Covenant Confusion

Covenant confusion runs rampant in much of what is called Christendom today. All who claim to being Christians readily grant the Bible is to be our guide in living the Christian life, but what part of the Bible? Surely not the Bible in its entirety, for that would put us back to animal sacrifices, dietary laws, the keeping of festivals, etc. So, where do we draw the line? That is the subject of our study today.

There are many who justify their religious practices by making an appeal to what they find in the Old Testament, the law given by Moses. If such and such was done back then with God's approval, I know it would be acceptable today, is the thinking. There are problems with that.

(1) The Law of Moses was only given to the Jews, the children of Israel. It was given on Mt. Sinai to the Jewish people who came out of Egypt under Moses' leadership. In Deut. 5:2-3, Moses reviews what happened back then and says, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb … with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." Who was there that day? They were not Gentiles. Paul, in the book of Romans, is plain spoken in speaking of the Gentiles who he says "do not have the law." (Rom. 2:14 NKJV) He says the Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph. 2:12 NKJV)

There was no Great Commission under the Law of Moses to attempt to go out into the world and convert the Gentiles to Judaism. When the children of Israel reached the Wilderness of Sinai, before the mountain there, the Lord called to Moses, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: … 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." (Exod. 19:3-6 NKJV) He was not speaking to Gentiles. "Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19 NKJV), and that was not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not to be a part of the holy nation, not yet, not under the Law of Moses.

Yes, I understand there were Gentile proselytes, but they came to that on their own. No one ever went out under the Law of Moses to attempt to convert the Gentiles to Judaism. That was not God's plan. He had a plan for the Gentiles, but it was under Christianity, not under the Law of Moses. Ruth and Rahab are well-known proselytes, and proselytes are mentioned in Acts 2:10. To become acquainted with Judaism in those times, you had to come into proximity to the Jews; they would not go out to seek you. Again, the Great Commission did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no command to go out into the world and convert it to Judaism.

(2) The second problem with attempting justification for religious practices by an appeal to the first covenant, the one given under Moses, is that we are commanded today to hear Jesus, not Moses. Listen to Peter, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV) So, even the Jews, who were Peter's audience, were admonished and warned, it is no longer Moses who is to be heard. It is Christ, the prophet spoken of.

God has "in these last days spoken to us by His Son." (Heb. 1:2 NKJV) On the mount of transfiguration, when Jesus was transfigured with Peter, James, and John being present, God the Father spoke from heaven saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV) That message was recorded for us all, not meant just for the three apostles.

Jesus is our judge, not Moses. Jesus tells us his word will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). God is going to judge us "in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained," that man being Jesus (Acts 17:31 NKJV).

So Moses had his covenant, given to him by God, the Law of Moses as we call it, meant for a specific people for a set period of time. It was useful for the purpose for which it was designed. It served that purpose and has now passed into history. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought it to a close.

Paul elaborates on this subject in Gal. 3:24-26 when he says, "The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) Note, no longer under the tutor that was "the law." Christ in fulfilling the law brought it to an end.

(3) A final problem with the Law of Moses was there was no salvation to be found in it, since it required perfection in keeping the law, a thing no one could do. Paul speaks of it as "the ministry of death." (2 Cor. 3:7 NKJV) Again, he says, "the ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor. 3:9 NKJV) More on that later.

But Jesus also has a covenant, a new one, the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). It is the commands and teaching of the New Testament. If he has no law, then it is impossible to sin, for "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4 NKJV), or, as the old KJV puts it, "sin is the transgression of the law." "Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) Paul spoke of "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." (1 Cor. 9:21 NKJV) See also Gal. 6:2, "so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV)

Also, it needs to be explained how Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) if he has no law to obey. Jesus answered that question himself when he said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15 NKJV) What is a commandment if it is not a law? Is it merely a suggestion?

But, unlike the Law of Moses, the Law Jesus has given us, the new covenant, is not for one nation or race of people alone but for all humanity, Jews and all Gentiles alike. The command of the Great Commission is to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:15-16 NKJV) Peter, at the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile conversion we have a specific record of, put it this way: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV) It is a new covenant, one that contains law most assuredly, but also has grace, making forgiveness possible.

