Infused with PC, Not JC!

Posted on March 23, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

To measure anything correctly, we must have the appropriate instrument and the appropriate standard. As a simple example, a portly gentleman can put his mind at ease by standing beside an obese person, whereas, to stand beside a wiry / thin person would cause the opposite reaction.

The same requirement for an accurate standard of measurement needs to be applied to the Church today. It is easy for individual congregations and denominations to find false measuring rods. We can attach ourselves to some mega-church that has the latest and greatest version of church-growth-philosophy and convince ourselves that such size means that ‘God is truly with us.’ Conversely, we can attach ourselves to some small, struggling congregation and content ourselves that all our problems stem, not from disobedience, but from the fact that we, alone, are that small, faithful remnant always to be persecuted.

Similarly, we can look at the lack of impact that the Church is having, especially in the West, upon our societies and culture. We can blame governmental interference. We can point our fingers at the so-called militant left. We can complain that the local paper will not run our pieces. We might even complain that God has not given us enough young folk to successfully complete our planned leaflet drop. All this, however, is simply illustrative of the fact that the Church has adopted the wrong standard of measurement.

The Church has one singular standard of measurement and that is God.[1] Explained more fully, it is God’s morality revealed in His Law[2] and ultimately in His Son, Jesus Christ.[3] We can distil this just a little more by saying that God’s morality revealed in His Law and in Jesus demarcates that which is pleasing to God and that which is not – life v death, obedience v disobedience; blessable v condemnable; His presence v His absence.

Now, most orthodox Christians reading this are not going to have their heads explode. Indeed, even some at the more Liberal end of the scale, who still acknowledge Scripture, will at least give a little nod. So, what is the problem? Well, the problem, in a nutshell, is the issue of theory versus practice. That which is outlined above is truth and it is the theory on which we should work as the Church. However, in practice, it is not.

The Church’s guilt lies in Her breaking one very pertinent and serious commandment – something which should never be is! – and that commandment is found in both Deuteronomy and Revelation:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.^[4]

Both texts are extremely specific in their warnings, but, sadly, the true fear and reverence for God and His standards are largely missing from the Church; thus omission and substitution become very real options. When we adopt the practice of omission and substitution, rather than submission and obedience, we place ourselves in a very precarious position. We turn from the path of life to one of death. We begin to subtly deny doctrine, which, by its very nature, becomes a subtle denial of God and the attributes of His Being.

In our day, the perceived problem is that the Church is infused with PC and not JC. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, despite the great personal cost to Himself. Pain, suffering, and alienation were His because He loved His Father and was committed to obedience and the actions required by obedience:

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;[5]

“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.^[6]

“Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”^[7]

This meant that Jesus was willing to affirm God’s morality as it is expressed in God’s Law and demonstrated in His own life, no matter what the consequences. Are we as equally committed to this process? No! We have moved from JC to PC. We have allowed our culture, sinful and rebellious, to lay out a charter before the Church in which this evil World demands that its sensitivities, ideals, and agendas be respected, at all costs. Disappointingly, and to the detriment of the Many, the Church has largely laid her signature to this charter.

Here, three experiences will be relayed and the ramifications of each explained:

Preaching Evangelism and only Evangelism:

When it comes to this fist topic, many may ask as to the nature of the problem. Is not evangelism Biblical? Well, yes, it is Biblical, but it is still a problem. Heresy!! “How can something that is Biblical be wrong?!” Very easily. Above we quoted texts that warned about adding to or taking away from Scripture. Well, in the same vein, underemphasising or overemphasising something can be wrong. Grace is a Biblical doctrine, but this writer often speaks of the “heresy of grace” precisely because it is overemphasised to the point where antinomianism and blatant disobedience are excused under the guise of ‘grace’.

Thus, in recent years, there has been a real trend to use almost every sermon as a goad to guilt Christians into the streets to evangelise. All sorts of things are laid out before the Christian to send them on one of these all-expenses-paid guilt trips. Yet, despite decades of emphasis upon evangelism; courses on evangelism; 12 foolproof techniques to evangelism; car-boot sale evangelism; puppet-show evangelism; not to mention the probable millions invested in and spent on evangelism, the Church is not prospering. Numbers dwindle. New converts are rarely seen. Why? Precisely because of the emphasis upon evangelism.[8]

Confused? Do not be so. You see, through various Biblical texts, the Church of older ages came to speak concerning “whole counsel of God”. This is what preachers should be preaching – the whole counsel of God and nothing less. This means that everything God has revealed should be fodder for the preacher. Not so anymore. Through being enamoured with PC and not JC, we have now subscribed to the “hole counsel of God”. The term sounds remarkably similar, but this new version leads to a completely different place.

The “hole counsel” is exactly what it says: It leaves big holes in God’s counsel! These holes are left when the PC fanatics take their scalpels to God’s counsel in the like of a surgeon cutting out cankers. Let us be clear. There are no cankers in the whole counsel of God, yet those infused with PC rather than JC perceive that there are cankers. Consequently, they excise this bit and that bit and then vainly try and make it look more appropriate with some ill-fitting and hastily applied patches, hurriedly sewn into place.

To some, this might just seem like just a piece of wild poetry that may sound pleasing, but which lacks substance. Fair enough. Let us then look at some practical examples.

1. When the Westminster Divines wrote their catechism, their first question was: What is man’s chief and highest end? They answered that it was “to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.” This quote accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. God should be, indeed, must be, First! Yet, what we find in the preachers infused with PC is a subtle shift away from God being first. Their priority becomes sinful man and his desires.

We see this, for example in our worship services. Worship should be God-centred. We come to show the worth of God. Worship, by definition, is, therefore, for those who know God through Christ and wish, as a consequence, to express that worth. Not so, to the PC brigade. We want to welcome rebellious sinners (the unsaved) into our midst. We do not wish to offend them, so we will make some changes to accommodate them in the hope that we do not offend them. In this instant, our gaze is no longer firmly fixed on God and what He says is appropriate for and in worship, but we have turned to the rebel to ask for his opinion. Whether we go any further than this is irrelevant. Our eye is taken off God. We have, in essence, committed idolatry, because we have allowed something else other than the dictates of God to influence or decision making.

2. Following this turning from God to the sinner, it is inevitable that the Church will no longer stay true to the Doctrines that God has declared. When we seek to court the rebel, we will, of necessity, not wish to offend them. After all, they will not stay long in our midst if their conscience, lifestyle, and thought patterns are constantly assailed.

