|
© October 2004 Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw
(updated 15 Nov 2004)
By way of introduction, let me first observe, that we are in a spiritual war, the seed of the serpent versus the seed of the woman, Satan against Christ, the Philistines opposing the Israel of God. There are various methods that the enemies of God use against Him and His people, but they all have certain beliefs and methods in common.
We see this war clearly in Psalm 2 where the nations rage, plot, and seek to overthrow the reign of God and His Messiah, the Son of God. But it is all to no avail as God has installed His Son as King of kings, and toward the end of the Psalm the wicked are exhorted to “kiss the Son less He be angry and [they] perish in the way when His wrath is kindled but a little.”
We also see the spiritual war in Ephesians 6:10 and following where we are commanded to put on the whole armor of God, for we do not fight just against humans but wicked forces behind such rebellious humans. Our weapons are spiritual, the Gospel, not physical. It is a great irony that we win by these weapons, and sometimes that means we win by suffering, for it is especially then that God rises up to defend His people, to bring life from death and the advancement of His kingdom from seeming defeat. It has always been that way and will continue in this vein until the sovereign King returns for the Last Day judgment. We are not to be surprised that we have enemies, that the Gospel is not popular, that Christians are hated, and the more wicked our culture becomes, the more we shall be hated:
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also (John 15:18-20).
There are many ways Satan has to oppose the Church of the living God. One way is by false religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth. These are obvious. The more subtle way is by raising up those who would appear to be our friends, who live among us, even some who claim to be Christians, yet hate God as much as anyone. One such class of the serpent’s seed is liberals, or liberalism. Though it is possible to be politically liberal (depending on how far one goes in his/her liberalism) and still basically believe the faith, it is not possible to be theologically liberal and believe the faith, as we shall see. The former are grossly inconsistent, but we can still call them Christians, but the latter place themselves outside the faith. Many of the statements in this article can apply to political liberalism, though I have written this regarding theological liberalism. There are several characteristics of theological liberalism that were true over 100 years ago and are still true today. I shall number these in this article.
(1) Perhaps the most basic belief of theological liberalism is that man is the measure of all things. To put this another way, as J. Gresham Machen, a conservative Presbyterian scholar, pointed out in his excellent book in 1923, Christianity and Liberalism, liberals deny anything supernatural and replace that with naturalism. Naturalism is just another way to say that man—not God—is the final authority for all of truth. The Bible is declared to be just the word of man, the Virgin Birth is denied or redefined until it is denied, the incarnation as taught by Church and the Bible for 2,000 years is rejected, and the miracles of the Bible are laughed at. In short, anything supernatural is dismissed. Man’s word, not God’s Word, is the measure of truth. They deny the Bible to be the word of God, or redefine it until it is only a human book. (See Appendix One.)
Indeed, from this one point alone in denying supernaturalism and accepting man as the measure of truth, theological liberalism has placed itself outside the Christian faith, any expression of Christian faith, whether that is Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Protestantism. It is a religion of man, not of God. As Machen rightly stated of liberalism in the 1920s, it is “un-Christian,” not aberrantly Christian, for it has no semblance to Christianity at all. We may have our differences with the Roman Catholic Church and with Eastern Orthodoxy, but we can at least recognize that they are broadly Christian, not anti-supernatural, not holding than man is the measure of all things but holding to the ancient Creeds. They recognize some authority above themselves, but liberalism does not. The liberalism of Machen’s day in the 1920s at least believed in some kind of truth, but the liberalism of postmodern America in the 21st century does not believe in anything. We hear a lot these days that each person has his/her own “reality,” and anything is legitimate except the orthodox faith.
“Truth” has been replaced with “useful.” If there were truth, then liberals could be held accountable, but they promote pragmatism, whatever works for the moment, a utilitarianism. The past beliefs are not the guide for today, but today is the guide for the past. The Church councils and creeds of the past are not as important as today’s new standards, as defined by our ever changing culture. It is more important to be a cradle Episcopalian than a creedal one.
This first point may be stated yet another way, liberalism denies the infallibility of the Bible. The interesting thing about infallibility is that it does not go away; it only shows up somewhere else. Infallibility is transferred from God to man, from God’s Book to man’s writings, from the past church councils (Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon) as upholding the standard of truth to our present culture itself being the new standard. Indeed, God’s truths never go away; they just get transferred, which says that this is His world and that one cannot help but function by His categories.