Between Mount Sinai and the cross, salvation under the Law of Moses demanded, of those to whom it was given, perfect obedience. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'" (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) Please note the words "all things." God meant what he said. "All" meant all. James also emphasized this point about the law when he said, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV)

That was the problem with the Law of Moses, "The law is not of faith, but 'The man who does them shall live by them.'" (Gal. 3:12 NKJV, see also Rom. 10:5) That is, does them all, every one of them, without fail. Paul further says, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21 NKJV) That is the same as saying no such law was given. The conclusion, "By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16 NKJV) Justification was impossible under it. "For the law made nothing perfect." (Heb. 7:19 NKJV) "The law … can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect … For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (Heb. 10:1,4 NKJV)

Does this mean men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Daniel, and countless others who lived and died under the Law of Moses were doomed? No, not at all. When Jesus died on the cross, his shed blood flowed backwards as well as forwards to cleanse from sin. "For this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9:15 NKJV) The first covenant is a reference to the Law of Moses.

They were granted grace through the blood of Jesus not because of any perfection in keeping the Law, but because they were of faith. As the Hebrew writer says, "Time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions … " (Heb. 11:32-33 NKJV) Their faith was in God, not in the Law in the sense of the Law being their Savior.

I am reminded of a statement I heard from a preacher years ago, one now gone, who made the comment that men have always been saved the same way, by faith and obedience. Many associate the idea of obedience with works and doubt the necessity of such, but all of the worthies of the Old Testament were obedient people. Can it be said a person is a man or woman of faith who is disobedient? Heb. 3:18-19 associates the subject of obedience with faith. "Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb. 3:17-18 NKJV) They did not obey for they lacked faith. They go hand in hand.

By the time of Jesus, many of the Jews looked for their salvation by means of law, by means of law keeping, by means of their own efforts along that line. Think of the Pharisees. All they could see was the law, not the God behind the law. Their faith was in law keeping, not God per se. Their law keeping could force God's hand in their eyes. God would have to accept them.

That was the old covenant, the Law of Moses under which the Jewish nation lived for hundreds of years. Jesus came into the world, and with him a change in the covenants under which God's people are to live. We move from under the old covenant to the new, initiated at the cross of Christ. As we have already shown, it was a covenant under which all of mankind was to be brought, not for the Jews only. Disciples are to be made of all nations, not just of the Jews. (Matt. 28:19)

It is a covenant of grace. "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NKJV) Yes, as already shown, God still has law. There are still commands to be obeyed, but what is now required for salvation is quite different. Faith and faithfulness are what is now required of mankind, not perfection in law keeping (command keeping). We now have a Savior, the Lord Jesus, to whom we can look for forgiveness. It is a Savior who saves us, not a law. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith (faith in Jesus—DS) apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV)

We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith." (Rom. 3:24-25 NKJV) The blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse man, any man, of sin, but the blood of Jesus can—if we believe. "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

Does this mean it is no longer necessary to obey God's commands, no longer necessary to be obedient to God's laws? Paul addressed this question in Romans chapter 6. "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!" (Rom. 6:15 NKJV) "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23 NKJV) "If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8:13 NKJV) "To be carnally minded is death." (Rom. 8:6 NKJV) Or, as the New Living Translation puts this verse, "Letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death."

One might be inclined to say that sounds like law keeping for salvation again, like under the Law of Moses. Not so. Why not? Because the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus does not demand perfection but only a walk in life according to the Spirit. That means I must be a spiritually minded individual who allows the teaching of the Spirit, as found in God's word, to direct my life. The new covenant is "not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) The Law of Moses "was weak through the flesh." (Rom. 8:3 NKJV) It was of the letter, obey perfectly without fail. Mankind is prone to sin, and that law had no remedy for it no matter how penitent one might be, that is, until the cross. The new covenant, which is of the Spirit, grants grace without the perfection of the letter.

David committed a number of sins, quite serious ones even by man's standards. Nevertheless, he was a deeply spiritually minded man. He lived under the Law of Moses and was a doomed man had Christ never come to earth and made his sacrifice. Yes, he was always penitent of his sins, but there was no satisfactory propitiation for them—not until Christ. Under the new covenant that Christ brought us, the penitent Christian who has an attitude toward God like David had, walking in the Spirit, not fleshly minded, has always forgiveness upon his repentance. He does not await some future event.

John, the apostle, puts it this way, "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7-9 NKJV)

A few final thoughts before closing. Jesus is the author of the New Covenant, the New Testament, under which all people live today. We are to be ruled and judged by it. That does not mean we discount the abundance of the good things for our edification found in the Old Testament. There is a world of things to be learned from it. However, we cannot seek justification from it.