Thus, it all starts with a toning down. We may start with the Doctrine of Sin. The Bible says sin is “lawlessness”.[9] Oh, but we cannot tell the rebel that he is the living equivalent of the despotic bad guy in the old Western. So, we tone it down. Sin is … feelings of self-doubt; feelings of inadequacy; a failure to love oneself appropriately, and so on. Having first toned things down, it then becomes requisite to be vague and nonspecific. Having changed the definition of sin, then we must deal in turn with the doctrines of Hell and Salvation, which both the impinge upon the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ.

Jesus came to save us because of sin – a state of being that places us in opposition to God and thereby unable to ever enjoy His presence because, as a sinner, we now hate everything concerning God. The unsaved go to Hell as punishment for their rebellion. To be saved, one must be washed in the blood of Christ to once more be in a position of desiring and enjoying God’s presence. Hmmm, but we have just made sin a subjective, emotional-come-mental state that has nothing to do with transgressing God’s Law. Which means, God is not really going to send someone to eternal punishment because of self-doubt. What then of Jesus? If sin is redefined, Hell lessened or eradicated, what role does Jesus play. We do not really need a Saviour in that big sense, because … you know, umm, sin is a bad feeling, so now Jesus is nothing more than a cosmic psychologist whose always open?!?

Of equal importance, at this juncture, is the whole question of the applicability of God’s Law. Through the influence of PC, God’s Law has, in the main, been pushed off stage and hidden from sight. Why? Precisely because the ultimate aim of PC is at odds with the aim of JC. Just as in the ‘evolution v Creation’ debate, here too, there is no common ground between PC and JC; yet there are Christians and others that are trying to yoke these concepts together. However, to do so means the eradication of the point of conflict, which, in this instance, is God’s Law.

As we saw above, Jesus came to save the sinner as he is defined Biblically – a transgressor of God’s Law. This means that the sinner must pay the debt for his infraction of the Law. It means that if he cannot, someone else must or the sinner will be justly condemned. Enter Jesus! He alone has the credit, through a life of obedience, to offer Himself in the stead of the debtor. This is restitution or propitiation that is in accord with God’s Law. But wait … There is more!

Interestingly, in the PC universe there is a great emphasis upon evangelism. Yet, as we noted, it is often ineffectual. Why? Precisely because of its meddling with and downplaying of God’s Law. The Law of God defines sin. The Law of God outlines the remedy for sin. So far so good. Yet, what is missing today is the third part: God’s Law is the only thing that shows the rebellious sinner how destitute he is in the sight of God and thereby magnifies Jesus the Christ as the only One through Whom he can have peace with God. Consider these words:

Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.^[10]

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.^[11]

Paul’s version, the version of a man enamoured with JC and not PC, is vastly different to that of the moderns. Paul did not consider God’s Law to be passé, a mere relic of the past that belonged to some angry, lightning-bolt throwing god. No, Paul understood it to be essential to his Gospel, for it was the very thing that showed the sinner his need, magnified Jesus as the sinners only hope, and as the means through which the Holy Spirit works to draw men to Christ.

The Apostle’s theory of salvation was wholly Biblical and focussed rightly on God’s Law – the sinner is so because he transgressed the Law; his restitution is outlined in the Law; being a sinner he thinks he is alright until he is confronted with God’s Law, which, like a huge mirror, shows him warts and all; thus, the sinner is shown that Jesus and his cross are the only means of salvation.

Compare this with the evangelism of PC: The Law is passe, it is now about grace; they don’t want to offend the sinner otherwise he may stop listening, so they push Law and doctrine aside; they preach Jesus as Saviour, but will not dangle the sinner over the precipice to gaze into the pit of Hell, so what is it exactly that Jesus saves from and why is He necessary?

Evangelism apart from the Law of God is an exercise in Humanistic psychology and amounts to little more than making people feel good about themselves while they stand in the mud and mire. It does not bring change; indeed, it cannot bring change precisely because it does not magnify Christ. The man who feels content or is made to feel content with himself whilst in the mud and mire, will never cry out or experience the wonder of the Psalmist: The Lord, He heard my Cry! The Lord, He lifted me out of the miry pit. The Lord, He gave me a firm place to stand. The Lord, He set me upon the Rock, which is Jesus the Christ. The Lord, He put a song of worshipful praise in my mouth.

3. For this third point, we will do an about face. If the preachers are predominantly preaching on evangelism, their preaching always heading in one direction, especially a direction akin to that outlined above, let us pause and ask, “What, then, are they not preaching?” If the whole counsel of God becomes the “hole” counsel, if pursuing the evangelistic mantra means changing doctrine, lessening consequence, and becoming vague on specifics, we must confront an equally grave consequence, namely, the man of God is never equipped for his task here on earth.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.^[12] This is a well-known text. It is often used as proof text for the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. However, to focus on that point is really to miss the point of the point. Scripture is inspired; it is God-breathed. Therefore, it is able to fulfil the purpose for which it has been given, viz, that God’s people are equipped and perfectly fitted for the work in which they are called to engage.

The simple question, then, is, ‘How is the man of God made adequate, if he is never exposed to the whole counsel of God?’

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.^[13] Another well-known text. Jesus lays this command at our feet as He concludes His discourse on the essential nature of the Christian as salt and light. Note well, please, that verse fifteen emphatically makes the point that lights are not lit to be placed under an up-turned bucket. No, they are placed high, in the open, so that the light reaches to the furthest possible extent.

Applying this text, we are once more faced with the fact that the Christian must be obviously different from the man of the World. The Christian must possess personal holiness. He must be righteous and upright. He must be Christlike. Not in some metaphorical or spiritualised manner, but in heart and reality. The very cruel irony of the evangelism bandwagon is seen right here. Earlier, the point was made to the effect that we see little fruit from evangelism today precisely because of the overemphasis on evangelism. This may have confused some. However, it is really very simple. One of the key ingredients to true Biblical evangelism has always been the quality of the lives lived by the Christian.

Peter speaks of giving a reason for the hope that is in you “to anyone who asks.” Why would anyone ask about that hope if your life is hopeless? If the victory of Christ Jesus is not evident; if light is not your nature; if you are a decaying and not preserving (salt); if you are unequipped, because you have not been corrected and trained so as to be perfectly adequate, why would anyone come and ask about the quality of your life that is so patently absent? Peter’s challenge begins with these words: Sanctify – set apart – Christ as Lord in your hearts! These words naturally lead to the discovery of another eroded doctrine, thanks to PC, and that is the Doctrine of Sanctification – our being set apart wholly unto God for His work, His purposes, and His glory.

