Home » Posts tagged 'sin' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: sin
Millions of Muslims are NOT Becoming Christians Because of Dreams!
Many sources report that, in the words of Roman Catholic conservative Dinesh D’Souza, “Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ.” Charismatic sources agree with the Catholics about millions of Muslims becoming Christians through dreams and visions. So do Southern Baptist mission agencies.
These visions and dreams clearly prove that:
1.) Continuationism is true and cessationism is false. God is continuing to give revelatory dreams and visions today. We have lots of testimonials, and testimonials can’t be wrong.
2.) Any passages of Scripture that seem to teach the cessation of revelation with the completion of the canon must be reinterpreted in light of the overwhelming proof from the dreams and visions.
3.) If this can happen in Muslim lands, it can happen here. Instead of the hard work of teaching people to skillfully preach the gospel, and working so that they grow spiritually to the point where they love to go house to house, we should encourage people to seek after signs, wonders, and dreams, because that is how there will be millions of new converts here in our country as well.
Right?
Wrong.
Why?
Scripture is the sole authority for the believer’s faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Scripture is more sure than any experience–even hearing the audible voice of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). Scripture, therefore, must never have its teaching ignored, altered, overlooked, or changed because of what someone claims he experienced. Indeed, even if everyone in the whole world said something was true, but Scripture said otherwise, the Bible would be right and everyone would be wrong: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Scripture teaches cessationism, as the studies linked to here clearly demonstrate. There are no Apostles today or apostolic gifts (Ephesians 2:20), the canon of Scripture is complete (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), and God Word is His completed revelatory speech.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17); conversion comes through Scripture (John 15:3). Men are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). So nobody has been born again because of a dream. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth as sinners, enabled by grace, respond to the gospel recorded in the Word of God. This is “thus saith the Lord.” I don’t care what someone says happened in his dream. God’s Word is infinitely more reliable than someone’s dream, and Scripture teaches that people are born again through hearing the gospel, not having dreams and visions.
So how do I explain the dreams? I don’t need to explain people’s dreams. The Bible tells me to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), but it never tells me that I need to explain what someone said he saw in a dream. I don’t need to explain dreams of people who say they left Islam and rejected Allah and the Quran for Christianity. Nor do I need to explain the dreams of people who say they left Christianity for Islam after having a dream. How am I supposed to know what is going on in someone else’s head when he is sleeping? The vast majority of the time I can’t even remember my own dreams. Yet I need to explain what someone tells me happened in his dream, or what someone tells someone else who tells someone else who tells someone else who prints an article with no documentation in a charismatic magazine about a dream?
I am suspicious that these “millions” of converts are allegedly taking place in lands far, far away where it is impossible to verify anything. For example, in the Dinesh D’Souza video above, there are no sources provided and no way to verify anything. This is typical–indeed, D’Souza is a scholarly man who tends to document his material far better than does the average charismatic magazine. With these millions of alleged converts to Christianity, true churches–independent Baptist churches–should be overflowing in Muslim countries, as Islam is allegedly collapsing and true Christians are allegedly becoming a huge percentage of the population. But are these people-if they even exist–becoming true Christians, or leaving Islam for other demonic religions, like Roman Catholicism or Oneness Pentecostalism? What would someone leaving one false religion for a different false religion prove? Scripture teaches that we see Christ by faith, enabled by the Spirit, in the Word (2 Corinthians 3:18), and all images of Jesus Christ are idolatrous violations of the Second Commandment (see the relevant resources here). So are they seeing the real Jesus in a dream? Also, where are all these people? Why is this only (allegedly) happening in places far, far away where we can’t actually verify it? I think of how Jack Hyles claimed that through “God’s power,” allegedly in conjunction with carnal promotion and marketing techniques that manipulated people and are found nowhere in Scripture, he had far more “saved” in one day than the Holy Ghost did on the Day of Pentecost, although not even one person was added to First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana on that day through these “saved” people, and people close enough to the situation to investigate claimed that the vast majority of these “saved” people were just as lost as before. I think of how Keswick continuationist John A. MacMillan, who is promoted among Independent Baptists at schools like Baptist College of Ministry. MacMillan claimed to have an amazing technique for casting out demons, which was copied by him and promoted at one of the yearly Victory Conferences at Baptist College of Ministry and Falls Baptist Church–but people who were close to the situation claimed, on the contrary, that the demons were in control of everything. I think of how Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, with their dreams and visions, destroyed the 1904-1905 Welsh revival. Scripture is sufficient, so even if I were confronted with signs and wonders of the quality that the Antichrist will perform in the Tribulation, I would still go by sola Scriptura–Scripture alone. But the alleged evidence for these dreams and visions seems to be woefully lacking. They aren’t like the real revelatory miracles in the Bible before the miraculous gifts ceased.
Note that the question is not if God is powerful enough to give people dreams. The question is not one of God’s power. It is one of what He has said He would do in His inspired revelation, the Bible–and in that revelation He has said that the giving of revelation through dreams has ceased. Nor is there a category of “non revelatory” dreams that are infallibly from God. If God gives infallible truth, then it is revelation. If it is not infallible truth, then God is not speaking in the dream, for God cannot lie, but only speaks and reveals infallible truth.
