The Antichrist a Muslim?

Been away for a little while, and I'm gonna blow off some more time too :)    Here's something great to read that I think has been on people's minds in the last decade or so. Here's an article that goes over the various prophecies and proves that its rather impossible for the antichrist to be Muslim when all the evidence is weighed.

I'm 32 years old. I've lived through at least two "moral scares" where Christians went into a frenzy over the possibility of a certain worldview taking over everything. When I was a kid, it was the New Age Movement. Everything was New Age, from Pepsi cans to Spider-man to all-things-Disney. When I was in late high school and college, it was Post-Modernism. It was the end all that was going to kill everything. Humanity was going to turn to apathy and decline. We've been through these things, and rather than seen them take over, we've seen them be assimilated, and I see no difference with Islam, which is why I'm not afraid of or freaked out over it. The Western mindset will swallow Muslims much like it has other philosophies, and in ten or twenty years, there will be another fear to replace it. Right now, we may already be seeing it replaced by the fear of homosexuality.


So be strengthened. Nothing is worth being frightened over. We have a Bible that can never be consumed by any mindset, worldview, or religion. The Word of God will always remain and will never be destroyed.

Be vigilant,

Mike

Homosexuality: Who was Jesus? Part One

In continuing with the topic of homosexuality, I’d like to do a short study of Christology. Often as it is, the topic comes up of what Jesus taught on homosexuality, and the general consensus is that he didn’t teach anything. In one sense, this is correct; Jesus did not teach explicitly on homosexuality (though he did teach on the definition of marriage, which I have already addressed) in his earthly ministry. In another sense, he certainly did- when we look at the whole of who Jesus was. As I state time and time again, theology matters. Narrowing the discussion of Jesus to only the carpenter of Nazareth in ignorance of his full person as God, and again narrowing it to only what is in the red letters of certain Bibles is theological laziness. It shows that either a person has no desire to understand Christian theology, or that a person is ignoring or possibly overlooking other parts of Christian theology. Theology matters. One weak link in the chain causes the whole chain to fail. So, let’s study Christology together.

Christ as God

The Orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus’ deity is central to understanding the relationship between Christology and the homosexual debate. We as Christians recognize Jesus as God. We refer to him as the Second Person of the Trinity. That is, Jesus is fully God, yet is the Second of Three, the other two Persons being the Father and the Spirit, respectively. A denial of this is across the board heresy, and divides those who are Christians from those who are not.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

“…although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” (Phil 2:6-7)

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Read the next two as one section. The passage from Isaiah is what John quotes in his gospel.

“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.’ These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.” (John 12:39-41)

“In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said,            ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,            The whole earth is full of His glory.’
And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
Then I said,            ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined!            Because I am a man of unclean lips,            And I live among a people of unclean lips;            For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.’…“He said, ‘Go, and tell this people:            ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;            Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
‘Render the hearts of this people insensitive,            Their ears dull,            And their eyes dim,            Otherwise they might see with their eyes,            Hear with their ears,            Understand with their hearts,            And return and be healed.’ ” (Isaiah 6:1-5, 9-10)

Notice John's commentary: "[Isaiah] saw His glory, and he spoke of Him." Saw who? Spoke of who? Contextually, in John's gospel, he's referring to Jesus. But when we go to the book of Isaiah and read what Isaiah actually wrote in the whole context, we see that he spoke of the LORD. If you don't know, whenever our English Bibles use "the LORD" in small capitals, it means that the original Hebrew is using the tetragrammaton- YHWH. So, John is equating Jesus with YHWH.