One might be inclined to think that we are only talking here about the issue of salvation. However, think about all the things that have been borrowed from Judaism, things like instrumental music, burning of incense, priestly robes, observing the Levitical feasts, keeping of the Sabbath, etc. They find their justification not from the teachings of the New Testament but from the practices found under the Law of Moses. God did not give things of that nature to us under the New Covenant. What he did say was, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9 NKJV)

We need to decide which covenant we will allow to direct our lives. Many, unwittingly, try to have a mixture, a some of this, some of that. We need to stick to the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 12:24). "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Mark 14:24 NKJV) Let us abide in it.

(A large portion of each of the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are devoted to the changing of the covenants, from Moses' to Christ's. I would encourage all to read those books that distinguish the covenants.)

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

 

Canaan and Heaven--How God's Grace Is Given

How God's grace is given to men is not only an interesting study but also one of utmost importance as it relates to our salvation, a salvation which is clearly set forth in the scriptures as being a free gift of God to man. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:24 NKJV) It is by grace through faith we are saved and not by works. (Eph. 2:8-9) Salvation is specifically said to be "the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Many more or less assume this gift of God, freely given, has no conditions attached, that it is unconditional, or else works would be included in its obtainment. We sometimes jump to conclusions, fired up by emotionalism, rather than coming to our conclusions as a result of thoughtful study and meditation.

While salvation (and thus heaven itself—our promised land) is said to be a free gift from God it is no more said to be a free gift than was the promised land to the children of Israel in the Old Testament beginning with the original promise to Abraham in Gen. 12:7, "To your descendants I will give this land." (NKJV) (See also Gen. 13:15, 17)

To Moses God said, regarding Abraham's descendants, the children of Israel, "I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan." (Exodus 6:4 NKJV) Look up the word "given" or "give" in any Bible concordance and you will find time and again, passage after passage, stating that God either had given the children of Israel the land of Canaan or would do so.

But if it was a gift from God freely given then surely there was nothing the children of Israel had to do to obtain it other than believe—was there? The way people reason today, if they were to be consistent, they would have to answer "no there was not" but they know better. They will not say that for they know their Old Testament history well enough to know that while God had given them the land, and they were assured of it, they still had to fight battle after battle to drive out those who lived there.

How can a person say a gift is free if effort is required to receive it? That is a fair question deserving an answer. By definition, a gift is the giving of something that does not have to be given. There is no legal necessity to give a gift. I give to the government tax money but none of us would say that is a gift. On the other hand, if I give to an orphanage that is a gift freely given for there is nothing compelling me to give other than the desire of my heart to do so. If God gave the land of Canaan to the children of Israel, as he did, what forced him to do that? Was he under obligation or was it the desire of his heart?

Man can complain all he wants about the children of Israel having to fight all those battles and say to himself "what kind of gift was that?" It is an argument with God for he is the one who said he was "giving" the land. Man would say man was earning the land, earning it the hard way with combat, but God called it giving. There is an important lesson here. We need to learn to think the way God thinks, not the way humanity thinks. "My thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isa. 55:8 NKJV) is what God says. When God gives to man a gift it does not necessarily mean no effort is required to take possession of the gift. It does mean, however, because God is giving it, obey and you will succeed (no doubt about it) and you will become a recipient of the gift of God.

God speaks in the New Testament of salvation as being a gift. With men thinking the way they do this means to most "sit back, relax, and dump it into my lap." Bad mistake! The children of Israel received the land of Canaan by God's grace. It was a free gift that did not have to be given. They defeated the inhabitants of the land not because they were a stronger military force but because God was fighting with them and for them delivering the inhabitants into their hands.

God's gift of grace means opportunity. God's grace in giving the children of Israel the land of Canaan meant believe and obey and I (God) guarantee your success. It is no different today with us other than the location of the Promised Land. By God's grace, we are given an opportunity to reach the promised land of heaven itself and our success is guaranteed if we will believe and obey.

Lest the reader thinks I am setting up an analogy that is invalid comparing the children of Israel and their promised land and God's children today and our promised land, this is the very thing the writer of the book of Hebrews does beginning in Heb. 3:7 and going through about Heb. 4:11.

In Heb. 3:18-19 the writer says a thing of utmost importance to you and me if we are to learn the lesson he desires us to learn. "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (NKJV) The reader ought to note carefully how the Hebrew writer ties together faith and obedience or unbelief and disobedience. Those who believe obey; those who disbelieve disobey.