What if I come across someone who actually is serving the Lord faithfully in a true church, but who says that having a dream was part of how he became a Christian? Doesn’t that mean that I need to reinterpret Scripture? No. God is sovereign, and He can use all kinds of things to get people thinking about religion or about His Word. I know someone who is a faithful Christian who, before his conversion, liked to watch creationist videos while smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I commend the pot smoking. I know someone else who called on a ghost (likely a demon) to come to him, and then says that the ghost came at night and almost killed him. The demonic intervention led this person away from agnosticism to openness to the supernatural, and years later he became a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support agnostics calling on ghosts or demons. So if someone says he had a dream and that led him away from Islam to Christianity, I’m glad if he trusted in Christ, while everything contrary to Scripture that took place in his life–including the alleged revelatory dreams–are chalked up to God’s merciful and providential grace, and need no further explanation. (This is even apart from the fact that we cannot see people’s hearts, and even in true churches people without the new birth can enter and appear to be genuine believers for a time, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the person who claims to have been born again after seeing a dream is not a true child of God.)
So are millions of Muslims being born again because of dreams? No. Nobody is being born again because of a dream. Are Muslims having dreams that lead them to all kinds of religious experiences? Very possibly. Why? There could be all kinds of reasons. I do not need to speculate.
What I do need to know is what Scripture teaches. The Biblical truth of cessationism is being weakened in some independent Baptist churches because people are not thinking Biblically, but are allowing what people say is happening in their dreams to justify changes to Biblical beliefs on charismata. You are dreaming if you think it is right to change one’s doctrine and practice from what Scripture teaches because of what some other person says he saw when he was sleeping.
Never change or set aside God’s Word because of an experience or what someone says. That was part of Satan’s original technique that caused the Fall in Genesis 3. Go with Scripture–not the dreams. As Christ said, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Give Muslims gospel truth, such as in The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible pamphlet. Reject the dreams. Do not be deceived.
Christianity: Pro-Racism, Pro-Slavery White Man’s Religion–Reject it for Atheism!
I have written a pamphlet dealing with attacks upon the Bible and Christianity from its (alleged) racism and (alleged) support of chattel slavery, compared with the (alleged) anti-racism and anti-slavery position of atheism. It deals with the objection that “Christianity is the racist white man’s religion” and, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, “[W]hite supremacy [is] interwoven with Christianity … inextricably intertwined.” (Sources for all quotes are in the pamphlet.)
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
You may think that such claims are so ridiculous that they do not deserve a refutation. You are correct about them being ridiculous—and, as Bethel Baptist Church, where I serve the Lord, is not majority white now and has not been for a very long time, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the area, it is indeed a very foolish claim. However, sadly, in secular college campuses and in liberal media these egregious falsehoods are regularly propounded. Not that long ago a very angry black man at a place where I was passing out gospel literature said that all white Christians were supporters of white nationalism. (He also said, ironically, that they all denied it when he said that to them. Hmm… ). He said he had a degree in religious studies. (Perhaps they should give him his money back.) In any case, the attack on Christianity from its alleged racism and pro-slavery position is very much out there.
The pamphlet demonstrates that:
1.) The Bible rejects racism.
2.) Christian churches in Bible times rejected racism—for example, the church at Antioch had a leader in the category of “prophet and teacher” whose name was “Simon the Black” and another born in Africa, while the rest were all from Asia; an African whose family became close to the Apostle Paul helped Christ carry His cross; etc.
3.) Christian churches and the wider realm of Christendom were profoundly impacted by Africa. Did you ever think about the fact that possibly the two most influential people in the history of Western Christendom were from Africa—namely, Tertullian and Augustine? Furthermore, the ancient Anabaptist movements, the Novatians and Donatists, were both led by African Anabaptists. Did you know that the Baptists were the first group of churches in the American South to come out against slavery?
4.) Christianity very rapidly spread from Israel to Africa to China to India to Britain.
5.) Ancient paganism was pro-slavery while Christianity was pro-slave (since it taught that “All Lives Matter,” and therefore the lives of slaves, people of darker and lighter skin, etc. all matter), and Christian influence, unique among world religions, led to the abolition of slavery.
6.) Modern racism actually stems from the Enlightenment and its rejection of Biblical Christianity, combined with the anti-creation philosophy of biological evolution. (This fact should be taught in all public schools, and at the very least every student in Christian schools needs to know this. Did you know it?)
7.) Slavery exists today in atheist countries such as North Korea and China, in accordance with the racism of people like Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Hegel, and David Hume. Everyone should know that Darwin anticipated genocide by whites of “lower races”:
“The … Caucasian races have beaten … [others] in the struggle for existence. … [At] no very distant date … the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Everyone should know Marx said:
“Let us … speak of the beautiful side … of the slavery of the blacks in the East, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. … [S]lavery is an economic category of the highest importance. Without slavery … you would have … the complete decadence of modern commerce and civilization. … [S]ave slavery … [c]onserve the good side of this economic category.”
8.) The pamphlet then explains how spiritual slavery is the worst problem people suffer today. It illustrates that the root causes of racism (pride) and slavery (covetousness) are sins that the reader has been guilty of, and how, through the ransom payment of Christ, they can become spiritually free from the control of the sins that lead to racism and slavery now and eternal hell fire in eternity.