Aside from Biblical references, you can also do a study on secular authors and look historically at what Christians have believed from antiquity. Pliny writes to the Emperor of Rome in the early second century AD on what to do with Christians. He mentions a list of ways to find them, which included forcing them to curse Christ or worship statues of the Emperor and offer drink and food offerings to his Genius. True Christians would not do these things. Now, it follows from that, that if Christianity was a Jewish religion (which Pliny also recognizes, saying that the “disease” spread from Israel to Rome), and Judaism was strictly Monotheistic, and we have witness that Christians worshipped only Christ, that therefore Christians were Monotheistic and considered Christ as God. So, from the earliest of their history, it was recognized that Christians worshipped Christ alone. Worship, being something only offered to God, is a historical proof that Christians for their whole history have honored Christ as God. So from this one source (and there are others), we can see that from very early on, people knew 1) that there existed those who were called Christians, 2) that they were Jewish in origin, 3) that they worshipped a man named Jesus, 4) they recognized him as God, and 5) Christians could be distinguished from non-Christians by their beliefs.

Theologically speaking, we recognize Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (Matt 28:19)

We are Monotheist Trinitarians. That is, we believe in One God, in three Persons. Islam, in contrast, is Monotheist Unitarian. They believe that Allah is one god with only one person. We believe that each member of the Trinity is equally God and of the same essence. As was quoted above,

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

Paul writes to the church at Colossae that the pleroma (fullness) of God dwelt in Christ. The word “fullness” is used also in the next verse,

“and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority…” (Col. 2:10)

The word here “complete” is the word pleroo (play-raw-oh), which is the verb form of pleroma. The word means “to make full, to complete,” and when applied to Christ, draws an equality of the essence of Christ and God. Theologically, we call this homoousia, “same essence.”

To conclude this section, if Christ is God, and God was the giver of the Law, then Christ also gave the Law. That means that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, upheld the Law of Moses as its Creator, its Author. Therefore, whatever is contained therein, is the very word of Christ Himself. So, when the OT Law denounces homosexuality as evil, it is Christ who is doing the condemning. [Note here, unlike the charge levied against Paul, homosexuality in the OT Law cannot be equated with temple prostitution or pederasty, as those were foreign to Hebrew practice.]

Christ as the Angel of the Lord

This is something that is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and Theologians. There are more than a few examples of it, but I will only name one. In Exodus 3, during the scene of the Burning Bush, Moses writes,

 “The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, ‘I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.’ When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, ‘Here I am.’” (Ex 3:2-4)

Maybe you didn’t catch it, but look at the wording. In the first sentence, it is the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush; in the third sentence it is God who is in the bush, vis-à-vis, The Angel of the Lord is God. Pretty simple concept.

The same passage is confirmed in the New Testament, in Acts 7:30-35:

“After forty years had passed, AN ANGEL APPEARED TO HIM IN THE WILDERNESS OF MOUNT SINAI, IN THE FLAME OF A BURNING THORN BUSH. When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord…”

I only quoted 30 and 31 for brevity. Once again, notice how Stephen draws the connection between the Lord and the Angel. This time, we have an interpretation given by not only a New Testament author, Luke, but a character within the story. The words in caps are the OT quotation, the words in normal case are Stephen’s words.

Although the Angel of the Lord is designated as YHWH himself, he is also a distinct person.

“Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?’ The LORD answered the angel who was speaking with me with gracious words, comforting words.” (Zech 1:12-13)

The fact that the Angel is both talking to the Lord and being talked to by the Lord shows that there is a distinction between the two. This is in line with what Jews believed of the Angel. A.C. Gaebelein says, "It is noteworthy and of great interest that the ancient Jews in their traditions regarded the Angel of the Lord, in every instance, not as an ordinary angel, but as the only mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelations, to whom they gave the name Metatron."

