information on science. See what your doctor says on the matter.  I trust that we would agree that we must be very careful as a Christians, and especially if we are Christian leaders, not to tell people falsehoods, even if we are sincere in advocating them, and we must be very careful so people can distinguish between when we are giving opinions of ours that are uncertain and are matters of Christian liberty and when we are giving people the infallible truth of God’s Word.  Of course, you are also welcome to comment on this post. I may not have time to get into a lengthy pro and con argument on vaccination, though, so please don’t be offended if I don’t do that.

I believe getting vaccinated is a Christian liberty issue, and have explained why I have gotten vaccinated.  If you have not gotten vaccinated, you are still my brother or sister in Christ. If you are a Christian who cares more about my getting vaccinated than you care about what I think on the gospel, on repentance, on sanctification, on the Triune Godhead, on the church, on worship, on the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, and on other crucial Biblical matters of doctrine and life, and care more about my getting vaccinated then you do about what I do to serve the Lord in my personal life, my family, and my church, then maybe you ought to reexamine your beliefs and see if they are Biblically balanced; maybe you are making anti-vax into a doctrinal issue, and just perhaps you ought not to do that.

May the Lord graciously guide you into His will for you in this matter as you search the Scriptures and apply Biblical principles.

TDR

There is no balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul

The famous hymn “There is a Balm in Gilead” begins:

There is a balm in Gilead
To make the wounded whole
There is a balm in Gilead
To heal the sin-sick soul …

The song is based on Jeremiah 8:22:

Jer. 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

The problem is that in this verse Jeremiah is teaching that there is no balm in Gilead that can heal Israel’s sin-sick soul.  The other two texts that refer to “balm” in Jeremiah likewise specify the failure of balm to heal:

Jer. 46:11 Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured.

Jer. 51:8 Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for her pain, if so be she may be healed.

Perhaps it would be more accurate, if one is to sing this hymn, to sing:

There is no balm in Gilead
To make the wounded whole
There is no balm in Gilead
To heal the sin-sick soul

Only Jesus Christ can do it,

Not any balm of man;

There is no balm in Gilead

To heal the sin-sick soul.

Sadly, if one sings the traditional version, he is singing to God exactly the opposite of what Scripture says.

Churches are encouraged to sing from hymnals where the compilers actually cared that their content is doctrinally accurate, such as the Trinity hymnal: Baptist edition or Great Hymns and Psalms of the Faith (currently words-only, a version with tunes is being worked on by the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle), as well as singing God’s inspired and infallibile psalms, as the New Testament explicitly commands (James 5:13).

TDR

The Place of Fear in a True Church and With True Worship

I’ve read recently, “Fear is not a virtue.”  A company called, American Virtue Clothing prints “Fear Is Not a Virtue” on its clothing.  Heather Delapi argues that “fear” isn’t found in the lists of virtues of scripture, hence is not a virtue.   The English word “fear” is found 385 times in the King James Version of the Bible.  I have read all of those verses, but I haven’t sorted through everyone of them to find how many times fear is rebuked or admonished and how many times it is extolled or commended.  There are both.Fear is a virtue.  No godly person lives without fear.  It is a necessity for pleasing God.  Just because it isn’t listed as fruit of the Spirit doesn’t mean that it isn’t a virtue.  It is dangerous and wrong to say it isn’t a virtue.  Why would I even write this?  I’ve taught through Acts all the way through once, and in great detail about halfway through the whole book about five times.  I’m teaching and preaching through it again right now as we evangelize and plant a church in Southern Oregon.  When Luke writes under the inspiration of God to describe the basics of the church of Jerusalem in that classic passage in Acts 2:41-47, he writes in Acts 2:43 an attitude of that first church:

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

“Fear came upon every soul.”  This verse got my attention again on this subject, so I’m writing on it.  This same morning as I was preaching the end of the book of Acts, in Sunday School I started a short series on “The Detection and Correction of Doctrinal and Practical Error.”  In my introduction I quoted what Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 and elaborated about its part in that subject.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The word fear used by Jesus in the second half of the verse is an imperative.  Jesus commands us to “fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”  At the same time, Jesus says “not to fear.”  The most important problem about “fear” is what you fear.  Everyone should fear, and not just God.  Some of the same people who say “fear is not a virtue” ironically “fear them which kill the body.”  Actually less than that, they fear the “influencers” in the world and then they don’t fear who they should fear, who the Bible says to fear.  They don’t want to fear them even though they fear the world in many obvious ways by how they act.  They fear the opinion of Black Lives Matter, fear the woke crowd, fear the absence of an apparent worldly style, or fear irrelevance according to the spirit of the age.The cure for a sinful fear is a righteous fear.  Many passages prove fear a virtue.  It’s a terrible hermeneutic and contradiction to biblical teaching to say and teach that fear is not a virtue.In Acts 2:43, fear characterized the Jerusalem church.  So also did love, but fear is the first listed.  Love isn’t mentioned at all in verses 41-47, but it’s described in the next three verses (vv. 44-46) in their communal living.  Fear comes first though.  It is the Greek word phobia.Acts 2:41-47 provide the basics of the first church.  Success of that first church, and as a template for all other churches since, depends upon fear.  In the Old Testament, a crucial theme of the Old Covenant was fear, especially represented by the three words: Hear and Fear.  God expected His people to hear what He said and to fear Him.  Sure, God wants other responses, but fear is non-negotiable.There is a trickle down from there.  People who do not fear God will not fear their parents, will not fear their husband, and will not fear their employer.  Now, you read that, and you think, fear shouldn’t be a part of leadership anywhere in the world.The chastening of the Lord in Hebrews 12 is for the purpose of what?  Man doesn’t want to be chastened, he fears it, so he changes in his behavior.  That’s why in Proverbs the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.  On Mt. Sinai, when God gave the law, He showed Himself in a fearsome way with lightning and thunder.  When Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God, great fear fell upon people.  This was what God wanted.When Paul told Timothy that God hasn’t given us the spirit of fear, He meant like Jesus, fearing he who is able to destroy body.  Like Proverbs 29:25 says, the fear of man bringeth a snare.  “Be not afraid,” which is said so many times in the Bible, means “be not afraid of people, the enemies of God, those who criticize you to get you to stop believing and practicing the truth.”Anyone who tries to conflate fear of man with the fear of God and say that fear shouldn’t be a virtue is either very deceived or lying.  He shouldn’t be a teacher.  Ephesians 5:33 says to the wife that she should see that she reverences her husband.  That word “reverence” is the same word phobeia in Acts 2:43.  That word is found 93 times in the New Testament, so it is very common.  When Romans 13:3 says that ‘rulers are a terror to evil,’ that again is phobeia.  I’ve found that very often today professing Christians don’t respond to the terror to evil except with rejection, but they respond to the terror of being canceled by worldly or liberal friends.Ephesians 6:4 reads:  “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.”  That’s right.  The boss needs to be feared too and trembling.  That seems even more extreme.  This is a fear that is a virtue, because it is a virtue again and again in scripture and there are many more places that teach this.Fundamental to acceptable worship is that it is reverent, which always relates to fear.  The creatures in the throne room of God are reverent.  There is always an atmosphere in the presence of the Holy God, even though it is more than that.  Psalm 40:3 says, “And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.”  The saving response of an unbeliever to the true and sincere worship of God’s people is fear.  Unbelievers see true biblical worship and they fear.  Fear goes along with keeping a place or an attitude of reverence to God.

What Is Worldly Worship?

At least twenty years ago, from scripture I came to the following as a definition of worship.  It is my definition, but I believe it reflects what the Bible says.  “Worship is acknowledging or recognizing God for Who He is according to His Word and giving Him what He says that He wants.” If I were going to add a secondary important aspect, “worship necessitates coming to the right God and in the right way.”  You aren’t worshiping God if He isn’t actually God and then you’re not worshiping Him if you are doing it your way.  God doesn’t accept just anything.

I googled the two terms “worldly worship” and it produced 12,300 results.  Those were not all articles written by me, although I found I had used that terminology in some online writings.  It is a known concept though, worship that is worldly that is not acceptable to God, which is of the nature of the world system and not the nature of God.  I went ahead and googled “syncretistic worship” too, because I think it’s a related concept.  That showed up 6,060 times.