With the erosion of sanctification and the lowering of the spiritual bar, it is often very hard to distinguish Christian from non-Christian. As the Church has become infused with PC and not JC, we see the impact more and more. Christians are no longer victorious over the World; they are conquered by the world. They are weighed down with worry, they have the same hang-ups as their neighbours, they take the same anti-depressants, they attend the same psychologists, and even the moral codes, that once marked the Church as different, no longer stand. As a boy, divorce, marital unfaithfulness, domestic violence, and apostasy were rarely heard of in the Church. Now, one does not need to look too far to uncover any of these vices.

Jesus said to Peter: “Tend My lambs” and “Shepherd My sheep.” ^[14]

Jesus, speaking through Paul, gave us this insight: And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. ^[15]

Please note the emphasis upon Christ’s people. They are to be tended, shepherded, and equipped for the work of service. Please also note the emphasis upon maturity and how that maturity culminates in Jesus the Christ. This means teaching men how to be good heads of households, good husbands, and good fathers. It means teaching women the art of submission and true beauty in their roles as wives, mothers, and fellow heirs of the Kingdom. It means teaching on what makes a good employee, citizen, and societal participant. It means teaching and training God’s people how to glorify God even in the most mundane of circumstances. It means teaching them how to apply God’s morality every day. None of these things can be attained through PC. They can only be attained in and through JC.

When the preacher becomes enamoured with the modern evangelistic bandwagon, and other non-Biblical bandwagons beside, people suffer. The rebel suffers because he never hears what he needs to hear in order to convict him of his sin and lead him to repentance in Jesus Christ. PC cannot do this. JC can and does. The Christians suffer because they are no longer conformed to JC,[16] finding in Him light and life, victory and purpose; rather they are given PC, where they are erroneously taught that being helpless, victimised, weighed down, and burdened will give them a place of commonality with the rebel and therefore an opportunity to evangelise. Sadly, the PC scenario is akin to two drug addicts lying in a filthy room, both shooting up, one enjoying it, the other speaking about the virtues of being clean, but with no credibility to his words precisely because his situation is no different.

Disunity and denouncing Brothers:

The second experience involves the ‘Israel Falou’ saga. This topic has been tackled elsewhere, thus, for this article focus will fall upon the current disunity in the Church that is associate with PC and not JC.

The Sunday following Israel Falou’s publication of a Biblical text on social media, we went to church. The sermon that day focussed upon this publication and the subsequent furore. Many things were said in a vain attempt to sound orthodox, but all this unravelled when the preacher basically stated that ‘Israel Falou had brought the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute’.[17]

If this is indeed a fact, then, logically, every time a preacher preaches a text that confronts both sin and sinner, he too would be lowering Christ’s name. Yet, (puzzled expression) isn’t the preacher meant to confront the sinner with the truth of Who Jesus Christ truly is and why He alone can reconcile unto God? Is he not meant, in all things, to present truth and reality?

Therefore, the question must be asked, ‘What was the preacher’s real beef with Falou’s comments?’

Sad to say, the answer boiled down, mostly, to another modern error, “Its not what he said, it’s how he said it!” This saying has become more popular over the last couple of decades and it too must be denounced as a pernicious evil. Inherent in this saying is the idea that truth can be dismissed if the hearer does not appreciate the tone in which something is said. Thus, the veracity of the statement and the statements message become secondary to the terms in which it is couched.

Off course, we must not be unnecessarily belligerent when delivering the message of Scripture. We are told, are we not, to speak the truth in love. Yet, it is precisely at this point that we encounter the dilemma. If we truly love, we will speak the message that needs to be heard and that message is the truth as God has revealed it. We can turn this 180 degrees. We receive the message from Jesus and because we love Him, we will speak that message as it was given, without alteration. In both these instances, love and the message go hand in hand. This is Biblical. This fulfils the two great Commandments. Loving God and neighbour, we speak what is required of us by God and that which will benefit our neighbour because it is God’s Word – the Word that saves and edifies.

Here, we must also underscore the fact that Bible’s emphasis in speaking and preaching falls upon the attitude of the speaker and not the hearer. The Bible is abundantly clear that fallen and rebellious man does not seek reconciliation with God. In fact, the rebel’s hearing of God’s Word is akin to a vampire being flung into the midday sun or Gollum being tied with an Elvish rope – “It burns us!” In such situations, the rebel hearing God’s truth will, unless there is a work of grace by the Holy Spirit, recoil from that word and protest vehemently at the sound in his ears. This is the case. This was the case. This will ever be the case.[18]

Please, you are implored, understand this point well! The sinner’s reaction to the Gospel – the Whole Counsel of God – can never be the measure of success or the reason for changing either the presentation of or the Gospel itself. Never!

Enter the gospel infused with PC. Here, as we noted above, the gaze has left the Holy Father and now rests upon the sinner. With this change of focus comes an unbiblical emphasis, viz, the sinner’s reaction must be considered. We want the sinner to listen to the message, so we encourage his feedback so that we can tweak and modify, discard and rearrange, all in the vain hope that the message may get through, not because of the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of our craft as men.

Let us use some picture language. How do we allow a vampire to walk unharmed in the streets? There are only two ways. He must walk in darkness (the cover of night) or we must blot out the sun, both of which amount to the same thing. Similarly, Gollum cannot abide the Elvish rope because the natures of each are incompatible one with the other. So, too, the Gospel will never sit aright in the sinner’s ear. The nature of each is incompatible one with the other. Hence, the sinner must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have his inherent, sinful nature changed. Consequently, the reviling’s of the sinner should never be considered a just cause to edit or modify the Gospel – indeed there never is a just reason for such an act. We are forbidden to add to or take from God’s Word. Paul tells us that even if an angel brings us another Gospel, that one is to be accursed.[19] Why then would be undertake such an evil task to satisfy the burning ears of a sinner? Yet, undertake, they do, and in so doing the PCites rend the body of Christ and nullify the Chief means of grace – the preaching of a full and unfettered Gospel.