I would suggest reading the pamphlet yourself, keeping the link or a few copies on hand for people who run into this objection when preaching the gospel. I would also suggest that Christian schools, in history class, when they teach the Enlightenment and the impact of evolution and its pre-and post-Darwinian influence in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, make sure students know that modern racism came from these movements. Missionaries in Africa, the Caribbean, and, frankly, on most of the globe should know these things and share them with those to whom they minister.
Cancel culture should cancel Darwin, cancel Marx, cancel Biblical skepticism, cancel evolution, cancel atheism, and cancel agnosticism.
Everyone should recognize Christianity is the best friend of those who are against racism and slavery.
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
–TDR
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Three)
Part of the confidence and tone of certainty about predetermination and free will seems to come from ambiguity that conflicts and perplexes. A Calvinist will talk to you with a look of absolute conviction. It’s as if he’s bluffing. He knows something you don’t know and you can’t see. You’re looking, you want to know like he does, but you just don’t see it.
Some people talk about a kind of faith not anchored in scripture, which is mere fideism. I’ve had that charge made against me on the doctrine of preservation. Calvinism takes fideistic leaps in the dark.
A fairly recent article by Tom Hicks in the Foundation Journal (Fall 2016, Issue 106) he explicates Robert Shaw in his 1845 The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (p. 81) in writing:
The doctrine that God eternally and unconditionally decreed all future things necessarily follows from the fact that God is independent, all knowing, and unchangeable, which is what chapter 2 of the confession (WCF) teaches. Since God is independent, it follows that His decree cannot depend upon anything in the future or anything outside of Himself. Since God knows all things, it follows that God must have first decreed all things. And since God is unchangeable, it follows that God must have an unchangeable decree at the foundation of all that He does.
They say that God decrees all future things. So what do you want to know? Does God decree sin? Does man choose to sin? These are good questions, the answers of which seem contradictory. It is at the very root of Calvinism. You take away these foundational doctrines and you’ve got a different system. What matters, wouldn’t we ask, is what does the Bible say? The right position takes into consideration all of scripture according to the plain meaning of the text.
Listening to the late Calvinist R. C. Sproul explain the Arminian view of free will, he said Arminians came to their position to save or rescue God from a reputation of unloving and harsh, an uncaring manipulator. He didn’t provide any basis for this contention. It is a typical kind of argument that I hear in discussions.
What if Calvinism was a pendulum swing from Roman Catholicism, the latter teaching man can work his way? Could Calvinism have swung too far toward an unscriptural view of free will to ensure a position of salvation by grace with all for the glory of God?
In another clip by Sproul, he compares someone who believes in free will to an atheist. He explains that this is because if God is not sovereign, then God is not God. There is an informal logical fallacy here, called equivocation, because it’s a matter of a definition of the term, sovereignty. Is sovereignty the understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), chapter three, paragraph one?
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Ephesians 1:11 and Free Will
The London Baptist Confession says almost identical words. The authors said “God . . . ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass.” This echoes an interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 to which I’ve referred already in this series:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
“Ordain whatsoever comes to pass” seems to match “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Do those mean the same thing? I don’t think so. “Worketh” in Ephesians 1:11 is energeo. BDAG takes into consideration all its usage and says it means: “to bring something about through use of capability.” Does that compare to “ordain”? The Universal World Dictionary in 1706 says ordain means “to command or enjoin, to appoint or design.”
When I look at the meaning of words, I’m considering the history of the doctrine. What were they saying, when they said “ordain” in the WCF and LBC? I’m looking at old dictionaries around the same time to have a better sense of what they meant. However, a modern dictionary says that “ordain” in the religious sense means “to destine or predestine, to order or command” in the context that its being used.
Working all things according to the counsel of his will in Ephesians 1:11 is very similar to working all things together for good in Romans 8:28. God is not working all things period. He is working in a way or manner that all things fulfill God’s purpose, which is the understanding of “counsel.” Working in that sense is not the same as ordaining all things. What I’m describing fits much better with the rest of scripture also.
A. A. Hodge was the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1878 to 1886 and wrote A Commentary on the Westminster Confession. He amazes the convoluted ends he goes to reason that God controls or determines every single event that occurs in the entire universe at every moment. He writes:
The plan of God comprehends and determines all things and events of every kind that come to pass. (1) This is rendered certain from the fact that all God’s works of creation and providence constitute one system. No event is isolated, either in the physical or moral world, either in heaven or on earth. All of God’s supernatural revelations and every advance of human science conspire to make this truth conspicuously luminous. Hence the original intention which determines one event must also determine every other event related to it, as cause, condition, or consequent, direct and indirect, immediate and remote. Hence, the plan which determines general ends must also determine even the minutest element comprehended in the system of which those ends are parts. The free actions of free agents constitute an eminently important and effective element in the system of things. If the plan of God did not determine events of this class, he could make nothing certain, and his government of the world would be made contingent and dependent, and all his purposes fallible and mutable.
With the extent that Hodge goes with his explanation of God determining “all things and events of every kind that come to pass” and the comprehensiveness of it, he still writes:
It must be remembered, however, that the purpose of God with respect to the sinful acts of men and wicked angels is in no degree to cause the evil, nor to approve it, but only to permit the wicked agent to perform it, and then to overrule it for his own most wise and holy ends.