Perhaps a personal pastoral example will help. In one pastorate I had in a Reformed Episcopal Church parish, one Sunday morning I went to Church to preach as usual. Just before the service, I was told that the senior warden’s grown son had suddenly died from an accident. I was told that the father wanted me to do the morning Holy Communion service as usual and then come over to his house. As soon as the service was over, I went to give comfort. I went in my clerical collar, officially to represent the Church and the Gospel, and used the Scriptures to minister to him and to his wife and family. It was a great comfort to them. Now the father’s wife was a member of a liberal Episcopal church, and not long after I had read the Scriptures and prayed with them, the liberal priest came in. He was in street clothes, walked around and shook a few hands, then left without praying and without using the Holy Scriptures. What does one say in the face of death when he does not believe anything? He was conquered by death. The father’s comment when he left was appropriate: “That was for nothing.”
(2) Liberalism may be recognized in its denial of the faith once for all delivered to the Church and as espoused by the Church for 2,000 years in its Creeds. One liberal Episcopal priest delights in writing articles and books against the Apostles’ Creed. This is what we call formal apostasy, denying the beliefs of the faith as confessed by all Christians at all times in all places. One’s faith is only as good as the object of his/her faith, and the object is only as good as the truth presented about the object.
For example, if one says he/she believes in Jesus, one must ask which Jesus, the one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormonism, or the one of the Bible as represented in the ancient creeds? If one believes in the Mormon Jesus, his/her faith is void, for that Jesus does not exist. Faith without the proper object as defined by the truth of the Bible is no faith; it is only presumption.
But there is another way to have heresy, and that is by immorality. One can apostatize formally in what one subtracts or adds to the doctrines of the faith, or one can apostatize by immorality, such as practicing or approving those who practice what God forbids, like homosexuality and lesbianism in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), and pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. Even if one has the right Jesus but he/she is given over to some sin, refuses to repent, that person’s faith is void. But at least the Roman Catholic Church has admitted its sin and is seeking to discipline those guilty, but ECUSA is calling for acceptance of its sins! In ECUSA it is monogamous relationships of any kind that are promoted. In time as “marriage” is more and more re-defined, it will be siblings who will want to “marry,” multiple partners, and then pedophilia will be next, for there is a domino effect to sin that moves one to worse sins than before, one compromise leading to another, until complete self-destruction occurs.
And the ECUSA hierarchy will be there for immoral support at each downward step. There is a quick-sand effect to sin, the more one wallows in it, the deeper he/she sinks into the quagmire of degradation. The only way out is by the Gospel, to be placed on the solid rock of Christ and His Gospel, to confess Him as God and man in one person who was born of the Virgin, lived a life of perfect obedience, died on the cross for our sins, and raised Himself from the grave. God has clearly stated that those who practice such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:5), though they can repent and be forgiven, which is what we want to see. (See the article on this site entitled Homosexuality.) Of course, people will say we are beyond all those beliefs, which is to affirm what I said in point 1 above: man is the measure of all things.
The reason there can be such horrendous moral apostasy today is the belief that sin is no longer an issue. Liberals have defined away sin. One liturgical denomination has one service where confession of sin can be omitted. Once while on vacation, I attended an ECUSA church with my wife, and after the service one woman noted that I had on a clerical collar. She asked what church I was with, and when I told her the Reformed Episcopal Church, she bellowed for everyone to hear in loud vociferous tones: “O God, all that sin and repentance. How can you stand it?” I was taken back by such a denial of the Gospel and in such a vocal manner. If there is no sin, there is no moral standard, and in turn no immorality, only personal choices. And if there is no sin, there is no need for a Savior from sin. As one preacher said, “Once a culture gives up the concept of judgment and of hell, it goes to hell.” Liberals much prefer the positive to the negative, as if God did not emphasize both. How often does one hear about sin, hell, and judgment from preachers on TV and radio? It is all but non-existent. Instead, we hear about “possibility thinking,” “positive visualization,” “positive confession,” health and wealth. In postmodern America, there is no truth except what one accepts for oneself, except, of course, what the liberal agenda calls for, such as the legitimacy of sexual sins. Immorality is the constant theme of Hollywood movies, and now of some denominations who wear the name “Christian.”