As the illustration of the Israel Falou saga shows, this preacher was willing to take his stand against a fellow Christian who was proclaiming God’s Word because he believed that his efforts at effective evangelism would now be hampered by such negative press. This preacher was concerned that his efforts at bridge building would now collapse because Israel Falou took a public stand on a supposedly sensitive topic. This affront to PC could not go unchallenged. Armed with his diatribe and not the Word of God, this preacher ascended his pulpit and essentially shamed a brother in Christ because he had the courage to stand up and stand upon God’s Word.

Such actions are infused with PC not JC. They smack of the pride of man and of ego, not of the humility that Christ expects of His own. These actions tear at Christ’s church; they rend the body, and they sow discord. Denounce a man if he is a heretic, by all means, but denounce a brother for stating what the Bible says! Alas, how the mighty have fallen.

Preaching the Text – Kind of, maybe?

This last example comes from the Seminary classroom, the Homiletics class to be precise. Students are paired. One student picks a text to be preached, the other has the responsibility of preaching that text. Camped out by two students, it was fascinating to listen to their discussion. Student A put forward one of his favourite texts. It was a Psalm, a good Psalm, a well know Psalm. What was of interest was Student B’s response. Recollecting the events as accurately as possible due to the passage of time, Student B first recoiled. Then there was a subtle hint that maybe Student A should pick a different text. Then came the stronger offer, “Maybe something from the New Testament.” The onlooker’s spidey-senses tingled. The mind began to question, “Why this hesitation?” The answer that came to mind immediately was PC not JC.

Student B pushed back a little more, but, thankfully, Student A stuck to his guns. After all, this was a text that he chose because it meant a lot to him personally. Now for the test, the actual preaching. Would it deal with the text and fill it with JC or would the PC infiltrate so that the audience would witness some fast and furious footwork of the type that would make Fred Astaire proud.

The text? Psalm 139. Please feel free to read it now:

O Lord, Thou hast searched me and known me. Thou dost know when I sit down and when I rise up; Thou dost understand my thought from afar. Thou dost scrutinize my path and my lying down, and art intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all. Thou hast enclosed me behind and before, and laid Thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Thy hand will lead me, And Thy right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee. For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with Thee. O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way.^[20]

Reading the Psalm may even be a litmus test for the reader. Did you find the Psalm encouraging or were there some … ‘Oh, what is that theological term? Oh, yes!’ … icky bits?

This is a good Psalm, indeed a great Psalm. Student A does well to treasure this Psalm for the comfort, hope, and guidance that it brings to him. Indeed, it can be said with confidence that Student A treasures this Psalm precisely because he is full of and enamoured with JC. This, however, cannot be truly said of Student B. What became evident through this activity within the homiletics class was the fact that PC had begun to take a place in Student B’s heart.

The evidence for this conclusion was partly presented in his opening statements to Student A when he wanted to change the text to a New Testament text. The second, but more conclusive evidence, was found in the sermon itself. Student B preached all the way through the text, verse by verse, until he came to these verses: Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. At this point, no words were offered that might have explained the text; nor was any help given to the listener in the form of an interpretive key. There was not even an acknowledgement that, as a student, the understanding of this part of the text eluded him. No, these words simply sailed through the Bermuda Triangle of PC and vanished form the text.

Is this assessment harsh? No! As with all these movements there are discernible patterns. We noted earlier how PC turns one’s eyes from our holy God and refocuses them on rebellious men. We noted how Doctrine must be altered, modified, toned down, and reinterpreted. Along with this comes a preference for the New Testament. Why? Because Jesus is there? Maybe? Predominantly, however, the desire for the New Testament, we fear, is less motivated by the presence of Jesus and more by the absence of strong language, such as that found in Psalm 139.

PC tells us that the Old Testament is full of violence, hate, and darkness, whereas the New Testament is tolerance, love, and light. When your mantra is ‘evangelism and only evangelism’, then tolerance, love, and light, trump the mislabelled violence, hate, and darkness.

Proof of this can be found in the Israel Falou saga, mentioned above. The man quoted an exclusive New Testament text and was howled down by those from without and within the Church. It was the New Testament that was quoted, but it did not measure up to the tolerance, love, and light scenario, so the messenger had to be shot—some of those involved in the denouncing from within the church still have enough orthodoxy not to denounce the text of Scripture, but they do not want anyone pointing out that their PC emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Here, in essence, is the problem with PC. Before it modified any of the Doctrines mentioned in this article, it had already made some significant modifications to the Biblical Doctrines regarding fallen man and God Himself.

The first rejection was the Bible’s description of fallen man as being dead in trespass and sin and under the condemnation of God. It was decided that such a description was hardly appealing. Extremely hard to hold a conversation of the “How to win friends and influence people” type, when your description of them makes the despotic bad guy in the Western look good.

The second rejection or modification courtesy of the PCites was to arrange an ‘image consultant’ for God. He needed some help in trying to portray a better image to the wider reading public. Thus, the anger issues, the lightning bolts, the ‘I hate …!’ comments, the ‘My people disappoint Me!’ remarks, and the thing with all the rules— ‘What’s that about?’— all had to go. Of course, there is nothing new here. Marcion took a pair of scissors to his Bible; Declared the God of the Old Testament to be a sort of tribal deity with anger management issues; and proclaimed Jesus to be sent from a different “god”, the Father. The New Testament was considered to be under the influence of the Jewish god, hence the scissors. Paul was the only true apostle of Jesus, but even his works were not spared the scissors. The only real difference, thanks to the PC brigade, is that we are no longer allowed to call people heretics—the appellation that was correctly applied to Marcion.