Syncretize means:  to “attempt to amalgamate or reconcile (differing things, especially religious beliefs, cultural elements, or schools of thought).”  When referring to syncretism in worship, many have pointed to the practice in Israel of bringing aspects of the worship of paganism into the worship of God, mixing the two.  Many examples of syncretism are seen in the nation Israel (Exodus 32:1-8; Leviticus 10:1-7; Deuteronomy 12:30-31; 1 Kings 3:5-10; etc.).  The way Israel syncretized is not the only way to syncretize.  Mixing something impure with purity makes it impure.

Speaking of worship, Paul commands, “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2).  Because God accepts only holy worship, not profane, then it can’t be conformed to this world system, the spirit of the age.  Obviously, everything we do occurs in this world or on this planet, on earth.  The world system clashes with God.  It is represented by darkness and all the characteristics described in scripture as seen in many places, one of which as an example is James 3:15:  “earthly, sensual, and devilish.”  There are many more.  One should assume that all of these can be understood and applied.

The world is attractive to sinful flesh.  Satan shapes the world system to lure people away from God.  Because the world is a lure, it also works when a church uses it.  Satan designs it as a lure and if a church takes that lure and uses it, it’s still a lure.  That’s the temptation of using anything worldly.

Varied aspects of this world are filled with meaning.  Many of those meanings are not congruent with God.  One should even expect that they are not.  Whatever it is that will please God has already been around.  One should question any new style or method, especially that has proceeded from worldly lust, which Titus 2:11-12 says that the grace of God teaches us to deny.  I contend that rather than denying worldly lust, most churches today promote it.  They might argue that this new way is neutral, neither good or bad.  God’s people didn’t originate it, actually rejected it, and then after a period of time, accepted it, then used it, arguing now that God also wants it.

Someone may ask, what basis do I have that churches are using worldly music?  I haven’t been in all these churches, so how do I know?  Not only have I been all over the country, but I’ve looked at websites of churches all over.  I know enough.

Every church and their leaders should want accountability as to whether they are using worldly worship.  They should look for constructive criticism.  People are deceived in many different ways as they relate to God.  The broad road to destruction has many religious people on it.  When I read the materials of the church growth movement used as a model for thousands of churches, they encourage worldly worship as means of church growth.

God doesn’t accept worldly worship, so why would churches still do it?  Why would Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire to the Lord?  I would contend that the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu is a lesser perversion of worship than most worldly worship, and God killed them for offering it.  They were still offering incense. They just changed the recipe.  They offered something God didn’t say that He didn’t like.  They offered something different than what God said He wanted.  It seems that Nadab and Abihu just didn’t take God seriously, what could be called, not fearing God.  We know what they did was bad and wrong and sinful, but it was still not something that God had said was wrong.

Worldly worship we know God doesn’t want.  There are two obvious motives for giving God something He doesn’t want, and they are seen in scripture.  First, the one offering it likes it.  This is the serving the creature of Romans 1.  He’s not really even giving to God as much as he’s doing something for himself that he likes.  I’ve seen this again and again in churches I’ve visited.  It can happen anywhere.  Second, other people will like it too, so it will make the church more popular.  The people wanting that worship don’t like what God likes, but they either convince themselves or are just deceived into thinking that God will accept it.  A third reason is deceit.  The feeling the worldliness causes often is mistaken for a spiritual experience.

Worldly worship parallels with a worldly life.  The world offers what the flesh desires.  There were times in church history that a wide chasm existed between the worship of the Lord in the churches and the world.  That gap has shrunk to where there isn’t much difference.  It’s worse that that.  The churches like the world and they expect God to like it too.  It shows an amazing lack of understanding of God and what He wants.

As you have read this, reader, perhaps you wanted to know more specifics.  “Give me a specific of worldly worship.”  I could say, using the world’s music in worship.  To get more specific, I could go further, using rock music in worship.  There are many other specific examples.  It’s better to start with the principles for discerning what is worldly and that God doesn’t want something worldly.