And make a note that sexual immorality is always the fruit of idolatrous beliefs (read Romans 1:18-26). In having an incorrect view of God, liberalism is consequently led to have an incorrect view of man. If they get it wrong concerning the original, they get it wrong concerning His reflection, man in His image. If the archetype is wrong, so is the copy. A wrong view of God inevitably leads to a wrong view of man, for one can only define man in light of God. First comes formal apostasy, and then moral apostasy inevitably follows.
(3) Machen commented about 100 years ago that liberalism was deceptive. At first, when liberalism is trying to establish itself in a denomination or organization, it will not reveal its true beliefs, saying things like, “The Virgin Birth is an interesting belief, and certainly we must be careful to affirm what the church believes (present tense, not past tense), and I’m sure every person approaches it differently. We must be kind towards the beliefs of others,” blah, blah, blah. In other words, the liberal dances around the truth but will not clearly and forcefully state it. This characteristic of deception is exactly what God said they would be like. Like their father the devil, who is a deceiver, so his children are the same. Like father like son. Their father is a deceiver; they are deceivers. Notice what God says about the characteristics of those who deny the faith and yet are ministers:
But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
Notice especially the underlined words that emphasize deception. Notice that Paul says that in the end they go to hell, which is precisely what “whose end will be according to their works” means. The great Apostle Paul stated that the false ministers in his day wanted to be considered just like he was: a minister of the Gospel, but he said they were not. Instead, they were “deceitful workers,” making themselves appear to be “apostles of Christ” but were actually imposters from the devil himself, planted by him to distort the Gospel. Mark it down, dear friend, that these false ministers approximate the truth to gain your confidence, but they will never give a clear statement of the Gospel, for that is what saves men’s souls, and Satan will have none of that! It is a confidence scheme. Any so-called minister of the Gospel who cannot give you a clear, precise, and forceful statement of the Gospel is not of God but is of the devil—period. What would be humorous if it were not so serious is that liberal ministers think the idea of a devil is a joke, which is Satan’s deception toward them in making them his ministers. Second Peter 2:1 states regarding “false prophets among the people” that they “secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them.”
Just recently, a friend of mine related a story about a new teacher just hired at the Christian day school where he teaches, now for the first time headed up by a liberal principal. He asked the new teacher if he believed in the Virgin Birth. The response was something like, “Well that is an interesting question, and we must remember that other people in the world have other beliefs, but I do want to be true to the faith,” blah, blah, blah. In other words, he would not answer except in deceptive, loose, non-defining language. This is what I’m talking about. Mark it down that it is characteristic of deceivers to approximate the truth, to counterfeit it, making use of Christian terms but with different definitions. A counterfeit 100 dollar bill is only good if it is like the original. Take the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you ask them if they believe that Christ was the Son of God, they will say Yes, but will define “Son of God” differently than the New Testament does, meaning that He was something less than God, contrary to the Bible, to the Creeds, and to the Church for 2,000 years. Liberals never like to be precise about terms, especially theological ones. Imprecision is part of their deception. They are greatly incensed when asked to define what they mean when they use Christian terms. Preaching and teaching doctrine today is taboo, especially when one defines his terms!
This deception will reveal itself in making compromises against oneself for a time so that one can put his enemies back to sleep and get on with the real agenda. For example, in one diocese an Episcopal bishop said if he were elected bishop that he would not ordain any homosexuals to the ministry. The conservatives were put to sleep with this; but when he was elected, he ordained one. Now that people are leaving his churches, this bishop has come out with a public statement against homosexuality. What is this if not posturing? How can one waffle on such a clear issue from Holy Scripture? Part of the answer is that Satan’s ministers are chameleon like, changing colors with the environment. In other words, they are deceptive.
(4) A fourth characteristic of liberalism is an apparent tolerance but actual intolerance. Their tolerance is only apparent, for they are extremely intolerant of anything truly Christian, such as orthodox beliefs and traditional, biblical morality. They want tolerance for themselves, not for others. From Machen’s day in the 1920s to our day, we hear that it is the true Christians who are intolerant. The liberals use this approach to disarm the naïve, to get accepted as fellow Christians, but they don’t preach truth, for truth is intolerant of its opposite. Let everyone have his/her own version of truth, the liberals say in the interest of tolerance. However, there is no one quite as intolerant as a liberal for his/her cause. They will be kind to Buddhists, Hindus, and Islamics, but they will persecute Christians with delight, those who really believe the Gospel. We see the same intolerant approach in the national liberal media elite against true Christians. The reason is simple: Satan hates the Gospel so his ministers and servants carry out his agenda.