Now, please understand, Student B may not raise his right hand and swear to all these points. Most do not and will not. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that there has already been a subtle shift in his thinking. Logically, if the Holy Spirit does not convict him of this shift, then his future ministry is, more than likely, to be tainted by this movement. It may begin with omitting a few lines from a text here and there, but gradually, a few lines will become whole texts, then complete topics and before long the whole counsel is nothing but the hole counsel.[21]

By contrast, Student A is far more assured because his stand is infused with JC. He understands, truly, that love to God comes before love to any other.[22] That is precisely why he finds no trouble with hating God’s enemies. The true believer in Jesus Christ will hate what God hates and love what God loves. The fact that Student A, along with the Psalmist, declare hatred for God’s enemies is nothing less than an absolute declaration of their love for God. The PCites cannot see past the word “hate” to grasp and understand that what is on display in this text is actually an unequivocal chorus of love. Do we not gather in worship and sing the words of Psalm 1: How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.^[23]

One cannot love God whilst batting for the other team. One cannot truly love God whilst espousing the playbook of the other team. No. Love to God is singular. The command is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Thankfully, men like Student A understand that point, precisely because they are infused with JC and not PC. A man and his God; loved and loving; known intimately by his God, warts and all, and loved. Searched and found wanting, yet loved. A man. Yes, just a man, but a man who loves God absolutely. A redeemed man, acknowledging all his faults, with but one prayer on His lips – Father make me more like Jesus! This man knows His God encompasses him. This man knows that his God is everywhere. This man knows that should his foot slip, all he will know are the everlasting arms around and about. This man knows that God knit him in the womb. This man knows that before his eyes ever opened, he was loved absolutely by his God. Therefore, this man, Student A and those of his ilk, will absolutely hate what God hates and they will do so because they are filled with the Spirit of JC, a Spirit that loves and obeys the One, True, and Living God.

Lord, please, please, fill the land with men like this; men of whom the world is not worthy; for they are the true evangelists. They are the true culture changes. They are the true light bearers. They are so, because they are infused with and therefore diffuse the light and life of Jesus Christ, and like Him, their Saviour, they have no greater pleasure or purpose than to honour their God.

Conclusion:

If the Church is to return to and be faithful to Her mission, then She must repent of Her sins, forsake false standards, cling to what is good, and have nothing to do with the vain philosophies of the World. She must return to and measure Herself always by the correct standard. She must be willing to see through words to content and action. What do I mean? Simply this: It is easy to witness historic God- words and to hear the lingo of the so-called faithful, but Jesus looked at and He looks for the fruit. Does your Christian life, does your congregation’s life, bear the marks, the fruit, of being enamoured with Jesus the Christ or has it settled for orthodox type words whilst all the time holding to the doctrines of PC culture?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, the Life, THE Standard. Brethren, accept no substitutes!

Footnotes:

[1] Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48.

[2] Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4.

[3] Hebrews 1:1-2; John 10:37-38.

^[4] New American Standard Bible. (1986). (electronic edition., Dt 4:2; Re 22:18–19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. See also Dt 12:32; Prov 30:6. All Scripture references are from this source.

[5] John 6:38 (NASB)

^[6] Jn 4:34.

^[7] Lk 22:42.

[8] When we speak of this overemphasis on evangelism, we have two things in mind. First, there is the goading to be about saving the lost as the Christians highest and only pursuit in life – an unholy message that often does more harm than good. Secondly, this emphasis on evangelism often sees the application of the sermon boiled down to, “Come to Jesus and be saved!” Such a constant emphasis in application robs the Christian. How so? I’ve been a Christian for x number of years, I may be a new Christian, so the question, “What comes next?” is never answered.

[9] 1 John 3:4.

^[10] Ga 3:24.

^[11] Ro 3:19–20.

^[12] 2 Ti 3:16–17.

^[13] Mt 5:16.

^[14] Jn 21:15–17.

^[15] Eph 4:11–14.

[16] Romans 8:29.

[17] A lengthy phone conversation was also undertaken.

[18] Acts 17:32-33 clearly portrays the two outcomes of preaching. See also Acts 14:1-2; Acts 2:12-13; John 10:31-39.

[19] Galatians 1:8.

^[20] Ps 139:1–24.

[21] This aspect can even bee seen in how a preacher approaches the text. One such preacher was witnessed rearranging the text, that is, preaching through it is a different order, so that he could end on the verse he wanted with the emphasis he wanted.

[22] Matthew 10:37 ff.

^[23] Ps 1:1–2.

The Love of Christ Constrains

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Changes can be subtle and subtle changes can be wrong. A wise Christian once said: “Wisdom is the ability to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘almost right’!”

One such subtle change, which has had a terrible impact on Christianity, has to do with the love of Christ. “Now”, you ask, “how can the love of Christ ever be wrong?” As the above saying suggests, it can be wrong when it is almost right.

The problem has come about and is seen in a one–sided love. The love of Christ is that in which the Christian basks. It is the love of Christ that has set the Christian free. In these views, the love of Christ is only a permissive love that enables the Christian to do what he enjoys most.

Is this view of Christ’s love correct? The answer is, no. Whilst the love of Christ gives to the Christian many wondrous benefits and incalculable riches, autonomy is not one of them. By this we mean that Christ did not set us free to a vacuum where we are self-determining kings. On the contrary, Christ’s love set us free to serve God. Jesus’ love set us free so that we could be priestly-kings in His Kingdom, in order to serve Him faithfully and fully.

Missing from the Christian’s view of Christ’s love in our day is the concept found in the hymn, “For the might Thine arm”, which states, For the love of Christ constraining.” As a child growing up, I remember this phrase being used. Christians spoke freely of the fact that Christ’s love constrained.

As individualism has made inroads into the Church, I no longer hear this phrase. Rather, as alluded to earlier, Christ’s love is now simply viewed as a permissive element in which Jesus smiles upon any and all activities of the Christian.

Such should not be the case. The love of Christ should constrain us. The love of Christ should motivate us to obedient action. Likewise, the love of Christ should dissuade us from disobedient actions. The love of Christ should be everything to us. It should be our health and happiness.

Thus, we must ask, “How can we be happy, if we mock the love of Christ?” Someone close to me married an unbeliever. When challenged, their response was, “Do you not want me to be happy?” Our response to that was, “If you are a Christian, how can you be happy when you disobey Christ?”

The love of Christ is a two-way street. Christ’s absolute love to us should be reflected in our love for Him absolutely. This means that we must appreciate and understand the infinite cost of Jesus death; the incomprehensible depth of the statement, “loved before the foundation of the world”; and the implications of, “you are not your own but have been bought with a price – therefore glorify God in your body!”

We simply cannot say that we are encompassed by the love of Christ, when we walk in disobedience to Christ. We cannot say that Christ is our all in all, when we do not love Jesus absolutely by absolutely keeping His commands. Inane concepts like, “God looks at the heart” simply do not suffice. Yes, God does look at the heart. He looks at the heart to see if it is genuinely filled with the love of Jesus, His beloved Son. God looks at the heart to see whether or not the works that come forth are those of outward show or those constrained by the true love of Christ.

Consider Jesus words to the Church at Ephesus: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Revelation 2:4).