Herein lies a contradiction. God does not contradict Himself. Either they are both true or they are both false. I understand that God does not ordain anyone to sin. I fully comprehend Hodge’s unwillingness to say that God determines evil. The WCF and LBC say the same. However, the comprehensive determinism of the first general statement clashes with the following statements.
James 1:13 and Free Will
James (1:13) writes:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Why would someone say God tempted him to sin? From where would that thought or conception arise? If the sovereignty of God is deterministic, then someone could blame God for his sin. God determines things, yes, but not all things. That should be in the general statement.
James 1:13 sounds like, man has choices. Man cannot blame God for sin because man chooses to sin. God determines His will, His purpose, but not everything, but it’s also His will that man has a choice, a free will.
Thomas Boston (1676-1732) wrote a commentary on the Shorter Catechism, which is a shorter catechism of the Westminster Confession. He writes:
I am to explain the nature of a decree. The text calls it a purpose, a will. For God to decree is to purpose and fore-ordain, to will and appoint that a thing shall be or not be. And such decrees must needs be granted, seeing God is absolutely perfect, and therefore nothing can come to pass without his will; seeing there is an absolute and necessary dependence of all things and persons on God as the first cause. . . . He worketh all things, says the text. God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass; and nothing comes to pass but what he has decreed to come to pass.
Later in the same commentary, however, Boston writes:
God decreed the permission of sin for great and glorious ends. It is true, sin in its own nature has no tendency to any good end. If it end in any good, it is from the overruling providence of God, and that infinite divine skill that can bring good out of evil, as well as light out of darkness. . . . God decrees the permission of sin, as above explained, yet is not the author of sin.
The decree of God seems to allow for permission even in its definition. If God permits anything and does not determine everything, what is the basis for that exception in the decree? Again Calvinism conflicts and perplexes. Nothing comes to pass but what God has decreed to come to pass, but regarding sin, God merely permits it, not determines it.
Back to Genesis 50:20 and Free Will
Conflict and perplexity revolves around the compatibility of comprehensive or total determinism and permission only to do evil. If God decrees or ordains all things, which means predetermine all of them, why did God not also ordain the thoughts or intentions of Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 50:20?
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Either God used their evil thoughts against Joseph or He ordained them. If He didn’t ordain them, only permitted them, and then used them, God doesn’t determine all things. If God doesn’t determine all things, then why believe that He determines or ordains who goes to Hell or who goes to Heaven?
God is sovereign. He determines what He wills. In His sovereignty, however, scripture reads that God willed or wanted free will for man. Genesis 50:20 offers a good example of this, since Joseph’s brothers chose their evil thinking or intentions, but there are many others.
(To Be Continued)
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it. After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again. Are my fingers typing on their own?
The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?
Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?
I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It’s also something I’ve thought about myself. God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed. God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.
Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.
No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth. Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.
Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.
According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.” One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him. That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18). 1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.” Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. He doesn’t give the crown performances.
Seek God
I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God. A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:
But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Believe God
Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Men Rebel
God’s Glory
The Church of Christ: Preach the Word of God, Preach Politics, or Preach Conspiracies?
Preach the Word or Politics?
In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Bible commands: “Preach the Word,” referring to the “all Scripture” of 3:16 with the Greek anaphoric article on the “the” of 2 Timothy 4:2. God commands His Word to be preached, and nothing else, in the church of Jesus Christ. Does this exclude preaching on political topics?
Sometimes preaching the Word means preaching what the Word says about politics. For example, the Bible condemns abortion and sodomy, teaches free market economics and a limited government instead of socialism or communism and an intrusive government, and favors republican government over monarchy or dictatorship. It is entirely appropriate to preach what Scripture teaches on these and related issues and to make appropriate contemporary application, whether through following what 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 implies–expositional preaching through entire books of the Bible–or through topical messages on Biblical issues.
Do we see preaching on contemporary politics taking place in the New Testament? Matthew 14:1-4 reads:
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
The first Baptist preacher made the clearly true, unquestionably verifiable statement that Herod should not have taken his brother’s wife. We have no other political statements at all from him, and it does not even appear that the Baptist declared the unlawful incest of Herod in a sermon–rather, John “said unto [Herod]” directly what the ruler had unlawfully done, also reproving Herod for all the evils he had done (Luke 3:19). So John made a clear Biblical application of a political matter in a personal way to the ruler in question.
What about the Lord Jesus? Christ called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). This also was not in a sermon but in response to a question the Lord was asked. In every recorded sermon the Lord preached, and in all His teaching in the NT, there was nothing about the terrible political things going on in His day—which He could have used His omniscience to describe and warn about with perfect accuracy—but Christ did warn a great deal about false religion, the worst thing that was taking place in first century Palestine (and the worst thing happening in our day).
The sermons in Acts contain nothing about the dirty power plays in the Roman empire or other political events. The closest one gets is Paul proving that he was not a lawbreaker in court settings. Paul also used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; Acts 22), so Christians should use the voting rights they have in free nations.
So we have one statement from John the Baptist, made directly to Herod and not in a sermon, one word, “fox,” from Christ on politics, here again not in a sermon, and nothing in the apostolic preaching in Acts. Paul used the political right he had to protect his life and advance the gospel (Acts 22), and also used his citizenship to protect the Philippian jailer and his household from their heroic, selfless, and extremely dangerous act of taking Paul out of prison into the jailer’s home (Acts 16:37).