So, what we’ve seen so far is that the Angel is both YHWH and someone else at the same time. He’s the only intercessor of the Lord with supreme authority from God. These attributes fit what we know of Jesus from the New Testament. Jesus is God, yet he is distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Equal in essence, different in person. So, what proof do we have to make that connection? John Walvoord makes four points to prove that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord: 1) Jesus is revealed as God in the New Testament, 2) The Angel of the Lord is absent from the New Testament, 3) Both the Angel of the Lord and Christ are sent by the Father, and 4) The Angel of the Lord cannot be either the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Of these, only the last really needs to be elaborated on. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  This explains that the Angel of the Lord cannot be the Father, as the Angel of the Lord had a body, and was visible to men at various times. The Holy Spirit subsists in spirit form at all times and thus is also invisible. Therefore, the Angel of the Lord, being both YHWH and yet distinct from YHWH, can only be the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Jesus, God, the Giver of the Law

Now that we’ve established that Jesus did make himself visible during the Old Testament times as the Angel of the Lord, let’s look at another place where Jesus made himself visible in the Old Testament. Keep in mind the principles we established about the nature of God, and the individual Three Persons and the distinctions between them.

Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” (Ex 33:21-33)

“The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him…” (Ex 34:5-6a)

Being that the Lord who is depicted here is one that is visible, we once again conclude that it is neither the Father nor the Spirit. That leaves only one other option; this is once again the pre-incarnate Christ. It follows also that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the Levitical Law (Leviticus), and the second giving of the Law (Deuteronomy; deutero- “second”, nomos- “Law”).

So, did Jesus agree with the Old Testament Law? Yup. As a matter of fact, he wrote it. He agreed with its every part, as he declared it to Moses. Once again, we see that Jesus was certainly against homosexuality and declared it as a sin. When Leviticus states that a man should not lay with a man as one lays with a woman, it came from the very mouth of Jesus as the giver of the Law.

[Edit: The Law states that a lot of other things are sins as well, things that Christians do not recognize as sin. For a discussion of that, see my earlier post here.]

Separating Jesus from the Law is impossible, from both perspectives of Christ’s nature as God-Man. We’ve looked at his pre-Incarnate glorified aspect and how it agrees with the law, next time I visit this topic, I’ll go over who Christ was as the Son of Man.

In Him,

Mike

Why do Christians “Ignore” Some of the Law, but not all?

I’ve been seeing lots of images like this popping up:

It really just shows the ignorance involved on the opposite side of the issue. And when I see Christians get puzzled by things of this nature, it shows how ignorant Christians are of basic theology. The Law of Moses is often a misunderstood subject in its relation to Christianity. There are some people who say that its been fulfilled and we can properly ignore it. There are some who say we ignore only the parts that are not repeated in the New Testament. There are some, mostly Jewish Christians, who believe we are still bound to carrying out the ceremonial parts of the Law, but we are under Grace and not bound to carrying out the rest. There are all different views. My viewpoint, which I believe is the most balanced, is that the whole Law is beneficial, yet, because it was fulfilled we are not to treat it by what the definition of law requires. We do not throw it out, ignore it, or write it off as belonging to a different dispensation. It is very real to us and as holy as it was to Moses. We just are no longer under obligation to following it. It is no longer Law for us. Lets get into this.

The Yoke of the Law

First off, we need to think about what Law is. A law is a legally binding command that must be followed per the demands of society. When the Jews were given the Law via Moses, they were required to follow it. It was not simply a set of moral codes, or guiding principles for living. It was Law, they were obliged to following it as members of the nation of Israel.

Now a person was still saved by grace in OT times, nothing has changed in that regard. Jesus as the final atonement had not come yet, so they were however obliged to make weekly and yearly atonement for sins. This was also a part of the Law. When a man was justified by faith, whatever the object of his faith was, his justification was not bound to the keeping of the Law. I think this is one point that people kinda stumble on. We understand that the Jews were saved by faith through grace, but then when you combine it with the keeping of the Law, many end up with a view that Jews were able to lose their justification. Not so. The Law and especially the sacrificial system were designed to keep a person tied to the benefits of the Promises made to Israel. To those that were justified by faith, the keeping of the Law bound you to the people of Israel. It’s a difficult concept, I’m not going to go in depth. Just understand that a person did not lose their justification and were required to keep the Law in order to be in fellowship with the nation of Israel.