These Ephesians were good. They could spot a heretic at one hundred paces. They could rightly divide the word of God. They had sound doctrine. What they did not have was a genuine love for Christ. This is not to say that they did not love Jesus in any way. Rather, it is to emphasise the fact that spotting heretics and having right theology became an end in itself. They did not learn to eradicate falsehood so that Jesus would be honoured. They did not learn doctrine so that Christ would be glorified. Rather, these elements became an end in themselves.

Brethren, please let the love of Christ constrain us in our day. Give up the radical disobedience of self. Give up the false idea of doctrine for doctrine’s sake. In all our actions, let us be conscious that we act for Christ and His glory. Let us be constrained to action and from action on the basis that we love Jesus and that it would break our hearts irreparably to cause Him any hurt.

The modern view of permissive love is a false view. Christ’s love constrains, and rightly so. How could we not give our all for Him who held nothing back from us? Jesus love for us saw Him forsaken of God, hung on a tree, cursed by His own creation, despised of man; all to purchase a people for God. How little a thing is it then, that the love of Jesus be allowed to govern every word, thought, and action of His people.

May the love of Christ constrain us completely to an obedience which magnifies and glorifies our beautiful Jesus!

Knowing God

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Christian! Are you battle weary? Do you find yourself quietly questioning the Lord as to what He is doing or not seemingly doing?

There is no shame in admitting that you answer these questions in the affirmative. In fact, it is a positive that you do ask such questions. In asking these questions, you are asserting two beliefs. The first is that you are tired of the seeming triumphs of a “wicked and perverse generation” over the righteous. The second is that you realise that revival and reform can only come from the hand of God.

The other day, I sat in my study and asked God, “What can I do to bring revival?” Some may see this as arrogant; see this as God’s hand being forced by man. Is this the case? Not at all. First, God’s hand can never “be forced” by the will of man. Second, God desires His hand to be moved by the prayers and supplications of His people. God desires to bless His people.

This is made abundantly clear to us in Scripture. Jesus said as much in John 16:23-24 saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name. “Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be made full.”

What then can we do to bring revival?

First, and most obviously, we must pray.

Second, we must set a Godly example through obedience to God’s word.

Third, we must act and not grow tired of acting in and for righteousness.

Fourth, we must carry the acts of the wicked to God for His attention.

Fifth, we must ask God to act and not be afraid to ask forcefully.

Sixth, we must be patient, persist in doing good, and continue to implore God to act.

These steps are not invented by the mind of modern man. These are the steps of a righteous man, an oracle, who sought to know and express His desire for God in all of life. This genuine desire to know God and obey God often landed this man in “hot water”. We know that he was not a perfect man. He stumbled. He fell. Yet, he knew that in every circumstance of life, Yahweh was the answer. Note please, Yahweh did not have the answer; Yahweh was the answer!

Who is this mysterious person? We know him by many names. Most commonly, we call him the Psalmist.

In Psalm 119:121-128 we read these words:

I have done justice and righteousness; Do not leave me to my oppressors.

Be surety for Thy servant for good; Do not let the arrogant oppress me.

My eyes fail with longing for Thy salvation, And for Thy righteous word.

Deal with Thy servant according to Thy lovingkindness, And teach me Thy statutes.

I am Thy servant; give me understanding, That I may know Thy testimonies.

It is time for the Lord to act, For they have broken Thy law.

Therefore I love Thy commandments Above gold, yes, above fine gold.

Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.

Please note how each of the steps outlined is a step followed by the Psalmist.

The Psalmist begins with a confident assertion that he has been obedient to the Law of God. He has not just believed; he has actually done justice and righteousness. His is not a theoretical knowledge. It is knowledge in action.

We then note that the Psalmist gives voice to those who “oppress”. In other words, the Psalmist has opposition. There are some who care not either for his doctrine or his way of life.

In this “oppression” we can sense the tired notes of the Psalmist’s voice. He asks that the Lord spare him the “oppression of the arrogant.” Yet, even in this trial, the Psalmist will not surrender. He takes heart. He is encouraged. He continues to “look for Yahweh’s salvation and His word (or promise)”.

What an encouragement to all of us. This man was oppressed. He realised that the source of his oppression was the fact that he believed God and obeyed God. Yet, he refused to be shaken from this stand or deviate from this course.

Take heed of his response. The Psalmist not only continues to look for the fulfillment of Yahweh’s word and promise, he asks Yahweh to “teach” him more statutes; he asks for “understanding” so that he might rightly “know” Yahweh’s testimonies. The Psalmist wants more! In our language, he may be termed a “sucker for punishments.” In Biblical language, his soul hungered for the knowledge of God. Not only is the Psalmist not content with where he is at, he wants to know more of God’s Law so that he can do more justice and righteousness.

Wow! How do we compare with this? The Psalmist realises that he is oppressed because of his faith; yet his response is not to decrease his faith; to make some vain attempt to slip under the radar; or to compromise. No, his reaction is to ask God for more of everything that constitutes faith and Godly practice!

Then the Psalmist arrives at the critical juncture. He understands that the oppressors are outside of his power and jurisdiction. Therefore, he calls for Yahweh to act against them; whether to transform or crush. The Psalmist reinforces his plea for action on the part of Yahweh by bringing the deeds of the ungodly to Yahweh – “Look, my Father. They have broken thy Law. Your Word and testimony are despised in their eyes. Act. Vindicate Thy righteousness and Thy servant!”

With this said, the Psalmist makes affirmation of his love for the Law of God as his only standard. This Word is to him of more value than gold. This Law is “esteemed” in his sight.

Precisely because he loves God’s law, his final confession is that “he hates every false way.”

The Psalmist is a great example to us. His love for God and His Law is paramount; it is his life! How do you view God’s Law – or His Word, if you are more comfortable with that term?

The Psalmist grew weary. He faced opposition. Yet his reaction was to ask God for more faith and more practical works, which no doubt would have brought more opposition. How do we respond? Do we drop our proverbial “bundle”, seek to remain quiet, or do we come to the throne of God and plead for the fullness of the righteousness of Christ?

Lastly, we must observe the antithesis evident in the Psalmist. He so loved God and His Law that he hated all else. If it were not from God, it was repudiated. How do we fair on this point?

We must wrestle with these questions, like them or not. God does act in accord with His will. Most certainly, He acts at His time. However, we cannot use either of these as excuses for what we perceive to be God’s inaction.