Why did the adults of that group we refer to as the children of Israel who left Egypt with Moses to go to the Promised Land fail to enter in? They disobeyed God who told them, "Go up and possess the land which I have given to you." (Deut. 9:23 NKJV) They feared the inhabitants of the land and did not believe God's word that he had given them the land and thus would fight with them in all their battles allowing victory. Moses speaking to them says, "You rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God, and you did not believe him nor obey his voice." (Deut. 9:23 NKJV)

When men do not believe they do not obey. Obedience then is a matter of faith, disobedience a matter of a lack of faith. Why are people today, people who claim to believe, not baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) as Peter preached and commanded in the very first Holy Spirit inspired gospel sermon ever to be preached? The answer is because disbelief leads naturally to disobedience. The Hebrew writer sums it up well, "the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (Heb. 4:2 NKJV) Yes, he was speaking of a generation long gone but speaking for our benefit today so that we can learn from it. Will we learn?

The Hebrew writer goes on in speaking of those Israelites who failed to enter the promised land saying, "those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience" (Heb. 4:6 NKJV) and then warns us not to fall "according to the same example of disobedience." (Heb. 4:11 NKJV)

What should we learn from all of this? Genuine faith that saves is a faith that when it hears believes and obeys. Men can call obedience salvation by works if they want to, that is their choice, but the wise man will obey and not seek salvation without obedience. To seek salvation without obedience is to seek salvation without any real faith. "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26 NKJV) and things that are dead no longer have life and are ready to be buried. Willful disobedience manifests a lack of faith and is rebellion.

God's gifts and grace, in the context of the subject of which we are talking, always requires more of man than a dead faith that refuses to act. When God speaks (gives a command in his word) our obligation is to obey and not sit around and meditate on how doing so means works and not grace. The children of Israel would have been glad to walk into Canaan under other circumstances more pleasing to themselves. They were just not willing to believe God and do it his way. His grace, his gift, was not to them sufficient grace.

Will we be that way about going to heaven? Are we only going to heaven if we can get there our way? Are we only willing to go if God requires absolutely nothing of us? I hope that does not prove to be the case.

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

 

Does Sin Even Exist

"I will certainly judge you because you have said, 'I have not sinned.'" (God speaking through Jeremiah to Judah, Jer. 2:35b HCSB)

In a nation that is increasingly rejecting Christianity and the Bible, one must ask the question "what then becomes of sin?" If sin is, as the King James Version of the Bible reads, "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) but there is no validity to the Bible, which is supposed to be God's law, what then becomes of sin? Does it cease to exist? Do those who reject the Bible as the word of the living God totally abandon the concept of sin? If not, then upon what basis do they propose to define sin?

If sin is not to be defined by God's word and if sin is something other than the transgression of God's law, then: (1) What is sin and how is it defined; what are the rules that if broken constitute sin? (2) What authority decides these things? (3) On what basis does that authority exist, that is, how is authority established? Is it political and/or military power that makes the authority so that sin is defined by power? How is such authority obtained? If the God of the Bible and his word are taken out of the picture, then the authority cannot be of Christian origin, so what is its origin?

Without the acceptance of the New Testament as the authority for defining sin, the reality is there is no other alternative but man himself becoming the authority either as an individual or as a ruling party or institution made up of men. The problem then becomes what man or what group of men, for we know not all are agreed. A democrat and a republican are likely to have far differing views on a whole host of issues that call for moral and value judgments.

Likewise, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had vastly different values than did Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, so who becomes the authority? Who decides? When Christianity is removed from the field, whose ideology or worldview do we follow? Is it communism, Islam (ISIS?), Hinduism — where do we go, what ideology or religion rules us?

If we proclaim a world without sin since we reject Christianity, God, and the New Testament as God's word, then the only law man can break is manmade and solely dependent on the fist, the hand of power, for enforcement. Why then should I obey your set of values even if you enshrine them into law when the only reason you were able to do so was that you had the power to enforce your will? Political and legal power that comes from man does not equate with moral superiority; it never has and never will. Why is one individual to be respected over another as an authority figure on values if there is no God?

In such a world, much like the one that seems to be developing here in the West, sin becomes whatever some man or group of men or even the culture itself says it is, but men do not live forever. A generation is soon gone and the next one takes its place. What the prior generation called sin is then cast aside and now becomes righteousness under their new rule. Is this not exactly what we had with the gay marriage issue? So will this present generation, who is determined to have its own way minus God, be praised by the next, or will it be the case that it, in turn, will be denigrated for its narrow, restrictive, judgmental view on polygamy? Don't say it cannot happen. The baby boomers can tell you when they were children the idea of gay marriage was considered ridiculous.