In the classroom, atheistic liberals are very evangelistic for their faith, whether in a seminary or in a university, and they take special delight in attacking Christians. They will not tolerate challenges, and will do everything in their power to discredit a Christian before the university class, or a conservative Christian minister will be made to look bad by a liberal bishop in his liberal diocese. They think they are the superior elite, the true thinkers of a denomination or of a culture, and that all others should submit to their superior intellects. (See Appendix One.) All this is a radical intolerance of anyone who claims to have truth.
Yet ironically, true Christians are the ones who are tolerant, for they do not take property away from others, do not persecute others, bear false witness against others, or divorce their spouses or take others’ spouses in the interest of “finding themselves.” Whoever heard—in the whole history of the Church—of any minister divorcing his wife, “marrying” a man, and then being made a bishop, proclaiming that the divorce and sodomy were righteous! That is complete intolerance of the Christian faith at its most basic aspect, and it is intolerance of anyone who will dare to state the obvious: “The emperor has no clothes.” True Christians are intolerant regarding truth but not persons, while the liberals are apparently tolerant of persons (though not Christians) and of truth, but not really of either. For liberals, it does not matter what you believe as long as you allow others to believe the opposite, except, of course, for the liberal agenda. That is non-negotiable truth! But we must realize that there is no neutrality regarding God and His Gospel, for Christ Himself stated that those who are not decidedly for Him are against Him (Matthew 12:30).
(5) A fifth characteristic of liberalism is that persons are more important than truth. It is the quintessence of liberalism to put persons above the truth of the Gospel, to put outward unity before God’s Word, to make the body politic more important than the Gospel. True Christians understand that unity is based in truth, such as the Church confessing the Creeds for almost 2,000 years, and thus finding unity in the one God behind the Creeds and behind the Bible. With liberalism, truth is an expression of the particular body at the moment, while with orthodox Christians unity is an expression of unchanging truth. Either unity gives rise to truth (liberalism), or truth gives rise to unity (orthodox Christians). These two are mutually exclusive.
(6) Liberal intolerance and persons considered as more important than truth give rise to another liberal characteristic: persecution of true Christians. Though this was mentioned in passing above, it deserves emphasis. Such persecution of true Christians by false Christians has always been the case. For example, in one diocese of one liturgical church, the bishop will not allow Reformed Episcopal Church ministers to speak in any of his churches nor his ministers to speak in theirs. We cannot celebrate communion with his ministers or them with ours. It is a blanket excommunication with tolerance out the window. The founding bishop of the REC faced the same exclusive attitude and elitism in his day, which was one of the reasons for his leaving ECUSA. The kingdom of the liberal bishop who will not allow REC ministers to associate with his ministers is more important than the kingdom of God, than the preaching of the Gospel itself. Those orthodox ministers who want to leave his diocese with their property are not allowed to do so, which is more intolerance and persecution. (In the Reformed Episcopal Church, each local congregation owns its own property.) Persecution of Christians is the order of his day. Part of this liberal bishop’s agenda is to replace all the ministers in his diocese who believe the Gospel with those who do not. These true ministers of Christ tell me that they are targeted by him.
(7) Here is another liberal point: Property is more important then propositions. The liberals care more for their property than for the propositions of the Gospel. A “proposition” is an objective statement of truth that reveals God and His Son, that declares who God is, who man is, what sin is, and how to know Him. When all you have is this world, you cling to it with all your might. But for those who are Christians, they see more than just this world that is passing away with its lust (see 1 John 2:15-17). Those who believe the Gospel and are in denominations who hate it must not covet property over the Gospel, but they must put the propositions of the Gospel over property. It is time for those who are godly to come out of such God-hating tyranny once they see that no change for the better is possible, for the souls of those to whom they minister are infinitely more important than the property. Remember, we shall all meet the Lord at the Last Day to give an account of how we have ministered. Let the liberal ministers perish under the wrath of God with their property while the Gospel believing ministers take their congregations elsewhere.