In acting, God also takes note of His people, their actions, and their pleas. Are we holding God at arm’s length because we are comfortable with some sins? Do we want God to act against certain sins, but would like others to remain because we are at ease with them? When we look at the world, are we disgusted with their actions and policies or do we find them to be, for the most part, fair? Can we say, wholeheartedly, that we “hate every false way”?

The answer to these questions are tied up with the answers to our opening questions. Battle weary? Wonder why God seems silent? Could it be that we have not followed the Psalmist’s example and proven our wholehearted desire for God and His Law? Could it be that the Lord, gracious in mercy and all wise, is letting the weight of oppression rest on us until we realise that the object of our love is wrong; that the expression of our love is insincere; or that we are so out of touch with God that we do not even realise there is a problem!

Brethren, study the Psalmist. Learn from him. Seek God. Know the fullness of His love and express it back to Him in an obedient life. Jesus did not hold back His love or life from us, how dare we hold ours from Him.

I Want to be With the Lord!

Posted on January 22, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

“I want to be with the Lord!”

These are the words of an 84-year-old friend. They are stirring, sobering, and admirable words. Yet, they raise some issues.

I often wonder why it takes age, aches, pains, and failing health for us to find this as our true desire and utter these words. I equally wonder why the idea of “living Christ” is viewed as a post mortem event.

Paul shows something of this conflict. He writes: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. And convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again.” (Philippians 1:21-26)

What can we learn from these words?

First, the obvious lesson is that we should desire to be with Christ. This should be part of who we are as Christians. This desire should be felt and expressed tangibly from the moment we know Christ. It should not be a desire expressed only because of age or failing health.

Second, we must understand that living or dying, our life is Christ. Jesus is Emmanuel – God with us. He is with us now through the Holy Spirit. The work we do on earth is His work, empowered and directed by His Spirit. We are His temple (1 Peter 2:5). The goal of our work should be that which is acceptable to God through Jesus.

Third, the gain of which Paul speaks is that of meeting Jesus face to face. Currently, we see through the “glass darkly” as the King Jim phrases it. Then, we shall see face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Christians need to appreciate the correlation in these points. To understand Paul’s obvious conflict, we need to unpack the order of his words. Note that Paul does not say ‘life is gain’ and ‘death is Christ’. It seems as though that is the way most understand these verses. Rather, Paul shows that fulfilling his life and calling is Christ. Understood aright, Paul is arguing that death does not usher in something different, but rather more of the same in greater degree. His gain is also Christ. Death is the realisation of the fullness of Christ. The barrier of sin is torn down completely and the totality of our relationship with God in Christ can be enjoyed.

It is important to understand Paul’s words, as some have tended to look down upon this life. It is considered a ‘treading of water’ until better things come. However, if we understand Paul aright, our life here is Christ. Paul was happy to postpone the “gain” and continue to live “Christ” in order that he may serve the brethren by showing them how to live Christ – “progress” and “joy” in the faith.

Our times are in God’s hands. Our desire should always be to live Christ. However, we should not be fooled into thinking that our life here is not Christ. How can we, living Christ every moment, encourage, support, progress, or bring joy in the faith to the brotherhood?

How will you live Christ in this day; in this moment?

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial “Theo-” words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.

Our first answer in relation to the extent and application of God’s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic in our outward expression of His manifest love. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.

This then hints at the first stumbling block – are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]

Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus’ “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God’s law. God’s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2] and nurtures us in the life of Christ.

So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture’s clear teaching.[3]

Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that “sin is lawlessness.”[4] What law, then, are we “less” in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man’s law or God’s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)” So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be “less” the law of God.

If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: “And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” Says John, ‘God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.’ Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God’s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God’s we will be Lawless and sinful.

Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God’s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God’s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God’s law must be and is the only standard of righteousness.

Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God’s King and honouring God’s law.

A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding upon all men.

The question that springs to mind is, “If the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?”

What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let’s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, “Which of these are still valid for today?” Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.

No Other God’s;
No idols; (No false worship)
Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
Hour your father and mother;
No murder;
No adultery;
No thievery;
No false witness;
No coveting.

If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God’s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?

Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.

For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God’s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?

Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?

The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, “Sabbath! What Sabbath?” Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?

Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, “Yes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!” but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed “love and tolerance” speech of the moderns.

Yet, we must ask, “How do we justify this type of double standard?” If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character – reflected in and by His law – how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the “New Testament Christian” concept, we ask, “Where in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals? The answer is, “Nowhere!”

It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.

Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)”[5]

This first help comes in the word “summarily”. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the Moral law.

Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.

When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God’s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws.[6]

The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, “Of what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44–45, Lev. 20:7–8, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10–11) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11–12, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21–22) and of the perfection of his obedience. (Rom. 10:4)”[7]

The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God’s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to ‘Version 2.0’ rather than repent and seek God’s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.

Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God’s Moral Law, which is summarised in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, “Preach the Law!” (Galatians 3:24.)

God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]

Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God’s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.

God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might “reign with Christ”[9] and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God’s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God’s viceregents, those given rule over God’s creation for God’s glory – fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)—Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created! (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God’s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God’s Saviour and King.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, “Take Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra” line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King.

[2] My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, “If you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone’s wife.” Thus, according to his observations, if we ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not commit adultery’, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.

[3] John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments.

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

[6] I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: “What are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22) and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6–7, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2) by thinking, (Mal. 3:16) mediating, (Ps. 63:6) remembering, (Eccl. 12:1) highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19) honouring, (Mal. 1:6) adoring, (Isa. 45:23) choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22) loving, (Deut. 6:5) desiring, (Ps. 73:25) fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13) believing him; (Exod. 14:31) trusting (Isa. 26:4) hoping, (Ps. 130:7) delighting, (Ps. 37:4) rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11) being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11) calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6) and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7) being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136) and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)” Here the Divines are speaking of Man’s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements. The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.

[7] Question and answer 95.

[8] See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.

[9] See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.

Catchphrases of Doom

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Catchphrases are about us everywhere. These tiny slogans, often only using a few words, are the droplets of a distilled philosophy. As the droplet hangs, it gorges itself on the rays of light emanating from the full philosophy and then diffuses the philosophy into the world as a bright, eye-catching display of colour. Many are bedazzled by this light display. The pretty lights, dancing before our eyes, are intoxicating and mesmerising. The trouble is that while your view is obscured by the coloured lights, someone is picking your pockets!