To accommodate worldliness, I have heard evangelicals give a very narrow understanding of worldliness as internal only, that nothing external is worldly.  However, Paul wrote, “Be not conformed to this world.”  There is internal worldliness, the love of the world in the heart, but conforming by definition must be external.  God doesn’t want something we can see and hear is worldly.  He rejects it.

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4

What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper?  Do you know?  If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should.  I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.

The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening.  Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper.  The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:

On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.

Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. … 

The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”

It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.

All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.

In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—

“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.

“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.

“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”

Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”

Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”

Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”

Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”

Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”

At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.

We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”

Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”

Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”

Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”

Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”

Luther.—“You are captious.”

Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”

Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”

Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.

Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”

TDR

Raise a Godly Family in an Ungodly Area–Is it Possible?

 If one is in Oklahoma, there are pages and pages of Baptist churches in the phone book. (Phone book? What’s that? But I digress.)  In the San Francisco Bay Area, there are many, many fewer churches that even preach a true gospel, much less take a stand for all the truth in the Bible.  Sometimes, in relation to a post like “Evangelize the Bay Area of California!,” some people say, and more people think, something to the effect: “I’m glad you are wanting to do that, but I could never do it.  I want to raise my family for God, so we will live in a conservative area, try to move some place rural or stay rural if we are, and never, ever go to a place that is liberal and godless like San Francisco.”  Is this a Biblical way of thinking?  Do we see this sort of thinking in Scripture?

It is true that if one wants to live a comfortable and easy life, coasting along living the American Dream, doing so in a conservative and more God-and-Bible friendly area is easier.  Taxes are likely to be lower; people are more likely to be friendly; everything is nice and pleasant.  But where does Scripture say life is about having things nice and easy?  Where do “nice and easy” and “take up the cross and follow Me” meet?

Revelation 2-3 records Christ’s commands to seven first century (Baptist) churches. One of these churches was “where Satan’s seat is,” and where “Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” (Revelation 2:13).  Sounds like a really, really rough place.  A lot worse than San Francisco, in fact.  No martyrs in San Francisco recently.  So because the church was in a wicked part of the world, Christ told the congregation that they shouldn’t be in a big, bad city, where Satan’s seat was.  He told them to go to some rural place and live the American Dream.

Oh wait, sorry, that isn’t in the text anywhere.  Didn’t Christ want the families at that church to be able to raise their children for God?  Didn’t He know that you can’t do that in a city “where Satan’s seat is”?

In the book of Acts, the Apostles and their helpers really, really wanted those who received the gospel to raise their children for God, of course.  Therefore, we see the pattern that they sought out the areas that were the most likely to have Biblical values and went there first, leaving those in the big, bad cities to perish in their sin.

Oh wait, sorry, that isn’t what they did–they went to the cities first, and even when the Apostles had to flee because of riots, they didn’t tell the church members there to leave their city and go somewhere things were easier.

So this idea that you can’t raise your children for God in areas that are hostile to the Bible is not in Revelation 2-3 and not in the book of Acts.  Is it in the epistles? Nope.  In the Gospels? Nope.  So does it have any basis in the Bible?  None at all.  It is just made up.  The closest you can get to it is that if someone is actively trying to kill you or cause you bodily harm Christ teaches that you can run away.  Also, if you go to a wicked place for worldly purposes unconnected to the glory of God and leave godly influences behind to go there (Genesis 18-19), you should expect bad things to happen. Those are both totally different than refusing to go to a liberal part of the United States to help a strong church or plant a church because there is more open evil in the world than in some nice, rural, conservative, Bible-friendly area, maybe in the Bible belt or in the heavily Republican South.