(8) When controversy rises over clear issues that the Church and God’s Word have been clear about for 2,000 years, liberals will say: “We must study the issues.” This was true in Machen’s day, and it is still true that liberals will try to engage in delay tactics to keep things together. They will say things like, “This issue (whatever it is) is a complicated issue, very complex, and it deserves much study.” Notice the underlined words. All the while the Church and God’s written Word have legislated on the issues for centuries, such as same sex “relationships.” The liberal ministers love the chief seats in the synagogues, and do not want to have them removed. Thus they will engage in delay tactics, hoping that people will go back to sleep so they can maintain their status, their money, and their real estate. If the people leave, they take their money with them.
In legal terms, delay tactics are called “lawyer delay,” which means the best lawyer is delay, just keep throwing up road blocks, keep setting new court dates, keep urging unity, keep saying we need to “dialogue” (the ever present word in current liberalism), keep putting off the issues and set a date to respond and at that time set another date, and so on. Wait, wait, wait, but never deal with the issues. We often hear of a “wait and see policy.” Put the sheeple (people sheep) back to sleep, keep them pacified, hold out some measure of hope for a resolution, toss them a few biblical bones, and in the meantime, keep them sending you money. It worked in Machen’s day, and it is working in our day. I don’t know how many conservative Christians I’ve talked to who still have hope for their denomination, for it is different, their parents were in it, the particular parish they’re in was grandmother’s parish, but the Gospel is more important than all these things. It is time to take a stand—now!
(9) Another tactic of liberals is to neutralize by compromise. They will neutralize those who believe the Gospel by promising more dialogue, more discussion, and then will actually give up some points, but all is with a view to disarming true Christians. Mark it down that if the Gospel as defined in the Creeds is not clearly and forcefully affirmed and immorality is defined by God’s word is not clearly and forcefully denounced, you are wasting your time. It is time to move on. Don’t wait another second. Leave skid marks in the parking lot. Get out lest you be guilty by promoting such ungodliness.
When my children were at home, I taught them to have a bottom line regarding beliefs and morality. If one does not have a firm bottom line, a point at which he/she will be outraged, a line drawn in the sand that he/she will die for, then he/she is also a compromiser, an idolater, putting people above God. And true Christianity has defined that bottom line as the three ancient creeds and the Ten Commandments. There is a time for anger, for moral outrage, like when the Lord cast out the moneychangers with a whip, and for heretical belief outrage, as when the Lord called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites over and over (Matthew 23).
(10) Liberals have an orientation to death. Think about it. If one turns from God who alone is life, where do they turn? The only alternative is death. In Proverbs 8:36 God says: “All those who hate me love death.” The political liberals have succeeded in changing the law to promote abortion, baby killing. This is the American holocaust at its worst. Those who act so pious about the holocaust and pretend to protect and love life and to hate the death penalty for murderers and convicted felons, favor the death penalty for innocent babies. This is an obvious orientation to death. There is almost unbelievable irony: death for the innocent babies, and life for guilty murderers. Christians are said to be grossly inconsistent when we support life for babies and then support the death penalty for murderers. But we are pro-righteousness, which means the guilty should be punished (murderers), but the innocent go free (babies). We are now facing a push for euthanasia, and it has been practiced to some extent (remember Kevorkian), and I predict that it will become legal, especially as the baby boomers retire and impost a heavy tax burden on those who are younger.
Theological liberals reveal their orientation to death when they destroy God’s families, one man with one woman, for this is devastating on those who experience it, exacting a toll, leaving destruction and misery in its wake. And destruction is an orientation to death.
In God’s Word, the Bible, the death penalty was prescribed for sexual sins (Leviticus 20), and the destruction they cause is an orientation to death. Indeed, sometimes God exacts the death penalty with His judgment of disease (AIDS) for those who disobey Him.
Moreover, a liberal education is the death of the soul as the person is taught to hate God and Holy Scripture. And it is only with the liberal takeover of public education that we now have illegal drugs running rampart in the schools, that kids now kill one another by the thousands, that teen pregnancy would be even worse if it were not for abortion, and so on. The fruit of liberalism, of the seed of the serpent, is indeed a deadly fruit at every turn.