Liberalism, once it gains momentum, is hard to stop short of license. Just because one has not yet arrived at his destination does not mean he never will. A world without God is just that. There is no moral persuasion, no fear of God, to hold a man back. Only the gun can do that in a world without God.

Once we reject Christianity, the word of God as found in the New Testament as our guide for life, for the development of a set of values by which we will live, we have no firm ground to stand on, for human values are ever-shifting. Compare how Americans felt about such subjects as abortion, divorce, living together outside marriage, having children out of wedlock, and homosexuality a hundred years ago and compare it with how they feel about those same moral issues today. Human values change with time unless they are based on that which is unchangeable — God's word.

Not all change in societal values is bad, for in the matter of attitudes about race and segregation change has been positive, but when one builds his life on the public consensus of what is culturally correct at any given point in time, he/she is building a life while standing on shifting sands that cannot be depended upon for stability. Those same sands are sure to shift under you with time and are shifting inconspicuously under you as you stand on them in any given year. And, as regards racial issues and segregation, there would never have been problems in those areas had the scriptures been followed.

One might wish to argue that Christians themselves have changed their views on moral issues over the years so that if you just take the word of God alone as your basis for building a moral life you are no better off than anyone else. Sounds like a good argument, but is it?

If I take a passage of scripture, say 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and quote it to you, I ask, has the teaching of that passage, correctly translated, changed in the last two thousand years? Here is the passage:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

Have some men who call themselves Christians rejected parts or all of the passage? Surely so, but the teaching (wording) of the passage itself is set in stone and will never change until the earth itself ceases to be. Each individual either has to accept what it says, reject what it says, or take a smorgasbord approach to it, taking this and leaving that, but it says what it says. (Yes, all men can repent. The passage is talking about the unrepentant.)

The word of God itself is never changing. "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Peter 1:24-25 NKJV) The Bible says what it says whether men will accept it or not. The words endure forever.

The man who is willing to accept the word of God as a foundation for building a set of life values by which to live can be assured he will not be building on shifting sands. The word of God is written as if set in stone even if what men do with it or decide about it is not. Men get into trouble with the word of God when they begin to doubt it, and that is generally brought on by pressures that develop within them, often unawares, from group or societal thinking or family pressures.

We are all constantly being pressured to read the Bible in a way that justifies what the Bible, as written, will not justify — justify the sins we do not want to be sin. If we succumb to that temptation we end up cutting and pasting scripture and making a Bible that suits us. We pick this scripture over that one, have the Bible writers in disagreement with one another, and we contort and distort it until we get it to read the way we want it to read. But it does not have to be that way.

Man can build a life (a value system) on the solid bedrock of the New Testament (the new covenant of Christ) if he is willing. That is the very thing that cannot be done when building upon cultural consensus. He can read the text and say "that is what it says" and so that is my foundation, the value I must incorporate into my life no matter what the culture of the time is.

Even if all of society justifies you in building upon the cultural consensus in the time in which you live, the very next generation may vilify you and your generation for the values it held. Seeking justification from society and the approval of the society in which you live means what? Well, in the 1930s and '40s in Germany it would mean you were a Nazi. A society's values should not necessarily be your own. They must be weighed in light of God's word.

One cannot condone those religious bodies who call themselves Christian but whose doctrines change with every shifting cultural wind, who seemingly are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, who one day believe this until it becomes unpopular in the culture and then the next day proclaim they believe just the opposite; but a Christian does not have to follow the crowd, even the religious crowd. He can follow what is in print, what will not deviate, nor leave him, nor forsake him, but will be solid rock under his feet. He can build a life built on a solid foundation, on the New Testament scriptures.

Your blueprint for life is not the so-called history of Christianity, the doctrines of the church, or of church councils, but the always enduring, never changing New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is your solid foundation, not the ever-changing traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, or of any other religious body, or the values of the culture in which you live. And, rest assured, no matter what modern man believes about it, Jesus would tell you that yes, sin still exists.

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

 

A Way That Seems Right

The apostle John made the statement that he had "no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth." (3 John 4, NKJV) Yet, today, some approximately two thousand years later, it is questioned whether one can know the truth or whether such a thing even exists, at least in the moral and religious realm. I find that quite distressing, but find myself unable to do much about it.