At heart, most slogans really do not portray the fullness of the philosophy or outline the extent of the philosophy’s application. When this is the case, the catchphrase becomes deceit. It does so of necessity due to the process of reduction. When anything is distilled its natural composition must be altered. Some elements will be eliminated. Some will be changed. Others will be intensified.

Take for example the phrase, God is Love. This is Biblical. It is right. However, if we take this as a catchphrase, intended to show the totality of God’s character, then it becomes deceit and a lie. If the lie is believed, it becomes a source of doom.

The latest catchphrase of doom to makes its way into the public arena is the homosexual lobby’s “Love is Love”. This slogan is designed to evoke an emotional response, of the Mill’s and Boon variety, in which reason is trumped by Man’s eternal desire both to love and be loved. I mean, please, pass the tissues! Here, in a world of turmoil, a world of hatred, a world of ‘wars and rumours of wars’ are these oppressed people who just want to Love each other. They simply want to be left alone to love and be loved–to foster an atmosphere of love wherever they go. I mean, ‘sob, more tissues, please’, “What could be more admirable than loving, being loved, and spreading love?”

Now, while you are mopping up the last of your tears, let it be asked of you that, before answering the question, you might disengage your emotions and engage your mind. “Love is Love”, is a wonderful slogan, but here is the real question, “What does it mean?” Yes, we can be sidetracked into an emotional exercise debating the answer to the first question, but that will simply be an enterprise in futility if we do not answer the second question first. We must have a definition before we can enter upon any discussion. We must set some parameters so that the discussion is meaningful. We must understand the concept or meaning will elude us.

Let us start, therefore, with the basic question, “What is love?” When you read the slogan “Love is Love” you are immediately struck by the fact that love is always wholesome and pure. The word love is used like a sanctifier–take anything, add love and, voilà, it is now pure and holy. However, this is simply not the case. As we know empirically from everyday usage, love does not, in and of itself, speak of a pure motive or a pure object.

Love is a subjective expression that must, as a general rule, have an object. The very fact that Man expresses love for something does not mean that either his expressed passion or the object to which he expresses his passion is legitimate, pure, or holy. Man’s expressed love may be all of these or none of these. It is God’s morality that determines the legitimacy of both, not the mere fact that Man loves. An obese person can love his food. A sexual deviant can love his prey. A man can love God. Are all these loves legitimate and equal?

Let us examine three Biblical examples:

Isaac: “Now then … go out to the field and hunt game for me; and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love.”[1]

Amnon: “Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her. … And he said to him, “O son of the king, why are you so depressed morning after morning? Will you not tell me?” Then Amnon said to him, “I am in love with Tamar, the sister of my brother Absalom.” … However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her… Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, “Get up, go away!”[2]

God’s People: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”.

These examples show us the extremes of human love. The first is of an elderly man who has a hankering for his favourite meal. His desire is expressed as love; yet are we to believe that his desire for a meal was of the same intensity, purity, depth, and breadth with which he loved Rebekah[3], his wife? In the second example, we see a young Amnon, passionate in his love for Tamar to the point of melancholy; yet his was not a true love, it was a violent love, a lust, that drove him to rape his sister. The third example is God’s statement as to how His people were to love Him in fullness, completeness, and totality.

If we believe the homosexual lobby’s catchphrase of doom, we must believe that the actions listed in these texts are legitimate and equal on the basis that they are all said to be motivated by love. Therefore, if “Love is Love” then eating your favourite meal, raping your sister, and loving God with the whole of your being are moral equals.

Next, the homosexual lobby would have you believe, via the “Love is Love” catchphrase, that sexual activity is legitimised by love. These lobbyists are pushing for marriage rights and the right to engage in sexual activity without stigma and the foundation of their argument is love. In other words, the homosexual lobby want to legitimise their sexual acts. To do this they know instinctively that they must be married. However, as they fail to meet God’s criterion of heterosexuality they are under obligation to invent a new criterion, love. Yet, once more, we must ask as to how “Love is Love” transmogrifies into “Love is legitimate sexual activity”.

To put it simply and bluntly, love never legitimises sexual activity! In Scripture, legitimate sexual activity must meet two criteria: heterosexuality and the marriage covenant.[4] If you remove either criterion, then the sexual activity is illegitimate, unsanctioned, and debauched. This is borne out by the language of Scripture and of our day:

Fornication: Heterosexual activity when not married;

Adultery: Sexual activity with other than your spouse when married;

Sodomy / Homosexuality: Sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage and heterosexuality.[5]

Please note well that love is never the criterion that legitimises sexual activity.[6]

Last, let us highlight more obviously what the homosexual lobby and their catchphrase of doom seek to hide, namely, that men can and do love absolute perversion.

When Jesus came into this world, rightly to be embraced by Men, John records Man’s response with these dreadful words: this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.[7] In this regard, nothing has changed. Still the homosexual community loves its evil deeds of darkness and seeks any and every avenue to legitimise its aberrant behaviour. There is little doubt that amongst the homosexual community there is genuine love, but it is a love for the darkness. Their love, genuine as it is, does not legitimise, excuse, or sanction their deviant sexual behaviour. One can place a blanket of love upon a bed, but that does not mean that every activity between the sheets is lawful.

“Love is Love” is a catchphrase of doom precisely because it is one more veil, another puff of smoke, the positioning of yet another mirror in an attempt to garner support for an errant cause by obscuring the truth.

Man’s duty of love is to God and His Christ. Jesus said: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” and “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me.” [8] True love, therefore, is aimed at God and expresses itself in obedience to his commands. Any love that does not meet this standard is the love generated from within a fallen and corrupt heart; a heart that loves darkness and not the Light!

Footnotes:

[1] Genesis 27:3-4.

[2] 2 Samuel 13:1, 4, 14-15.

[3] Genesis 24:67.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] 1 Corinthians 6:9 list these three sins separately, emphasising the fact that they each transgress God’s law in a different manner.

[6] An example from our everyday relationships. If you engaged in sexual activity with all those you loved, based on the idea that love legitimises sexual activity, would you not be considered by most, even the homosexual lobby, to be a debauched and depraved individual.

[7] John 3:19.

[8] John 14:15 & 21.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy. Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

PostTenebrasLux

The Dominion of Jesus Christ is Light: The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn! Proverbs 4:18

Tag Archives: Christ

Infused with PC, Not JC!

The Love of Christ Constrains

Knowing God

I Want to be With the Lord!

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Catchphrases of Doom

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)