(11) Liberals claim to want peace, both here in the USA and to have isolationism regarding other nations. Theological liberals say that conservatives are disturbing the peace, and try to make us feel guilty when we raise issues. They want unity and peace, we allegedly want rebellion and war, is the straw man they erect against us. But more accurately, they want us to keep quiet while they take over. Indeed, we must disturb the peace when this leads to heresy; it is precisely what God requires!
But should we engage in spiritual war? Indeed, we are already in spiritual war! God Almighty has declared such war, and He commands us to be His good soldiers of Christ (2 Timothy 2:3). Right after the fall of mankind into sin, the Lord God declared war and enmity between His seed (children) and Satan’s seed (his children): “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15). It was God who placed this enmity there, and to ignore the spiritual war we are in is to discredit Him, to discredit His ultimate Seed, Christ, and to fall prey to the enemy.
Paul stated it this way:
11 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put 0n the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:10).
We are already at war, and it cannot be otherwise. One either recognizes it and enters the battle self-consciously, or one is asleep and becomes a casualty. Those who seek peace at any price are not fighting God’s war.
Enmity already exists, for God has placed it there between Satan’s seed and God’s seed. There are enemies of the Cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18), enemies of righteousness (Acts 13:10), enemies who curse Christians (Matthew 5:44), the devil is our enemy (Matthew 13:39), enemies of Christ and of the Church (Matthew 22:44; Luke 19:27; 1 Corinthians 15:25), former enemies of God who were reconciled to Him by His Gospel (Romans 5:10), and one who is a friend of the world is an enemy of God (James 4:4). One of the central themes of liberalism is the denial of enmity, the pretending of peace—and then they take over.
How easy it is to win a war over those who don’t know there is a war! “Whoever wants to withstand Satan must insist on enmity” (Leithart, May 2005, Touchstone magazine). Indeed, “we must stand for enmity and against all theoretical and practical projects to eliminate it” (Leithart). In other words, we must seek polarization, defining the lines of truth and thereby the battle lines of the Gospel. Once the wall of enmity and polarization is destroyed, the truth is compromised. There is no way to remove the wall until Christ returns, though we desire the conversion of the lost, of the serpent’s seed, so they can get on the right side of the wall. It is the Cross of Christ that destroys the enmity wall for individuals:
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
But though we Christians have enemies does not mean we are to hate them but to do them good, to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44), and thereby hopefully to see them becomes God’s friends through the Gospel, and therefore our friends. Whoever loves, minimizes the enmity in one sense, rather than making it personal through hate, which we are not allowed to do.
The issue in this spiritual war is who is Lord, Caesar or Christ, man’s relativism or God’s absolutism, what is politically correct or what is biblically correct? There is no compromise possible without one side surrendering. In the early Church, some of the Caesars wanted the Christians to confess “Caesar is lord,” but the Christians went to their deaths confessing “Jesus is Lord.” In Romans 10:9-10, Paul reveals by the Holy Spirit that one can only become a Christian if he confesses “Jesus is Lord.” Why did Paul state it that way? It was a problem in his day that some Caesars once a year required their subjects to confess them as lord. The Roman government did not mind what god you worshipped as long as once a year you confessed the Caesar as the ultimate god. Pagans (both ancient and modern in Washington) were willing to incorporate any new god into the Pantheon, including Jesus, as long as Caesar was recognized as Lord (Peter Leithart). In our terms, you had to be politically correct. Just like our day, one could have his “Jesus” god in privacy, but in public it was the Caesar god. So in our day, we can have the Ten Commandments in our churches (for now), but in the public arena the secular god rules with its alternative commandments, alternative lifestyles, and alternative definitions of what constitutes life. The battle is raging more than ever here in the USA over who is lord, Caesar or Jesus. Nero murdered Paul, and no doubt Paul had Nero in mind when he penned Romans 10:9-10, using the same grammatical construction in confessing “Jesus as Lord” as was used in Greek for confession “Nero as lord.” Paul required the recognition that Jesus was Lord to be saved. In fact there is an inscription that says Nero “is lord of all the world.” (For the source for this, see Deismann in quote below.)