What about the New Testament epistles? In the epistles, there are no warnings about current politics at all.
So is it lawful to make application to current political events in sermons? Based on what Christ and the first Baptist practiced, it is certainly lawful. However, it is also certainly not the emphasis of the New Testament. The balance found in the NT epistles is to spend 99% of the time on giving people God’s unsearchable truth; when naming evil men and evil deeds to focus on religious corruption; and occasionally as a legitimate application of Scripture to point out the evil in the secular political world. Indeed, God’s infallible truth, powerfully preached, will do far more long-term good, even politically, than changing God’s pulpit into a place of political commentary.
A congregation where people did not know that the Democrat party overwhelmingly opposes religious liberty and promotes abortion and sodomy would be poorly informed. Application of the Sixth Commandment would properly inform people of the indisputable facts right in the Democrat party platform. However, a congregation that does not know what the books of Zechariah or Ephesians are about (for example), but hears all sorts of things about contemporary politics from the pulpit, is also not following the New Testament balance. They should hear far more in the Lord’s house about the Joseph of Genesis than about Joe Biden.
It is true that the Old Testament prophets spoke more about the misdeeds of their rulers and of other nations than one finds in the New Testament. This fact should encourage us to be gracious rather than judging harshly that contemporary politics are alluded to too often by other pastors or other preachers. However, we should also keep in mind that Israel was a theocratic nation-state–a political nation among other political nations. The king was not just a ruler, but one with a religious position over God’s people. The surrounding nations were not just people groups, but idolatrous enemies trying to destroy the kingdom of God on earth and stop the coming of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s redemptive program by wiping out Israel. It may therefore be a better comparison if we consider Jeremiah warning the king to submit to Babylon as comparable to the harsh and specific NT warnings against false religion rather than the equivalent of someone preaching about the misdeeds of secular political rulers.
Furthermore, speech about political rulers must follow Romans 13:
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)
John the Baptist said nothing disrespectful to Herod. Even Michael the Archangel did not rail harshly against Satan, who indubitably deserved it (Jude 9). Even if a secular political ruler is very evil–as most of them are–and very hostile to Christianity–as many of them are–we must show them fear and honor in the same way that we must give them tribute or pay taxes–God requires it.
So preaching legitimate applications of Scripture on politics is right, but making politics central to the church is not, nor should the church follow politically conservative heathen in their reviling of those with liberal political views. Respect is required for all men, and especially for all rulers, even if they personally do not deserve it in the least. Remember that you don’t deserve respect in and of yourself, either. You deserve hell fire, but God gave you grace despite your unworthiness. He calls you to show respect in the same way to unworthy political leaders who He has ordained (Romans 13) for His own ultimate glory and wise purposes.
Preach the Word or Conspiratorial Politics?
What about political conspiracy theories? I have already addressed this to an extent in my posts “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.” (My thoughts on the COVID vaccine specifically are here, with some broader comments on medicine here.)
Notice that what John the Baptist said about Herod was 100% true, credible, and unquestionably verifiable. Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was openly living with her. The same holds true for the Old Testament prophets. The Moabites had certainly burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). (Since the New Testament epistles do not deal with any political controversies, they contain no examples here at all, but their silence does still teach us something about proportion, as already noted.)
Contrast that with, say, the dangerous semi-religious cult, the QAnon conspiracy, which believes various political leaders in the USA are engaged in pedophilia and Trump was going to expose them and send them to Guantanamo Bay, and made many other false predictions coupled with unfalsifiable affirmations. Is there a deep state cabal of pedophiles, or whatever other conspiratorial affirmation? Before someone believes something of this sort on a personal level, he needs to make sure that he has carefully weighed the evidence, not just for such a conspiracy, but against it (Proverbs 18:17) lest he answer a matter before hearing the evidence properly, which is folly and shame (Proverbs 18:13). If, for example, QAnon is really a movement of Satanic slander, as many born-again Christians affirm, then affirming its truth would be displeasing to the Lord. Consider the principles in the post “Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories.” Do my affirmations in favor of the conspiracy meet Biblical standards of evidence? Certainly conspiracies should not be promoted in the pulpit in Christ’s churches unless they really have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary assertions. It was easy to verify that Herod had an unlawful spouse. He did not deny who his consort was. It is much harder to prove that a particular person engaged in abominable acts with minors when nobody allegedly involved says it happened, there is no forensic evidence, etc., and nobody seems to care about it except some extremely fringe social media people who have very dubious evidence to back up their expansive claims.
Let us imagine that someone at one’s workplace told a lie one time out of every twenty statements that he made. We would consider such a person to have a severe lying problem. While conspiracy theories actually have a truth value that is far closer to 0% than to 95%, let’s imagine that a preacher starts preaching political conspiracy theories and is actually correct 95% of the time. He would still be breaking the Ten Commandments 5% of the time—a grave lying problem. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” does not have any exception for discussions of politics. It does not have a 5% exception. Slander is a grave sin, even if one is slandering a political leader with a terribly anti-Biblical worldview. Slander is still a grave sin, even if one is slandering someone as verifiably crooked as Hillary Clinton. If she is crooked in one way you are not lying to say it, but if you accuse her of something she did not do it is slander. Yep, it is still a sin to slander even her.