On the other hand, in order to be saved apart from any grace, one would have to be completely perfect. They would have to follow that law perfectly. Of course, no one can do that. So, the law becomes a "pointer outer" of our sin. It just shows us that we're guilty, but does nothing to save us from that sin that we're guilty of. Here's a good explanation of it that was posted on my friend Kevin Fiske's website,  www.kevinfiske.com.

When we get to the New Testament, we understand that through Christ the Law was fulfilled. Paul says that the yoke of the law has been put off (Rom 7:4; Gal 5:1). Does this mean that the Law has become worthless? Nope. What this means is that we are no longer legally obliged to carrying it out. With Christ as our eternal sacrifice and final atonement for sin, we can live our lives freely by grace. I no longer am obliged to making sacrifices for sins committed. I no longer need to worship at a temple. I no longer need a priest to make amends for me. All these things were summed up in Christ. He is our High Priest, he is our Temple, he is our Atonement. So then we can ignore the Law? No. Read on.

The Nature of Christianity: We Can’t Keep All Laws

This is pretty self-explanatory. People who accuse us of ignoring parts of the Bible haven’t really thought it through- to keep the whole of the Law of Moses requires a Temple. Christian theology aside, even if we were to try to keep the Law, it would be an impossibility. The upholding of the Mosaic Covenant requires a temple, or at the very least, the Tabernacle. We have neither. Either way, the veil was torn at Christ’s death, signifying his fulfillment of the sacrificial system. We have no need for a temple or sacrifices.

The Nature of Christianity: Law is Not a Requirement

We believe people are saved by grace through faith. That said, we have no requirement on us to do anything in order to be saved, or to continue on in salvation. So, even when we come to commands given in the Epistles in the New Testament, they are not in any way binding on us in the sense that we will fall out of favor with God. Once we are saved, it is a done deal, we cannot lose that. That is what it means to have the “righteous requirement” of the Law fulfilled. We no longer have an obligation to doing anything in order to either earn or keep our standing with God. “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and not of yourself.”

Why the Law is Still Relevant: Gnomic Truth vs. Absolute Truth

So, what use does the Law have for us? It is applicational to us as abiding moral principles. We don’t often hear the term ‘gnomic truth’ but this is what the Law is for us. It is no longer a code of demands upon us, but is a code of principles that may be applied to our lives in various ways. A gnomic truth is a principle, as opposed to an absolute truth. A good example of gnomic truth is the “contradiction” in Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Why is this not a contradiction? Because they are not absolute truths. There are times to answer the fool, and times to hold your tongue. This is the essence of gnomic truth. Another example is when Jesus said,

So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

And yet Christians sin. Once again, a gnomic truth. It is a principle, not absolute. This is how we are to look at the Law. What is the principle the individual commands are trying to convey? If my ox gores my neighbor I’m responsible for it. Well, I don’t own an ox so how does that relate to me? I have two nasty little Italian Greyhounds. Nuff said.

We could make application out of anything, and we’re not really limited in how we apply it either.

The Different Designations Within the Singular Law

Now to the big one, the reason we’re all reading this.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

Kinda hard not to take that one literally isn’t it? So what’s the excuse? Sometimes the abiding principle is actually the literal command. That’s all there is to it. But, as the accusation goes, are we singling this command out like it’s a special command that we can’t ignore, but we ignore all the rest? What about the shellfish or the pork? Why “ignore” those, but not this? Well, are we really ignoring everything except this? Let’s do a survey of Leviticus 18 and 19, known as the Holiness Code:

“None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness” (Lev 18:6-18)

“You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.” (Lev 18:20) 

“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech” (Lev 18:21a… ie, no child sacrifices) 

“…nor shall you profane the name of your God…” (Lev 18:21b)

“Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Lev 18:23)

“You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” (Lev 19:2)

“Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father…” (Lev 19:3a)

“Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods…” (Lev 19:4)

“You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” (Lev 19:11)

“You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God.” (Lev 19:12)

I digress. I would have to list nearly the entirety of chapter 19 if I continued, so go read it for yourself. We are not ignoring things. Many of the laws given to Moses have direct application for us.