Indeed, Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself, in AD 155, when he was led to martyrdom, was questioned about the “lord” formula: “What is the harm in saying ‘Caesar is Lord’?” Polycarp refused and was martyred. Again we read of another occasion:
The scene enacted on 17 July 180 at Carthage before the judgment-seat of the Proconsul P. Vigellius Saturninus stands out even more plainly. The Roman official commands the Christian Speratus of Scili in Numidia: “Swear by the genius of our lord Emperor!” And the Christian answers: “I know no imperium of this world, . . . I know my Lord, the King of kings, and Emperor of all nations.” (from Deismann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 356)
Again, the Pagans did not mind someone confessing another lord, but it was the exclusive Lordship of Christ that angered the Pagans, and angers the ACLU and the legislators today. To proclaim that Jesus was Lord was one thing, but to claim that He was Lord over Caesar was quite another! So today we must proclaim that Jesus is King over all kings and Lord over all politicians, legislators, and ACLU attorneys.
As then so now, Christians make the best citizens, for we believe in being obedient, respectful, and loving to all, but that is not good enough for those who deny Jesus. All worship is exclusive, and those who worship Caesar as the ultimate law-giver will not tolerate the worship of any other. Therefore, while God forbids us to take up physical arms against such, we are commanded to take up spiritual arms.
We have come full circle. We are back to the issues of the early Church. Who will stand for the Lord Christ? Who is the real Lord around this universe, man or the God-man? We must stand without fear for the One who conquered death, and we must not fear those who can only kill the body but fear Him who is able (and will indeed do so) to kill the soul in hell forever. We are only here for a short time, and so much depends on so little; our whole future eternity depends on a few years here.
If we do not stand now, when will we stand? If we do not stand against formal heresy and moral apostasy, then for what will we stand for? What will it take for us to make a stand? In another generation, indeed, in the next several years, there will be nothing left of the Gospel in some denominations. What will make one stand if not for these issues? Why wait any longer? The spiritual war is all around us, and not to be counted for Christ is to be counted for Satan. Let us not be betrayed with a kiss of seeming tolerance, or with 30 pieces of silver to keep property. It is natural to indulge in illusions of hope, but that is what they are, illusions. We all want peace, but sometimes the price is too high. Christ said He did not come to bring peace on earth but a sword (Matthew 10:34). Thus, let’s use the spiritual sword He gave us, which is the Gospel (Ephesians 6:10ff).
Liberal ministers are ministers of Satan who are intolerant of the truth with an unholy zeal, and they seek to enslave everyone in their reach, for all faith is intolerant of its opposite. Neutrality is a myth, a tranquilizer only designed to put one’s enemies to sleep. Let us not be deceived any longer; the liberals mean to have all our people, all our money, and none of the Gospel.
But we should not be surprised that we have such heresies, though we should be grieved about them. Remember what the Apostle Paul stated: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19, KJV). As we see from the early Church councils, God has used heresies all down through the centuries to make His Church take a stand, to precisely define the truth. Consider that it was the first Council, Nicea in AD 325, that took the stand against the heresy that Christ was not fully God, defended the Holy Trinity, and such definition was continued in the next ecumenical councils for several centuries. In the long run, the confrontation strengthened the Church as it was forced both to define and to stand for the truth. So today we are being forced to define what formal heresies are and what moral heresies are. The Church will be better for it, if it stands!
In conclusion, let me observe that liberals are God-haters, hating Him and His Bible. They want the god they have created after their own image, not the One revealed in Holy Scripture. They want their commandments of immorality, not His “thou shalt nots.” They want their non-faith and non-beliefs, not the Creeds. They will not reveal their true colors until they have the upper hand, thus they are deceptive. Indeed, it is not too much to say that they make a career of deception. They want unity over truth, for unity gives them property, money, importance, the chief seats, and more toys. That is precisely what the leaders in Christ’s day wanted, they hindered the people from coming to Christ, and His denouncing of them was clear:
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (All from Matthew 23)
The only resolution is for Christians to come out of the ungodly “churches” that are promoting a false Gospel, that are damning people’s souls to hell. Give them their property and let the ministers of Satan perish along with their real estate.
An appeal to spiritual arms and to the God of hosts is what we have left! There is no retreat but in slavery to Satan, in the denial of the Gospel. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry). Though Henry stated that quote politically, it surely applies to us theologically. (Henry was a solid Christian man.)