Preacher, let’s be much harsher on ourselves than on others as we evaluate these things, and make sure our own sermons are 100% accurate, respectful, and non-slanderous. Nevertheless, whoever makes an inaccurate statement, even if he is convinced it is true by slick-sounding misinformation and is sincerely beguiled by enticing words (Colossians 2:4), is still breaking the Ninth Commandment. We are not to engage in such behavior ourselves, because the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). We are not to tolerate it in our houses, because “he that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Psalm 101:7). We must not bring it into Christ’s church, because that is the place to preach the infallible truth of the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the place to preach what is either verifiably false, or even only possibly true but uncertain, or even what is true but is not exposition and application of the Bible.
So preach the Word—not politics. Follow the pattern of the New Testament in how much politics is talked about in church. It is not 0%, but not that far away. It is very far from the emphasis. Following the New Testament pattern both honors Christ, the One who told the church what to preach, and also promotes liberty in the long-term in a far more effective way than an unbiblical lack of balance that turns the Lord’s church into a Super PAC.
So preach the Word—not conspiratorial politics, because preaching a conspiracy, unless it is absolute truth, risks committing the grave sin of slander in the place where only what has an infallible “thus saith the Lord” should be proclaimed, for that alone gives glory to Jesus Christ, the great Head of His church.
–TDR
Fight Google’s Censorship!
Is Google still your default search engine? If so, you are helping an anti-Bible, anti-morality, pro-sodomy, pro-perversion, anti-God company with every search you make. They also intend to censor you and to eliminate your voice if they can. For example, if you search for “Homosexuality is wicked,” the top result (as of when I wrote this article) is an article that laughably claims that sodomy is not condemned by Scripture, and other pro-sodomy articles are in the top page of results. If you search on the search engine DuckDuckGo, the top result is an article entitled “Five Biblical Reasons Homosexuality is Worse than Most Other Sins” and practically every other article on the first page is anti-sodomy, with the anti-sodomy articles being stronger against this perversion than the ones on Google. Do you really think that the top results on Google are unbiased, or is Google putting a heavy thumb on the scale? If you search for “scientific creationism” on DuckDuckGo, the first page includes links to the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Neither website is on the first page in a Google search. Do you think that is by chance? If you search for “Hunter Biden China collusion,” the top result on DuckDuckGo is an article from the leading conservative organization National Review entitled “A Collusion Trail: China and the Bidens.” On Google, National Review does not appear anywhere on page one and this article is at the very bottom of page 2. Chance? Oh, no!
DuckDuckGo is not specifically conservative–it just doesn’t have the leftist bias of Google. DuckDuckGo just puts up what most people actually are searching for when they do Internet searches. While some interaction with wicked companies is unavoidable, breaking your tie with Google here is easy. Open your “preferences” file in the browser(s) you use right now (it may be some dots in the top right corner of your browser, or it may be in a menu) and change the default search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo. Do it on your phone. Do it on your laptop. Do it on everything. Google wants your data to make money, but it doesn’t want your beliefs. It wants to destroy them. Stop giving Google money with your Internet searches, and resist Google’s censorship of God’s truth. It takes about five minutes. Do it now.
–TDR
The Misuse of James 1:20 and the Wrath of Man
Does the wrath of man work not the righteousness of God? It would seem that this was true because of James 1:20 and it’s saying that explicitly: “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” How could anyone question that? It’s the entire verse.
You see someone get angry, this verse comes to mind, and you quote it to the angry person. Yet, what if I saw that you weren’t angry, and I quoted instead, Ephesians 4:26, “Be ye angry, and sin not”? This verse seems to require anger not to sin. James 1:20 seems to require no anger not to sin. Are they contradicting one another?
2 Corinthians 7:11, a classic passage on repentance, includes as part of repentance over sin, “indignation.” It’s obvious that the indignation is over someone’s personal sin, which is also what Ephesians 4:26 is about. Anger at one’s own sin is useful for not sinning.
John 2 doesn’t say that Jesus was angry when He cleansed the temple, but of his disciples, who were present and witnessing this occurrence, John 2:17 says, “And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” Jesus reached down, picked up strands of leather to form into a make-shift whip, and started whipping people, animals, and overturning tables. It looked like He was angry. The Greek word translated, “zeal,” which is a quotation of Psalm 69:9, BDAG calls “an intense negative feeling.” There was sin all over that temple, and Jesus was angry over it. He had an intense negative feeling about it.
Let’s return to James 1:20 and look more at the context, seeing verses 18-22:
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. 21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
James lays out tests of faith so that someone can know that he’s been converted, that he has saving faith. Saving faith proceeds from the “word of truth.” See that in verse 18? God begat us “with the word of truth.” A test of faith is what someone does with the word of truth. The context is about hearing scripture and doing it. It is obvious that the hearing of scripture is the preaching of the Word of God.
In the context, when the Word of God is preached, since it is the agent of our regeneration, our conversion, turning us into a ‘firstfruits of God’s creatures,’ every man should “be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (v. 19). There is one positive and there are two negatives. If someone is receptive to the Word of God being preached in a positive way, he is “swift to hear,” and then in a negative way, he is “slow to speak” and “slow to wrath.” He is listening and not debating or getting angry with what he is hearing.