But that still doesn’t respond to the ones we do ignore. Certainly, as I said, there are some that have some kind of abiding principle that we can glean from. But what about the whole pork and shellfish thing? Or tattoos, or shaving the corners of your beard?

The Law is divided into three kinds of Laws; Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral. Ceremonial Laws have to do with the requirements of the Temple. We already dealt with that. Civil Laws have to do with the purity of the nation of Israel. There are many laws, like abstaining from pork, shellfish, or the dreaded rock badger, which have to do with distinguishing Israel from the other nations surrounding them. Tattoos, trimming the corners of your beard, mixing crops and fabrics, are all part of this. Think about the mixing crops or fabrics thing. If a Gentile approached a Jew and asked why they do such silly things, they have a ready-made answer; their clothing is pure because God is pure. God is not many, he is One. Quite a nice picture, isn’t it? Why didn’t they get tattoos? Because tattoos had to do with respect for the dead, in a religious sense. To the Jews, all honor and glory belongs to God; there is no ceremonial or superstitious honoring of the dead. They are dead. This belief stands in contradistinction to those in the countries around them. Why didn’t they eat pork? Well, who knows. All we know is that it was a Civil command given to them to set them apart. Maybe due to Trichinosis. Maybe not. Either way, I hope I’ve made my point. So, these kinds of Laws have specifically to do with the nation of Israel as they existed alongside other nations and religions. They are not directly applicational to us, but still may be used for secondary application within our daily lives.

Then there's the case of penal judgments for breaking commandments in the Law. Well, simply put, Israel is a country. They had people and leaders. The Law of Moses was the law, no different than our law. We have punishments for certain crimes, they had the same. That's how Law works. This fits into the Civil aspect of the Law and once again, does not apply to us, thankfully, or I would have been killed several times over for disrespecting my parents...

Now, this discussion doesn’t end here. We will pick up Leviticus 18:22 later when we get into Paul when we jump over to the New Testament passages. This passage, in the Greek Septuagint, is very important for understanding Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. If the passage in Leviticus isn’t relevant today, then Paul’s use of it is. We’ll get to that later.

To tie this up, I want you to think about Law, and the basis for Law. Why do we have so many problems in our Country these days? It is because our laws are arbitrary. In the beginning of our Country, the Laws were based on something higher- the Bible. The founding fathers understood that without a basis, without absolute truth, Law cannot be upheld. When culture becomes the basis for morality, you end up with the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers understood this fact, and based their Constitution and Bill of Rights on the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself to us, and he alone is the foundation of all morality. This sets Law as immovable. Nowadays, Law is based on social opinion. It has no basis except the ever-swaying, ever-changing views of society. All countries who have tried that have fallen. Mark my words: if we fully remove the basis for our morality, we will follow them in that fall.

Stay strong,

Mike

Supporting Chick-fil-A

Every Saturday morning for the last 5 or 6 years I've sat in a Starbucks studying the Bible with my friends. It has been a place of quiet meditation for myself and many Christians out there, who want to have a nice study time while enjoying a good cup of coffee. Starbucks is also and active supporter of homosexual marriage. Why do I not boycott them? As a Christian, I disagree with them. As an American, I support their right to express their opinion. What we are seeing today is a hard-nosed effort to deny American Christians their right to express their beliefs publicly, based on the beliefs of the non-believing majority. We are called haters, bigots, ignorant, gay-bashers, and a slew of other names that I simply won't repeat. In Islamic countries, homosexuals are killed. In America, they are tolerated. Yet when it comes to returning that tolerance they've experienced from us, we are instead attacked. Barred from putting our businesses in major cities, barred from stating our beliefs in the public school system, and if they have it their way, we will be barred from stating our beliefs in our own churches.