It was reported to me that one I know quite well made the comment as it relates to Christian doctrine that "everyone sees it differently." The implication, of course, is that it makes little to no difference what one believes and practices in the Christian religion as long as it fits somewhere in the broad spectrum of what men call Christendom. The idea is that one can be a member of about any Christian denomination with their peculiarities and all will be well with one's soul. It implies that truth cannot be known with any certainty.

It is a live-and-let-live philosophy. My Christian faith and practice are as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, even though we are in deep disagreement about many things. It just makes no difference.

Certainly, there is nothing rational in this train of thought, but that is the world we live in. How do people think today? George Barna recently came out with a new report entitled: 2025 American Worldview Inventory – Report #6 Americans Possess Contradictory and Unbiblical Views about Moral Truth. I quote from it:

"Most adults in the United States do not believe that there are any moral absolutes, and they live accordingly. … Even substantial majorities of some of the largest Christian church groups reject absolute morality, including 69% of Catholics and 61% of those who attend a mainline Protestant church.

Beyond that, half of the adults considered to be spiritually conservative and a cornerstone of evangelical Christianity—a niche known as 'theologically-identified born-again Christians'—admit to rejecting absolute moral truth.

The research has shown that these days, Americans most often make their moral choices based on their emotional reaction to a situation. In fact, the only consideration that a majority of adults trust to discern moral truth is their feelings, which is relied upon by three out of four adults (74%)."

Further down in the report he goes on to say: "One of the guiding moral ideals is that being open-minded and accepting of alternative philosophies of life is a sign of maturity—even if those points of view conflict with one's personal perspectives. A large majority (67%) of adults embrace this supposed 'sophisticated' thinking. ...

Pluralism is alive and well in America today: the dominant worldview of nine out of 10 adults is Syncretism, which is the blending of beliefs and behaviors conceived or favored by a variety of competing worldviews.

The popularity of that approach to life provides an ideal philosophical environment for people to suppose that competing, even conflicting, truth views can all be right or should at least be appreciated as valid."

If, in fact, we live in such a society, it is easy to see that the narrow gate Jesus spoke of is non-existent in the mind of the average American, even of many Christian conservatives. Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." (Matt. 7:13 NKJV) In American religious thought today, Jesus had it just backwards. In our minds the gate that leads to life is quite broad indeed.

Today, even among many, perhaps most Christians, who can say(?), one sees this kind of thinking. Let someone die who has not lived a Christian life but has been a nice guy, man or woman, friendly and kind, but never lived as a Christian, and it is suddenly said upon their death that they are "in a better place now" or they have received "their angel wings." We rail against those who would judge others, and we should oppose such judging, but on the other hand, who put you or me in charge of judging people into heaven? Who made us judge?

But that is a reflection of how people think today. People have discarded the clear teachings of the Bible and developed their own religion, which is basically whatever seems right to me. What does the Bible say about such a course? "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12 NKJV)

Paul, in Rom. 10:2, spoke of those in his day who "have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." (NKJV) I make two points about those Jews of whom he spoke. (1) He was not complimenting them. He goes on to say they were "seeking to establish their own righteousness" (ver. 3). That is exactly what is happening today with the way we are thinking about Christianity and life.

(2) The second point is that Paul spoke of knowledge. He was saying there is such a thing as truth. It is not my truth nor your truth, but "the truth" applicable to both of us. It is objective, not subjective, and is independent of our feelings.

Today, believing the way so many do, the Bible is forced to take a back seat, but it will not stay there. You cannot fight against God and win; only a fool tries to do so.

It is felt that Christianity is too narrow if you take the word of God to mean what it says, so we play around with it and tell ourselves the text does not mean what it seems to be saying in so many different places. We spend our time not in teaching what the text says but in teaching why the text does not mean what it says. No, not all of us, but so many do.

Of course, there is such a thing as intolerance which we must fight against. The problem is that we have come to tolerate the evil and condemn the good. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

This raises the question, of course, of how do we know the good from the evil? Are we to determine it for ourselves? Is it whatever seems right to me? Is there no objective standard? That is where we are today, each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes, living by feelings, and intolerant of anyone judging their personal decisions. We have abandoned our standard, the Bible, and each is doing what is right in their own eyes.

Two examples are our society's open embrace of homosexual unions and of living together outside marriage. We all know the Bible condemns both, but we have embraced both as a society, for we make the rules now, not God. We will reject him if need be, and so we have.

Where is all this new worldview going to land us? God only knows. It will not be a good place, but only time will tell. We do know, however, "sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34 NKJV) and God will eventually judge us all.

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