James directs his writing to “beloved brethren.” Are these saved people? I believe they are unsaved and saved Jews, a mixed multitude attending a church. “Brethren” in this case refers to Jewish brethren, people in the nation Israel. Some of them are saved and some of them are unsaved. If they are unsaved, listening to the preaching of God’s Word could result in their being saved, or in other words, ‘work the righteousness of God.” On the other hand, if they were to debate and get angry with the preaching of scripture, that would not work the saving righteousness of God.
If these are saved Jews hearing James’s epistle, they could acknowledge that they have a saving response to preaching. They are swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. Their response to scripture is a test of their faith, and they pass that test.
The “wrath” of verse 20, that “worketh not the righteousness of God,” is the wrath of verse 19, “slow to wrath.” It’s not just any wrath. It is anger at the preaching of scripture. That anger, that wrath, worketh not the righteousness of God. It results in a person not receiving imputed righteousness by faith. If this is a saved person, it results in his not receiving sanctifying righteousness.
A man, who is angry with the preaching of scripture, will not “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness” (v. 21). As a result, he will not receive the saving of his soul. He’s not listening to scripture. He’s arguing with it and angry with it. As a result, he is not begotten by the Word of Truth.
James continues in verse 22 on the same theme. A true believer will not just hear but also do what the Bible says. He will hear it and practice it. This all connects to his relationship to God. God is the source of every good and perfect gift (v. 17a). He spoke the world into existence by His Word and He doesn’t change (v. 17b), so He is still giving good things through His Word, including His righteousness.
When someone uses James 1:20 in a general way to say that no wrath works the righteousness of God, that is false. We know that some wrath, righteous indignation, does work the righteousness of God. This is the wrath of man against the Word of God when it is preached. That is the wrath of James 1:20 and that is how James 1:20 should be used or applied. When it is isn’t used that way, it is being twisted or perverted. You could even say it isn’t working the righteousness of God.
The Circularity and Wholeness of the Ten Commandments and, Hence, God’s Law
God is one, so His Word is one and His Law is one. It can explain James 2:10:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James says offend one point in the law, offend the whole law. It’s like being controlled by the Holy Spirit. You are or you’re not. It’s not like 57% control is control. 100% control is control. Let me explain, using the ten commandments.
The first command is this (Exodus 20:3):
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The tenth command is this (Exodus 20:17):
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Paul writes that covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Is. Breaking the tenth commandment is breaking the first commandment.
The desire for anything but God’s pleasure is covetousness. It’s also having other gods before God. The first commandment and the tenth commandment are the start and the finish, but they are also the same thing, as if it’s all the same thing. This is why all the commandments can be one commandment, love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart. If you do that, you keep all the commandments.
If you are not coveting, God is before all other gods. If God is not before other gods, you are coveting. The key is the first commandment. Have God before other gods. Then you will not be coveting. How will you know that you have other gods before God? You will be coveting. It’s the means for knowing.
If you start your way through the other commandments, they are interchangeable in the same way. The second command is a physical thing, an image, which is being coveted. It’s an idol, so it also breaks the first commandment and the tenth commandment. Covetousness is idolatry. And idol is before God.
Someone takes God’s name in vain because God is too low in a person’s estimation, so something is ahead of God, so again he is coveting. That which is higher in estimation, even in attitude, is being coveted. Vain taking of God’s name isn’t high treatment of God because something else is ahead of Him, so it is being coveted.
The Sabbath might seem like a difficult one, but it is like the others. God could require every day of the week to be set aside, but He requires one. If someone won’t do that, something else is ahead of God and someone has a vain relationship with God. You can’t say, God is high, but I can’t give Him just one day that He requires.
What about the second table of the law? The nature of God as love is God putting others ahead of Himself. This is why it isn’t murder to kill someone out of the protection of another person. In the case of the Sabbath, someone hasn’t violated the Sabbath when he saves someone’s life and protects someone’s property. If God does that, then you are not putting Him first when you don’t do what He does.
All authority is of God with a special emphasis on father and mother. It is hierarchical, so as long as it puts God first, then all of God’s authority will be kept. You can’t say that you’ve put God first, when you don’t honor those whom He puts in charge. You want your own way so much that you are willing to dishonor your parents, that is covetousness.
God attaches a long life with honoring parents, which is getting something that you can’t get through covetousness, even if you really want it. It’s not how life works. God is the author of all life. On average dishonor of parents, and God, who sustains life, doesn’t allow the same length of life to enjoy what’s more important than His authority. You can say God is before all things when you dishonor His authority, father and mother, but you in fact do not. One can say that anyone who does not honor father and mother does not honor God, even if he claims to honor God.
In Genesis 9, we know that murder strikes at the image of God in man. That’s before the law was written. God created men in His image. Murdering a man is to put another god before God. God’s prohibition against adultery we know was because God is holy and as a part of worship of Him, His people needed to be different than those in the land of Canaan, distinct and according to His design. It’s obvious stealing proceeds from covetousness rather than trusting God. You’ve stolen a material thing, elevating a thing ahead of God, a kind of idolatry.
God reveals Himself through the truth. Bearing false witness is against God’s identity as the Truth. The revelation of God is dependent on truthfulness. No one can know God and, therefore, worship Him without the truth about Him.
All of the ten commandments relate with one another to the extent that they are one. If you offend one, you’ve offended them all.