Yet, we will not be silenced. And in the end, those who say they are Christians will have to decide to stand with us or stand against us and divide the body of Christ.

When persecution comes, who's side will you stand on? This is a weighty question that each person must ask themselves.


I urge you to support Chick-fil-A this Wednesday to show America that we are not the weak minority, and that we will not back down on our values.


Fight the good fight,

Mike

Balancing our Views on the World and Sinning Christians

I always find it interesting when reality hits and something that I’ve been teaching for years is brought close to home.

For the last 7 years I’ve stood firmly planted against the Emergent Church movement, and while I’ve talked to people who hold views that may in some way converge with the practices of the EC, I hadn’t really met anyone who in practice really subscribed to the whole of what was being taught in the movement. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Emergent Church (which is really an old subject now), they are basically teaching a form of Ecumenicalism. That is, a movement away from doctrine and a move towards an all-encompassing, all-inviting, “it doesn’t matter what you believe” sorta thing. Two of the biggest voices in the movement have been Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren.

Within the last year, I’ve been getting into some not-so-welcome squabbles on Facebook with people that are almost by-the-book Emergent, whether they regard themselves as that or not. The arguments have been stemming from my rigid (ahem…Biblical) adherence to what the Bible teaches on certain subjects. Even that statement would come off as an “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” stance to them. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I want nothing more than to promote a balanced view of the Christian life, stemming from a balanced view on Scripture. It seems though, that mainstream Christianity has a disjointed view on what “balanced” means.

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that all parts are true. I believe that the original authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the words they did. I also believe that certain practices must be adhered to when interpreting Scripture. One of those rules is that no two parts of Scripture should be in direct contradiction with one another. The one thing that I see popping up time and time again from people of all different theological backgrounds, and especially from the Emergent camp, is that the view of “love” is held at a disproportionately high level compared to other attributes of God and Christian fundamentals.

Two areas seem to be affected more than others: our view of the unsaved world, and our treatment of Christians living in unrepentant sin. There are other areas that are affected, but those topics are left for another time.

The first issue, our view of the unsaved world, is a sticky one. As I said before, we have to strike a balance. We must uphold all Scripture, and make its validity real to ourselves each and every day. Balance is certainly a key issue. Jesus tells us that he came into the world “to seek and to save that which is lost.” Three times in the book of John he tells us to “love one another, as I have loved you.” And yet when confronted by the Pharisees he called them such names as “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” Upon visiting the Temple, he was outraged by the money changers and turned over the tables of the merchants for doing evil his Father’s house. On the one hand, we have love being preached, but on the other, we have righteousness being displayed. Jesus’ balance was that we not to make light of sin, and we are not to treat sinners as if they are not enemies with God, and yet at the same time, we are to love them and care for them in the reality that if they are not saved, they will spend eternity in Gehenna.

Paul echoes Jesus’ teachings. He says in Rom 13:8, “… he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” And again in 1 Cor 16:14, “Let all that you do be done in love.” But he also says in 2 Cor 6:14-15, “Do not be bound together (unequally yoked) 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?” Once again, we see that a balance must be struck. We cannot allow one of Paul’s teachings to either override another nor negate another. That said, we are to show love to unbelievers, to treat them as we would want to be treated, but we are not to be brothers and sisters to them as we are with each other. We have Christ as our head, they have Satan. We belong to the Light, they to the darkness.