Paul stated by inspiration that if anyone preaches any other Gospel, let him be anathema, which means, let him/her perish (Galatians 1:8-9). It is time to stand! We must not avoid controversy when it comes to the Gospel of the grace of God! We must have polarization so we can know where the boundaries of truth are, not compromises with fuzzy borders. The weapons of our warfare are not physical, but they are mighty in pulling down strongholds. Here is what God says in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6:
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.
As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord Christ!
Appendix One
Secular liberals arrogantly proclaim that they live by reason whereas Christians live by faith, as if reason and faith are opposites. They think that faith is a leap into the dark, just a naked belief without support, like believing something when one knows that it is false, or that faith cannot—by definition—be reasoned or supported.
Actually, we Christians would proclaim the exact opposite, that it is the liberals who cannot support their first principles but take them by a leap of faith. For example, we Christians believe that life came from life, but they believe that life came from non-life, contrary to every scientific principle we know. Our faith is consistent with science, but theirs is a leap of faith into the dark.
We believe that God created all kinds of things independent of one another, such as plants, animals, fish, man, and so forth, so that these things are not related to one another in some chain of life, and that these categories cannot cross over and become something else, like plants becoming animals. They believe that life evolved, and that only once, so that all of life is related, that one species can cross over and become another, even though there is not a single example of such. We believe in microevolution, if I may use that word, which means variation within a species (Chihuahua to Great Danes but still dogs); but they believe in macroevolution, that one species becomes another (cats becoming dogs, or something like that). Our faith is consistent with Mendel’s laws of genetic variation, but their faith is a leap into the dark. Who has more faith?
Without any proof whatsoever, liberals believe that protozoa (single cell life) gave rise to metazoa (multiple cell life), that vertebrates (animals with backbones) came from invertebrates (animals without backbones). We believe that they have independent existence, which is what we actually observe in creation (liberals would say “nature”), and liberals believe that in each case the “jump” from one species to another happened only once, making all life related.
They believe that one species became another through mutations, but we believe that mutations are harmful, as science tells us, and that there has never been any species that became another. No dog and cat ever produced a “dat.” There can be variation in a species (as Mendal’s laws of variation taught us), but one species does not become another. Our faith is in keeping with science, but theirs is against it, meaning they have faith as a leap into the dark. We believe in intelligent design in creation, and they live as if that were true (computer chips, math, genes, astronomy, medicine, etc) but then reject it regarding God. We are consistent, but they are not, believing that design came from random chance, which is a leap of faith into the dark. At every point, we have the truth, but they suppress the truth about God and His world so they can have their pretended autonomy, make themselves God, and thus make up their own morality.
Liberals believe that the whole universe came from random chance, often called the “big bang,” and thus all of reality is random chance. But then all their lives they live as if this were not true, thinking (as we do) that there are invisible, universal, invariant scientific laws that govern matter, that the invisible laws of logic are also universal and invariant. In other words, when it comes to how things got here, they are atheists, evolutionists, believing in random chance. But when it comes to how things are governed, they borrow Christian capital. In other words, when it comes to scientific laws and logic, they suddenly become theists, living the way we Christians do. When they live that way, they assume the Christian world view and its faith, but when it comes to everything else, they live by chance. Their position is schizophrenic, this moment hating God and believing in chance, that moment assuming God’s consistency.
On their concept of random chance, there is no basis for the laws of science, the laws of logic, or even for ethics. On the basis of the Christian world view, God is without beginning and does not change, thus all came into existence through Him, and He stamped His character on everything, which means the universe is governed by the invariable laws of science, our minds and reality around us are governed by the invariable laws of logic, and even our ethics are also governed by His unchanging character, as seen in the Ten Commandments. Thus for us we can say that when Hitler murdered the Jews, this was wrong, but for them it was just an arbitrary act. Some like vanilla ice cream and others like chocolate. That is what they tell us about our personal ethics all the time, that all is relative, not absolute, which is why they want us to say homosexuality is ok, or at least it is a matter of opinion. Then they want to say that Hitler was wrong, once again revealing their schizophrenia.
Mark it down that one never “objectively” comes to morality, but what the heart already loves the will embraces and then (and only then) the mind justifies. (Read Romans 1:18-26.)
|