Psalms 14 and 19 in Preaching the Gospel
How could someone read Psalm 14 and think that salvation is by works? Read verses 1-4:
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
I ask you to consider how conclusive these verses are. They are speaking about everyone, anyone who has ever lived. The LORD is looking down from heaven, and He doesn’t miss anything. He says that every person is corrupt, has done abominable works, does not good, does not seek God, has gone aside, and is filthy. He does all these things and then he does not call upon the name of the Lord. He is helpless to live a righteous life and yet he still does not call upon the name of the Lord, whom he needs so that he can be righteous. He’s not depending on God, because he’s proud.
Men can’t save themselves. It’s not just that they’re sinners, but they could never sustain a righteous life by doing good works. They do not do good works. This is reality for mankind. God knows this better than anyone. Whatever a man may say about himself, these verses are the truth. A person is lying to himself if he thinks he can be saved by works. He’ll never succeed, because this psalm is who he is.
The Apostle Paul refers to this psalm in Romans 3 with his treatise on sinfulness of man. Many of you reading know that it says this in verses 10-12:
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Then you also know that he writes the following in verse 23:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
And from that a man should conclude according to verse 28:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The point of that argument by Paul is so that men will submit to justification by faith alone and not by works. If you can’t do good works and you aren’t righteous, then you can’t be saved by works. You should conclude that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works. You should believe in Jesus Christ to receive His righteousness by faith, which is to have His righteousness imputed to you and the forgiveness of your sins.
Psalm 14 is quite a psalm to be singing. This is a song to be sung to God expressing the truth of man’s sinfulness. God wants to hear that men agree. He’s praised by this truth. It assumes that men need God.
The Old Testament doesn’t teach salvation by works. It teaches that men are sinners and they need God for forgiveness of sins and righteousness.
What about Psalm 19? It says that from God’s creation alone men know God. These are statements of reality. God knows. He says:
Verse 1a: The heavens declare the glory of God.
Verse 1b: The firmament showeth his handiwork.
Verse 2a: Day unto day uttereth speech.
Verse 2b: Night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Verse 3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Verse 4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
All of these are sheer statements of fact. They also state the truth of what man knows. From the standpoint of knowledge, he is without excuse. Everyone living in this world knows God through the declaration of the heavens — the handiwork of the firmament, the speech uttered by the day, and the knowledge shown through the night. The day speaks through the sun, as seen in verses 4-6:
4 In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
“Them” in verse 4 refers to “heavens” in verse 1. The word “their” all the way through (vv. 3, 4) refers to “heavens.” Poetic language describes how the heavens talk, specifically through the sun. The heavens during the day are a tabernacle for the sun, which shows itself in all the helpful, beautiful, and awesome ways explained.
A beauty of the revelation of the heavens is that it transcends a particular speech. It can be heard in every speech, every language. An Italian, Russian, Hispanic, or English person hears the voice of the heavens from God without exception of place. This speech goes out to the whole earth and to the end of the world.
When we evangelize, we should learn to use and then use creation as a basis of introducing the God of the Bible to an unbeliever. He already knows. This revelation has reached him. We should assume that. People that haven’t even read the Bible, which are more than ever, still know God and through His creation, the heavens.
Furthermore, scripture, also the revelation of God, called “the law of the LORD,” “converts the soul” (verse 7). For salvation, the soul needs to be converted. It is stained and corrupted by sin.
James 1:25 calls the law, “the perfect law.” The idea of “perfect” isn’t contrasting with “imperfect,” but with “incompletion.” The law of the LORD is complete or sufficient. It lacks nothing, it has everything in it that anyone would need. Conversion of the soul is the total transformation of it.
The first designation of the Word of God in Psalm 19 is the law of the LORD. The usage of that term refers to all of the Word of God, not just the first five books of the Bible or just the parts that are laws. The Hebrew word for “law, torah, means instruction, direction, or doctrine. It reminds me of 2 Timothy 3:15, which says that the “holy scriptures,” referring to the Old Testament, are able to make a child wise unto salvation.
The LORD’s law instructs man sufficiently for his soul to be converted, which is to be restored. It has been ruined by sin and it can be restored to moral rightness before God. It makes sense that the “law of the LORD” isn’t just the Mosaic law, which in itself wouldn’t convert the soul, even though it has an important part according to the Apostle Paul, who in Galatians (3:24-25) says it is a schoolmaster to bring someone to faith in Christ. The instruction of the LORD, which is His Word, is powerful to save, specifically the Gospel (Romans 1:16).
Psalm 19 says that salvation is the conversion of the soul. In the Old Testament, the soul is nephesh and in the New Testament, psuche. Jesus said (Luke 9:24) that to save one’s life (psuche, soul), someone must lose his life (psuche, soul). He’s got to give up his soul. He gives it to God and God restores it using scripture. This is the sanctification of the truth, the Word of God, that God uses in salvation. The conversion of the soul is the transformation of a life, where the person becomes a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Peter calls this the knowledge of Jesus Christ through which someone becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:2-4). After the conversion of the soul, the sinner has a new nature, a divine nature, and is returned morally to the image in which God created him. He now has the ability not to sin.
Someone might consider the teachings of Psalms 14 and 19 to be New Testament concepts. No, they are biblical concepts of salvation, which is the same in the Old Testament as it is in the New. They can be used in preaching the gospel.
Recent Comments