What does matter to raising a godly family is having a strong church that is seeking to obey all of Scripture for the glory of God, and where both parents are actively serving.  If you want to raise your family for God, make sure that you have a church like that.  Make sure that you have your kids in a strong Christian school or homeschool that is actively seeking to disciple them with close parental involvement, and that you and the school are consistent in the use of the rod and of reproof.  If you think you can put your kids in public school because you live in a conservative area, so everything will be fine, you are bonkers.  Do the above to raise a godly family.  If God is giving you the desire to help evangelize for the purpose of seeing new churches established in a part of the USA that actually needs them really, really badly–in other words, those liberal parts where nobody or almost nobody is preaching the gospel–do not refuse to go because of this made-up idea that you can’t raise a godly family there.  It isn’t true.  It is a lie, a Satanic lie to confuse people on what is necessary for godly child-rearing and to prevent the Great Commission from being fulfilled.  Certainly someone in a weaker church in a more conservative part of the country is more likely to lose his children to the devil than someone in a stronger church in a more liberal part of America.

At least in my experience, people who have adopted this non-Biblical idea usually limit their restriction on moving to liberal areas to the United States.  Going to a mission field is OK, even if the place is very wicked.  If they were consistent, they would apply this idea to foreign countries as well, which would be the end of world missions.  The large majority of the world is more corrupt and with less Biblical influence than remains even in San Francisco, Massachusetts, and other parts of the USA where we still have First Amendment protections and other constitutional privileges as citizens that are not present in the overwhelming majority of the world.

It would be great if some of the people in the Baptist churches on every corner in the Bible belt and in other nice, Bible-friendly areas would get out of their holy huddle and move to parts of the USA and to the rest of the world where the vast majority of the population has never heard the gospel even one time.  They should be earnestly desiring to move to places like that and start preaching the gospel to those that have never heard it (Romans 15:20).  Maybe the default position should be to help there, and only stay in their nice and comfortable place if it is clearly God’s will that they stay instead of going.

So if you have it in your mind that you would never go somewhere like the San Francisco Bay Area because it is liberal with little Biblical influence, you are not thinking Scripturally.  Instead of wanting to avoid going there because of a made up idea that raising a family for God is impossible in such a place, ask the Lord of the harvest what He would have you to do and where He would have you go, knowing that as you actively take up your cross and follow Christ you will have the best chance possible to raise the next generation to do the same.

Oh, and by the way, while the idea that you can’t raise children for God in a liberal area is not in the Bible, at least you have the Catholic philosophy of monasticism and Ellen White, the cult leader and prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism, on your side.  In her allegedly “inspired” book Country Living, Mrs. White made statements such as:

“[God] wants us to live where we have elbow room. His people are not to crowd into the cities. He wants them to take their families out of the cities, that they may better prepare for eternal life” (17.1).

“Get out of the cities as soon as possible, and purchase a little piece of land, where you can have a garden, where your children can watch the flowers growing” (17.3).

Aww, isn’t that sweet.  Too bad it isn’t in the Bible anywhere. If you follow the Bible instead of Ellen White, take up the cross, follow Him, and help to preach the gospel to everyone in the areas where nobody is doing it.  God will help you raise your family for Him there.                           TDR

The Belly or the Bowels (part two): Either a Belly Church or a Bowel Church

Part One

In Philippians 3:19, the Apostle Paul uses these words:  “whose God is their belly.”  Let’s play a thought experiment with a potential reader of those words at the end of that chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians church.  He says,

My God is not my belly, so Paul isn’t talking about me.  He must be referring to unbelievers or apostates, and I’m not one.  I believe in the true God.

This is important to consider, especially in the changing nature of churches today.  Just because the name of God and of Jesus are both used doesn’t mean that these are the true God and Jesus of the Bible.  This reader isn’t going to say, “My belly is my God, you’re right, Paul.”  No, this reader is going to say that the true God and the true Jesus really are truly their God, but in fact their belly is their God.  True faith in God is not some arbitrary check in a box.  Many false religions put the check in the right boxes, but are not genuine faith.

The belly and the bowel contrast presented in part one distinguish between two religions or even two churches, with the exception that one of them isn’t even a church, because it isn’t preaching true conversion. The belly religion or church contradicts true salvation.  No one in the kingdom will have his belly as God.  It is a fabricated kingdom in someone’s imagination, that he calls God’s kingdom, because then he envisions being in God’s future kingdom, while also pitching his tent in the kingdom of this world.  This has now long become the norm in evangelicalism, churches pandering to bellies.