I could go on to continue quoting verses from James, Peter, and John, but we’ve done enough. When I look at disagreements, I like to go to take arguments to their logical end. In this case, I’ll take it all the way to the end. What is the end for unbelievers? It is to stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment where he will, in perfect holiness and righteousness, condemn all who did not believe in his Son to eternal condemnation. One thing I don’t think many people think about is the question, “What will our reaction be upon seeing the guilty punished?” I think a good key to this is the cry of the martyrs in Revelation 6:9-10, “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintain and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” James White has little theory that he believes that most people believe in some kind of a positional sanctification in the afterlife, as if sin halts once people die. The fact is, the Spirit is working as a restrainer on the earth right now- what will happen when the body dies, and that restraining Spirit is no longer at work? When it is only the sinner and God, what will their reaction to God be? The only reasonable answer is that with sin un-harnessed, sinners will defy God in ways they’ve never done before. With the Holy Spirit pulled aside from them, it will only be themselves and their sin standing before God. I think people think that upon seeing sinners, the saints will cry for God’s mercy, as the “love doctrine” seems to imply in people’s lives today. But, Christian, what do you think your reaction would be to seeing God, in all His majesty and splendor, being defied by a person whose whole being is set against Him? Will it be mercy and love? No, our only response will be to praise and glorify God as his perfect righteousness condemns those that oppose him.

Its not really a great thing to think about, seeing those we love and care for condemned for all eternity. On the other hand, to see God’s perfect holiness poured out will be an awesome thing, and he is as worthy of being praised for his upholding of justice as he is for the love that was shown by Christ on the Cross. God is as righteous as he is holy. God is not more of one than the other. This is balance. We have to uphold the one attribute as much as we do the other. We are to love the unsaved, treat them with respect, but they are ultimately at enmity with God. They stand opposed to us as his children. To be friends in the sense of having the same kind of harmony with them as we have with others of the elect is to be bound with darkness. Anyone who has ever told someone that they will go to hell if they do not put their faith in Christ knows this well- the response of those who reject Christ is animosity.

We can say a similar thing for Christians living in sin. One thing that is so often glossed over is the idea of punishment within the Church. We are to love our sinning brothers and sisters, but fellowshipping with them is a different story. Once again, we must hold Scripture in balance. One truth cannot override another. So, where Scripture states one thing, we have to hold it in as high of regard as other things stated. Paul says in 1 Cor 5:9-11, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” Such an idea is often looked down on in Churches today. Most people’s mindset is that we should allow such people to carry on in our Churches in order to show them the love of Christ so that they will eventually turn from their sin. But look what Paul says in the follow-up letter in 2 Cor 2:6-8 where he talks about the outcome of the above situation, “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” After the person was punished, Paul commended them for punishing him, and he repented, turned, and was welcomed back into fellowship in love. There is a purpose in punishment- so that they may be welcomed back with open arms. Look at what Paul said, “…otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” Punishment is not there just for the sake of punishment, not meant to push them away or to simply prove to them that they were wrong. Instead, to keep them from “excessive sorrow,” we are to be working with them, pushing them to holiness, and then welcoming them back with open arms.

While this post may seem like a separate thought from the recent topic of homosexuality, it really isn’t. Look at the above passage in 1 Cor. “Immoral person” is the Greek word pornos, and refers to any person who is involved in open sexual immorality- of any kind that is not between a husband (man) and a wife (woman). As I said in the first post I made on homosexuality, the big deal about it is that people, even Christians, are defining their life and their very person by a particular sin. Paul’s command is that we are not to associate with these people. This is not to be unloving, or to bash them with Scripture, or to make ourselves look more pure than they. It is simply to follow the command of Scripture, and the same would go for us if it were true of any of us.

In closing, I want to urge you to uphold each other in love. We need to be calling sin for what it is- sinful. The unsaved person cannot be saved if they do not know they are sinful, and in turn, the saved person cannot repent without being convicted. We cannot do that without knowing and upholding doctrine, and having a balanced view on it. God certainly is God of love, but he is many other things as well. Jesus, having the “fullness of deity” was the display of God’s attributes lived out through human life, and we are commanded to walk as he walked. This means balance and harmony in our doctrine.

You cannot show God's love without showing his righteousness and holiness as well. Part of God means no God at all.

Grace and peace,

Mike