The bowel approach relies on scripture alone, exclusively scriptural methodology, what the Apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 1-3.  That always “works.”  When I say works, God’s Word is powerful.  What I mean is that it really works.  However, it also doesn’t “work.”  It never “works.”  The belly approach works far more in getting some tangible result and almost everyone reading this knows what I mean.  The belly approach incidentally is the Rick Warren approach of Purpose Driven Church.  Growing up, Warren didn’t like how unsuccessful his father’s church was, so he crafted a strategy that would always work.  His belly wanted more.  The nature of how the belly approach works reminds me of the moment Dr. Seuss’s Grinch gets its idea.  It’s either a wonderful or an awful idea, all depending on how one judges the two.  An awful idea became a wonderful idea, that was still awful.

Churches that proposition the belly introduce a different God.  God doesn’t work through the belly.  He addresses the bowels.  God makes this plain in scripture.  It is determinative.  If your means or agency is belly, this isn’t God.  It is a kind of bait and switch.  A belly allurement is not offering God.
What is a belly church?

To follow Paul in Philippians 3:19, the belly church minds earthly things.  BDAG provides two definitions of the Greek word translated “earthly”:

1.  pertaining to what is characteristic of the earth as opposed to heavenly; 2.  pert. to earthly things, with implication of personal gratification, subst. worldly things

Someone again might ask:  But this is a church, isn’t it?  It calls itself a church.  This is where discernment comes in.  In the next verse, Paul writes, “Our conversation is in heaven.”  He is saying literally, “Our citizenship exists in heaven.”  The word “is” or “exists (huparcho) is to say “what belongs to someone,” so that heaven is where the believer’s possession is.  The church is the domain of heaven on earth, not the domain of earth on earth.  The domain of earth on earth is the world.
The belly church tries to make earthly ones at home on earth instead of heaven.  Belly things are earthly things.  The belly church charms its subjects with its dress, music, recreation, and in general way of life, which is the meaning of culture.   It presents a worldly culture, and then says it represents God.  It isn’t a solemn or reverent assembly.
The contemporary belly church labels its earthly culture, the grace of God.  Its adherents call this culture authentic, because it is who they really are.  They are free to be themselves, earthly and at home on this earth.  Their redemption brings a quantity of life, but not a quality of life.  It isn’t redemption, because their god is still their belly and they are still minding earthly things.  They love the world, so the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15-17).
Some churches have just modified the earthly things, dialing them down and adding heavenly things, in accordance with the bowels, the affections.  Their worship isn’t sacred.  It’s just less worldly.  It’s church schedule is still filled with earthly activities.  Very often these churches attract using earthly attractions, retaining a semblance of church.  An erosion has occurred to where the modifications of heavenly things, syncretizing them with earthly things, have become their own culture.  They’re not really sacred anymore.  They’re just called sacred, because the church has been using them.  Being used in the church doesn’t make something sacred, whether it is a modified heavenly thing, mixed with earthly things, or completely earthly things.
Associates of or supporters of belly churches, please consider whether your God is your belly.  You might call it Jesus.  You’re being fooled, and this deception will send you all the way to Hell.  Let’s just say it.  You think you’re on your way to heaven, but you’re going to Hell.  When you’re there, taking in the deception that your belly religion is Christianity, that will be an eternal, painful regret of the nature of gnashing of teeth.
(To Be Continued)

Learn Christian Latin, Self-Directed: How I am Doing It

Latin is the language of Christendom for over 1,500 years–it is valuable for someone who wants to understand the history of Christianity, to understand the Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Bible translations, the language known by Biblical writers from Mark, early writers in Christendom, influential medieval theologians from Anslem to Aquinas, reformers from Luther to Calvin, Puritans like John Owen, and Baptist writers like John Gill.  Latin also helps one to understand untranslated Latin excerpts in commentaries like Keil & Delitzch, Latin excerpts in systematic theologies, and so on.

Interestingly, only approximately 0.01% of all extant Latin, though admittedly with substantial influence, is composed of classical Roman authors  Approximately 80% of extant Latin writings composed by those who professed to be Christians, while the other 20% is scientific and various other treatises by non-Christian writers (Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020], xvii).

So in light of the value of Latin, I have prayerfully decided to to learn the language at my own pace.  So how is it going?  I’m glad you asked.  How am I going about it?

I first started with Latin 101: Learning a Classical Language by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, a course offered by “The Great Courses” organization.  Having profited by numbers of classes offered by The Great Courses, I would use their class to learn classical Latin and then transition to the Latin of Christendom.  The “Great Courses” class offers a textbook with exercises and also video lectures, and I wanted to have lectures with a real, knowledgable teacher.  I also did not want to pay very much money, and I knew that The Great Courses regularly offers sales where their classes are listed at 70-85% off (you should never pay the full price, or even half price, for a Great Courses course; they list prices are fake to make you feel like you are getting an incredible deal at 70% off.  The marketing technique is effective–but the real, 70% off price for their classes is actually reasonable for courses that are often of high quality.)

I got through the majority of the Great Courses class, completing all the exercises, with their textbook and a Latin dictionary (Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968)  However, as I kept plugging away, I started to get really bogged down in the exercises.  I was looking up practically every word in the dictionary and taking an inordinately long amount of time to complete the exercises.  I believe that the Great Courses class will probably work for some, but for me there just were not enough exercises to attain sufficient mastery of the material before going on to the next chapter.  So after slogging through a majority of the book, with progress getting slower and slower, I started looking for alternatives.

I discovered the Familia Romana / Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata series, and have to this point been very impressed.  I purchased a number of books so that I could have everything I needed to teach myself using that series, as well as a few other works that help as described below:

5.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Teacher’s Materials. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link

I also got a few others; click here for my page on learning Christian and classical Latin for more information.

The student textbook, Familia Romana, Pars 1: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, is written entirely in Latin. It presents an interesting story of a Roman family with all its adventures, and teaches Latin inductively with plenty of pictures, side-notes, and other helps so that the student can understand the Latin in Latin.  (See an example here from the first chapter of the book.) The successive chapters build gradually on each other and the student learns Latin naturally.  After learning new grammatical forms inductively, the textbook complements induction with a deductive presentation.  The deductive approach is also followed by the two specifically Ecclesiastical/Christian Latin works by Collins and Cooper.  (Collins is very Catholic while Cooper, a Protestant, draws on the entire Christian Latin tradition.)
I am now in chapter sixteen of Familia Romana, am making regular progress, and am already getting interesting information from the specifically Christian Latin works by Cooper (especially) and Collins.  Dr. Cooper also kindly allowed me to obtain from Zondervan a complementary review copy of his textbook and video lectures.  I do not believe I have said anything about differently than I would have if I had needed to pay for his text and lectures.
I can plan to keep you updated as I continue to make progress, Lord willing.  This way of learning Latin is working for me and I believe it would work for others, at least from a high-school level on up.
Note that the links to Amazon above are affiliate links.  You can learn more about how to save on Internet purchases here.
TDR

“Come as you are” or “sanctify yourselves”?

Today we hear a great deal about how we should come to church just as we are.  I recall a life-size ad that was posted for many weeks at a local mall in Wisconsin.  It had a picture of a guy in a T-shirt holding a Bible, a big tattoo visible on his arm, wearing jeans.  The ad asked, “Would Jesus wear jeans to church?” There was no gospel on the ad anywhere, although the religious organization claims to be evangelical.  Even if someone were to (wrongly) think that the answer to that question is, “Yes,” unless wearing the jeans and the tattoo were an idol, one could answer “Yes, but who cares? Why aren’t you giving these lost people the gospel instead of asking them a silly question about clothing?” On the other hand, if the casual clothes are an idol that one is not willing to forsake to take up the cross and follow Christ, then the ad makes sense; we can “put down the cross and serve ourselves,” can keep everything in the world that the jeans and tattoo represent, instead of taking up the cross and following Christ.  

But is the answer really “yes”?  Are we supposed to come to church as we are?

Scripture regularly contains the following phrase when people were entering the presence of the infinitely holy Jehovah (in each case the Hithpael of the verb qds, “holy”):

Ex. 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

Lev. 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Lev. 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

Num. 11:18 And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.

Josh. 3:5 And Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves: for to morrow the LORD will do wonders among you.

Josh. 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.

1Sam. 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.

1Chr. 15:12 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

1Chr. 15:14 So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.

2Chr. 29:5 And said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.

2Chr. 29:15 And they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came, according to the commandment of the king, by the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 29:34 But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests.

2Chr. 30:3 For they could not keep it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem.

2Chr. 30:15 Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 30:24 For Hezekiah king of Judah did give to the congregation a thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep; and the princes gave to the congregation a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests sanctified themselves.

2Chr. 31:18 And to the genealogy of all their little ones, their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, through all the congregation: for in their set office they sanctified themselves in holiness:

2Chr. 35:6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses.

So the world, and most of evangelicalism, says to come to church just as you are, the same way you come to any worldly event.  Indeed, making no difference between the common or profane and the holy temple of God in this age is important enough to many evangelicals that they will refrain from giving people the gospel to instead focus upon the importance of coming to church in your T-shirt and jeans sporting your tattoo with your modern Bible version.  Come as you are, sing to God the tunes of the world, and add a little religion to your life–your life which is all about you.  By contrast, Scripture affirms, over and over again, that one is to sanctify himself before coming into the presence of the holy, holy, holy God.

So, in a true church, where the special presence of God is found in a manner comparable to the holy of holies in the Old Testament tabernacle (Gk. naos), you should not come just as you are.  You should sanctify yourself–you should come in a way that is distinctly different, that is not common, not profane, but set apart to the righteous Lord and God who dwells in a special way in His true church.  Jesus Christ walks in the midst of His churches, and He still hates any profanation of God’s worship the way He did when he took a whip and drove out the moneychangers and merchants from the Temple (John 2) and when He sent fire from heaven to burn up those who failed to sanctify Him in their worship (Leviticus 10).

Nor should true churches set up special meetings where the people of God specifically fail to sanctify themselves in their appearance and come into the presence of God in an informal, casual, common way so that lost people who visit feel more comfortable.  There is no model for this in Scripture, and when in the New Testament a lost person comes under conviction after visiting church, it is because of the truth of the Word he has heard from the godly example and speech of the church members, not because they decided not to sanctify themselves. That is not the way to get the lost to confess “God is in you of a truth” (1 Corinthians 14:25), but to get them to confess:  “There is nothing special here.”  Much less should church services be turned into carnivals with give-aways to attract children who would not come for Christ but will come for candy.

On the other hand, if you are going to a religious organization that does not fit the Biblical criteria for one of Christ’s true churches, you might as well come as you are and make no difference between the holy and the common, since Christ is not there anyway.  Go for it!  But don’t deceive yourself and think that you are doing anything that is for the glory and honor of God when you are there.  It’s about you.  Be honest.

So, considered Biblically, a religious organization with a “seeker-sensitive, come as you are” philosophy of ministry is saying “God is not here.  This is about us and what we want. No to Immanuel, yes to ourselves.  The Bible says ‘sanctify yourselves’ before coming into God’s presence–but we say exactly the opposite.”

On a side note, the Keswick / Higher Life idea that “You cannot sanctify yourself” is the opposite of what the passages of Scripture above teach.  The sons of God, enabled by grace, do indeed sanctify themselves; that is one of the ways that God sanctifies them.

Please do not draw the conclusion from this article that the lost need to make themselves worthy before they can come to Christ. This post is about God’s people and how they should come into the presence of God in His church, not about how the lost should come to Christ as empty-handed sinners with nothing but their sin.  Please also do not conclude that we should discourage lost people who know nothing about God’s Word from hearing preaching or attending services if they do not dress nicely enough.  That is not what the post is about either.  Nor did the post say anything to the effect that the outside is more important than the inside; that is not the case. God does care about sanctifying all of who we are, inside and outside.  Do not take the post for what it does not say, but what it does say.

Let’s just be honest with these passages of Scripture and recognize that the saints should sanctify themselves in their hearts, minds, and appearance before they come into the special presence of the God who commanded, “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 11:44).  Not soli mihi gloria, but soli Deo gloria.

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives