The re:thinking Blog

On the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, people were told, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Now, I am well aware that there is wide disagreement among Christians over whether the gift of the Holy Spirit is a gift the Holy Spirit gives (viz., salvation) or whether the gift given is the Holy Spirit Himself (viz., the “ordinary” indwelling of the Spirit, which, in Acts 5:32, is promised to every obedient believer). We get no help from the standpoint of grammar, because grammatically the Greek dorea hagios pneuma, translated “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” can mean either a gift given by the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit Himself given as a gift. Consequently, one must attempt to understand the use of this phrase by the context in which it is found. Unfortunately, the context of Acts 2:38 does not immediately give us any clue as to how the phrase ought to be understood. But fortunately, the Greek phrase is used one other time in the Scriptures (Acts 10:45), and the context clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift being given.

This would probably settle the meaning of this phrase in the minds of most believers if it were not for the fact that Acts 10:45, in context (cf. Acts 10:44-47 and 11:15), seems to be referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a measure of the Spirit that the Bible seems to make clear is not promised to every believer. However, just because Cornelius and his household received the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit should not cloud the fact that the Greek phrase dorea hagios pneuma is referring to the Holy Spirit as the gift, i.e., “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15) and “…the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” (Acts 10:44). Therefore, when we see this same Greek phrase in Acts 2:38, it seems reasonable that we should understand it to mean the same thing (viz., that in this instance the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift being given). In addition, I think it should be clear that, in this case, the Spirit is given in what is called the “ordinary” or non-miraculous sense. When one adds to this Acts 5:32, which is an inspired commentary on the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, I believe one can teach conclusively that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit Himself. If not, why not?

In this connection, it is important to note that Acts 2:38 teaches that the Holy Spirit is given after baptism (i.e., the Holy Spirit was promised to all believers who would repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins). Nowhere in the Bible is it ever taught that the Holy Spirit was given to enable one to believe or repent, as some teach. In Galatians 4:6, the Bible says the Holy Spirit (identified in this passage as “the Spirit of His Son”) is given to people because they are already children of God. What this all means is that one believes and obeys (i.e., “receives the seed” or Word of God, Luke 8:11-15) and then receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” If, as some are disposed to say, the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian “only in and through the Word,” then it seems clear that the Christian would have to receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, and this is contrary to Acts 2:38, as I understand it. In other words, Acts 2:38, if I have interpreted it correctly, teaches that we receive (heed) the word of God before baptism and the Holy Spirit after baptism. Therefore, one does not receive the Holy Spirit by receiving the Word. It is, therefore, my conclusion that although the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the child of God apart from the Word, neither does He dwell in the Christian only in and through the Word.

When one takes into account the passages that teach, either directly or indirectly, that the Spirit of God dwells in the Christian (Acts 5:32; I Corinthians 6:19; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:9-11; II Corinthians 1:21, 22; II Corinthians 5:5) and adds to these the widely accepted principle of Bible hermeneutics, which says: “Words should be understood in their literal sense unless such a literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity,” then one is moved to accept the Bible as teaching—when it says, “the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Romans 8:9)—that the Holy Spirit actually indwells the Christian. Further, I know this not because I have ever experienced Him with my five senses (i.e., “a better felt than told experience”), but because the Bible tells me so. In other words, the Holy Spirit, through the written Word, “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), has told me plainly that He dwells in me (cf. Romans 10:17).

Of course, some say the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian the same way Christ does—i.e., by faith (Ephesians 3:17). But, in order for me to be required to believe that this is true, it would need to be proven that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian in the same manner as does Christ. In other words, just saying He does, does not make it so. Second, if it could be scripturally demonstrated that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian “by faith,” then one would still need to prove that faith is the manner (or mode) by which He dwells in the Christian, and not the condition that must be met before the Holy Spirit will actually indwell him. Based upon my understanding of Acts 2:38 and Acts 5:32, I believe that obedient faith is the condition which must be met before the Holy Spirit can be received as a gift.

In addressing the question posed in the above subtitle, R.L. Whiteside, in Doctrinal Discourses, wrote:

What does the indwelling Spirit do? What if I am unable to answer that question? And what if no one else can give a definite answer, would our inability to answer the question nullify what God has said? If we cannot explain a thing, shall we say there is no such thing?

Whiteside’s point is a valid one, especially in this materialistic age, which says, “If I can’t see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it, then it just ain’t so.” But, and this ought not to surprise the careful Bible student, the Bible plainly tells us that the indwelling Spirit does do something for us—viz., He helps our weaknesses (Romans 8:26; Ephesians 3:16). Even though Christians do not always know what we ought to pray for, the Bible tells us that the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us. Although it is true that the esteemed Alexander Campbell taught that the “spirit” under consideration here was the human spirit, most Bible interpreters have not so understood this passage. Furthermore, I believe common sense tells us this passage must be speaking of the Holy Spirit and what He does for Christians—the ones who are clearly the “we” and “us” of this passage. But, someone says, “This is a controversial passage, and doctrine ought not to be established on a controversial passage.” This is nonsense! And this is true even when such comes from the lips and pens of esteemed brethren. In truth, there are hardly any passages in God’s Word that are not considered to be controversial by someone. We are convinced that this passage is considered controversial not so much because it is difficult to understand or interpret, but because of the preconceived idea some among us have that the Holy Spirit works only (i.e., solely) in and through the Word today.

The apostle Paul relates the common predicament we all experience (Romans 7:13-25) in that battle that takes place between the old sinful self (the carnal mind or flesh, as Paul calls it), and the new spiritual mind we have in Christ Jesus, identified by Paul as being “in the Spirit” (Romans 8:9). And as paradoxical as it may sound, Paul says we are in the Spirit only when the “Spirit of God” or “Spirit of Christ” (viz., the Holy Spirit) dwells in us. This indwelling, according to the beloved apostle, functions as a “first fruits” (Romans 8:23)—an “earnest” and “seal,” if you will (Ephesians 1:13,14)—of the heavenly inheritance that will one day be ours (Romans 8:24).

In this battle between “the flesh” and “the spirit” (cf. Galatians 5:17), we are more than conquerors (Romans 8:37) because “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). The immediate context is the work the indwelling Spirit does for us—work, incidentally, that we are unable to do for ourselves. No wonder Paul said “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” He would surely agree with the apostle John, who wrote: “He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world” (I John 4:4).

With these thoughts of God’s wonderful assurance in mind, I pray the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen (cf. II Corinthians 13:14).

Baptists generally believe and teach that water baptism is not necessary for the remission of sins. This statement is qualified because this writer knows of a Baptist preacher who believes that it is necessary. But generally speaking, we do not misrepresent Baptist doctrine when we say it teaches that baptism “…represents in an outward symbol the inward work of the Spirit, and shows how ‘according to his mercy, he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit,’ a work already performed on the heart of the candidate by an application of the cleansing blood of Christ” (Hisox, The Baptist Church Directory, 1911, page 32). In other words, “Baptists believe that no one is a scriptural subject for baptism till he is already saved [italics mine—AT]” (J.G. Bow, What Baptist Believe and Why They Believe It, Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, pages 36-37).

As we have seen, Baptists are quite open about what they believe concerning baptism, and although it is not difficult to understand what they believe, it is hard to understand why they believe it. Clearly, they ignore, or do not understand, many Bible passages relative to baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38 & 22:16; Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:26-27; and 1 Peter 3:21). A simple reading of these passages enables one to understand why they have consistently tried to either ignore, explain away, or change the scriptures to fit their doctrine. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate a very serious mistake some of our Baptist friends have made in their attempt to change the word of God so as to conform to their teaching on the subject of baptism.

Obviously, Acts 2:38 is a passage that has “stuck in the craw” of many Baptist debaters. But now some of them are claiming that the passage is “really theirs after all.” These allege the Greek preposition eis, which is translated “for” in the King James Version should actually be translated “because of.” They claim the passage should read, “…Repent, and be baptized…because of the remission of sins….” In other words, they think this passage teaches that one ought to repent and be baptized because one has already received the remission of sins when he believed. They attempt to bolster this rendering by pointing out that the English preposition “for” sometimes means “because of.” Although this is true, it really has nothing to do with the Greek preposition eis, which no reputable Greek scholar has ever thought should be translated “because of.”

Those who try to twist the scriptures to justify their wrong position on baptism are defeated by the very book they seek to pervert. In Acts 2:38, we find not just the preposition eis, but the entire prepositional phrase eis aphesin harmartion, which is rendered “for the remission of sins” by the translators. Fortunately, and to the downfall of those who would assert their particular doctrine above that which is written, the Holy Spirit has unquestionably fixed the use of eis aphesin harmartion by allowing it to be used in a passage in which its use cannot be doubted. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus made the statement, “For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins [emphasis mine—AT].” This is the same prepositional phrase that is used in Acts 2:38. Therefore, those who support the “because of” argument in Acts 2:38 would, in order to be consistent, have to make Matthew 26:28 to be saying that Jesus shed His blood “because of” the remission of sins, which would, in essence, have the Lord saying His blood would be shed for something already accomplished. Who can believe it? Was the Lord’s blood shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the remission of sins; or was it shed because the remission of sins had already occurred? If it was shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the remission of sins, as Matthew 26:28 clearly teaches, then what justification do our Baptist friends have for translating the same prepositional phrase as “because of” in Acts 2:38? The only reason I can think of is the justification of their erroneous doctrine.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Certainly not! Although Baptists seem to think that Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 are contradictory if allowed to stand as they appear in the Bible, the truth of the matter is that Baptism is “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the same thing Jesus’ blood was shed “for.” Just as the Bible teaches that there can be no remission of sins without Christ’s blood, for Christ’s blood was shed for the remission of sins, it just as clearly teaches that there can be no remission of sins without baptism. This relationship between Christ’s blood and baptism is explained by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 6. He said that as many as had been baptized into Christ had been baptized “into His death”. Of course, the Messiah shed His blood in His death (viz., on the cross), and we, by faith, are baptized “into His death” (Romans 6:3) Could it be any more simple? Could we not all see this if we really wanted to?

In conclusion, the Holy Spirit bears witness that Christ shed His blood for the remission of sins. He also bears witness that water baptism is for the remission of sins. Consequently, it does not surprise us to hear the Bible say, “There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one [emphasis mine-AT]” (1 John 5:8).

All who believe the Bible are aware there were those in the early church who had the ability to speak in tongues, that is, languages they had not learned (I Corinthians 12:28). From the 16th chapter of Mark we learn that the ability to speak in tongues was a sign promised by Jesus to His disciples after giving them what has come to be known as “The Great Commission.” Notice, if you will, that these apostles were commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Understandably, the gift of tongues was a very powerful sign to all who heard these unlearned Galileans speaking to them in their own native languages. What more powerful or convincing demonstration could have been given than on the Day of Pentecost when men from all nations heard the apostles preaching to them the gospel of Jesus Christ in their own native tongues? So powerful was the demonstration, the Scripture says: “they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, behold are not all these Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:7-8)

The purpose of signs is revealed by the disciples response to the great commission:

And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following” (Mark 1 6:20). In agreement with this, the Hebrew writer says: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For… How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will? (Hebrews 2:1,3,4)

We see then, according to the Scriptures, that the purpose of miraculous signs was to confirm the word of God which was declaring a new and divine message. The need for extraordinary proof during that period is understandable when one realizes the nature of the message—Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified on the Roman cross, had been raised from the grave and was now in heaven on the right hand of God. It was this Jesus who God had raised up and given all authority as both Lord and Christ. It was because of His life, death, burial, and resurrection, that the sins of all mankind could be forgiven. It was a salvation without price, unmerited and truly a gift from God.

We learn then from Scripture that tongues were foreign languages (I Corinthians 12:10; Acts 2:4, 6, 8, 11). However, many of our Pentecostal friends maintain tongues are ecstatic utterances. It should be apparent that what they teach on the subject is not in harmony with the word of God. And if we can use their own words as any indication, then maybe it is apparent to a great many of them as evidenced by the following:

The devil will be right on hand to challenge your experience, telling you that you made it all up or that it sounds foolish and crazy (everyone seems to experience this testing). But if you continue in faith, the Lord will give you confidence in your new tongue. (Christian News, November 25, 1968, page 11)

Are we to believe that any of the apostles experienced this testing? We think not! Furthermore, we learn from these Pentecostals that tongues function as a sign to believers that they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This, too, is a clear-cut contradiction of Scripture which says, “Wherefore tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not…” (I Corinthians 14:22). Although Pentecostals teach that all believers should be baptized in the Holy Spirit and therefore speak in tongues as evidence of it, the Bible states that not all had the same gifts and not all spoke in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 30).

The modern-day “tongue-speakers” or glossolalists, as they are often called, would have us believe that “their gift” comes from God; but it is apparent that it comes not from God but from man. The observations of Dr. John Kilbahl, a psycho-therapist who conducted a 10 year in-depth study of these modern-day tongue speakers, illustrates this very well:

The importance of the leader was well illustrated by the fact that the style of glossolalia adapted by the group bore a close resemblance to the way in which the leader spoke. A linguist engaged in glossolalia research found that prominent visiting speakers affected whole groups of glossolalists. Although no two tongue-speakers sounded exactly alike, if the prominent leader spoke in a kind of Old Testament Hebraic style, those who were taught by him also spoke in this manner. If the leader of the group evidenced Spanish diction and mannerism, his followers also developed that style. It is not uncommon for linguists to be able to tell which prominent itinerant glossolalist has introduced a congregation to tongue-speaking. Relatively few men and women travel the tongue-speaking circuit. The glossolalist styles of Bennett, Bredesen, Christenson, du Plessis, Mjorud, and Stone are distinctive enough to be identifiable by observant linguists. (Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, Harper & Rowe, 1972, page 53)

As to the nature of their “gift,” we can learn further from the instruction given by these tongue-speakers on receiving it:

1 . Help the candidate see that the gift is already given and all he has to do is to receive it. 2. Lead him to realize that anyone who is saved through baptism is prepared to receive the baptism of the Spirit. 3. Tell him that when hands are laid upon him he will receive the Holy Spirit. 4. Tell the candidate he is to expect the Spirit to move on his vocal chords, but that he must cooperate with the experience as well. 5. Tell him to throw away all fear that this experience might be false. 6. Tell him to open his mouth wide and breathe as deeply as possible, at the same time telling himself that he is receiving the Spirit now. (G.E. Stiles, The Gift of the Holy Spirit, page 104 [cited by Morton T. Kelsey, Tongue-Speaking, Doubleday, 1964, page 801)

Before concluding this article, we would like to once again quote Dr. Kildahl:

We attended many meetings where glossolalia both occurred and was interpreted, and noted that the interpretations were usually of a very general nature. After a segment of tongue-speech, an interpreter commonly offered the explanation that the speaker had been thanking and praising God for many blessings. Another frequent theme was that the speaker was asking for strength and guidance for himself and others.

However, perhaps a third of the time, the interpreter offered specific interpretations of what glossolalists said. More rarely, an interpreter ‘translated,’ phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence. In order to investigate the accuracy of these interpretations, we undertook to play a taped example of tongue-speech privately for several different interpreters of tongues. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations. The following typifies our results: One interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying for the health of his children; another that the same tongue-speech was an expression of gratitude to God for a recently successful church fund-raising effort.

When confronted with the disparity between their interpretations, the interpreter offered the explanation that God gave to one person one interpretation of the speech and to another person another interpretation. They showed no defensiveness about being cross-examined and generously upheld alternative interpretations as equally valid…

We know of a man who was raised in Africa, the son of missionary parents, who decided—rather cynically perhaps—to test the interpretation of tongues. At the appropriate moment, he rose and spoke the Lord’s prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he said. He interpreted it as a message of the imminent second coming of Christ. (Kildahl, op. cit., pages 62,63)

As Christians, we must rely upon the word of God as our only guide and rule of faith, recognizing that man has surely laid his foundation on the sand when following the subjectivity of human experience. As is usually the case, personal feelings are misleading and often fatal. The Bible is clear in its warning to Christians concerning the many false teachers in the world (1 John 4: 1). Furthermore, it is evident that many will be lost at judgement who thought they had prophesied, cast out demons, and done many mighty works in the name of Jesus (Matthew 7:22,23). And finally, the Scriptures state that some will be lost because they did not love the truth, but instead believed all the deception of wickedness, that is, “power” and “signs” and “wonders” (II Thessalonians 2:9-12).

We have shown that there is a difference between what some teach about the gift of tongues and what the Bible teaches on this important subject. We, therefore, appeal to our tongue-speaking friends to consider the end product of their false teaching: If they are right, then the Holy Spirit was wrong. If the Holy Spirit was wrong, then He did not reveal all the truth as Jesus said He would (John 16: 13). If the Holy Spirit did not reveal all the truth, then Jesus lied to His apostles. If Jesus lied to His apostles, then He was not the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6); neither was He the Christ, the Son of the living God. As the apostle John wrote in I John 2:21-22: “We have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?”

In trying to teach the gospel to those caught up in the charismatic movement, John 14:12 has frequently been used as a proof-text for their claim that miraculous gifts are still in use by “true” believers in Christ. In this passage, the Lord was speaking to His apostles and said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father” (NKJV).

According to the charismatics, the “greater works” are the “signs and wonders” being performed in their so-called “miracle services.” Of course, a careful examination of this passage will only serve to demonstrate how the charismatics have completely misunderstood the teaching of the Lord on this subject.

Even a cursory examination demonstrates that their erroneous interpretation of this passage actually works against them in the strongest way. Let’s just think about it for a moment. The quality of “miracles” performed by these people does not even come close to that of Bible miracles. The Lord’s miracles were undeniable and spectacular. He changed water into wine and multiplied loaves and fishes. He healed hopeless lepers, cripples, and blind people. And we must not forget that He raised from the dead one who had been dead for four days!

Furthermore, the apostles were able to perform miracles just as Jesus had done—even raising the dead. Although these charismatics claim to be doing the “greater works” mentioned by Jesus, it is obvious that their alleged miracles are not even thirty-second cousins to those performed by Jesus and His apostles.

While Jesus, the apostles, and others performed signs, wonders, and miracles which could not be imitated or equaled, those being performed by charismatics are no different than those exhibited by various religions around the world that have nothing at all to do with Christianity. For example, modern-day “tongue-speaking” (i.e., ecstatic utterance) is engaged in regularly by Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Shintoists, Voodooists and others. In reality, Bible “tongue-speaking” is not being duplicated anywhere today—even among charismatics—because no one today is being given direct power from God to speak foreign languages they’ve never learned.

A reading of Acts 2:1-12 convinces us that the New Testament gift of tongues was the ability to speak in an unlearned foreign language. It is true that charismatics sometime claim to know someone who knows that somewhere someone once spoke an actual foreign language, but these cases are clearly unsubstantiated. It is interesting that not one charismatic I have ever spoken with has ever claimed to be able to speak an unlearned foreign language.

How then could the questionable and somewhat less than spectacular “miracles” performed by modern-day pentecostals be the “greater works” spoken of by Jesus? Remember, not even one of these folks has ever been so bold as to claim to have resurrected one who had been dead for four days. Consequently, these charismatics are wrong in their interpretation of the passage under consideration. Let’s use the space that remains to determine if we can learn what the Lord was referring to when He said, “and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father” (John 14:12).

It is clear that the Lord made a distinction between miracles and a greater work that would be done by His followers. This greater work was dependent upon Jesus going to the Father. In John 16, the Lord said it was expedient for the apostles that He go away because when He did so the Holy Spirit would come and guide them into all truth. In I Peter 1:12, we learn that the gospel was preached with the “Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” In his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul wrote: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:12, 13).

In his message on the first Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, the apostle Peter said: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being highly exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear…. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:32,33,36). Through the preaching of the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, men were able to be saved (I Corinthians 15:1-4). Although the raising of the physically dead was a wonderful miracle, greater still is the preaching of the gospel which has the power to raise the spiritually dead. In Matthew 16:26, Jesus taught that a man’s soul is more important than the whole world. If this is true—and Jesus said it is—then the preaching, teaching, and living of the soul-saving gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest work that can be done by His followers. There is nothing more important that this!

What a truly great experience it is to be “born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (I Peter 1:23).

Mr. (Name Withheld),

The so-called “Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” is, in my opinion, neither holy, catholic, nor apostolic. That it is a church cannot be denied, nor that it is uniquely Roman. These two things cannot be denied. On the other hand, it is only the church of Christ—the one that Christ sanctified by His precious blood (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:19)—that is holy. This church is catholic (or “universal”}, in that it is made up of Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female, young and old, et cetera (cf. Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). As such, it is a God-ordained relationship (”the mountain of the Lord’s house”) into which all nations of the world flow (cf. Isa. 2:2-4). It is apostolic in that there is a sense in which Christ’s apostles function as a foundation for Christ’s church (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:10). However, when this metaphor is used, Christ is referred to as the “chief corner stone,” namely, that one essential and necessary part of the foundation which, if lacking, there can be nothing lasting (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11).

Roman Catholics base their whole argument on alleged apostolic succession, something they could not prove if their lives depended upon it. Nevertheless, the claim is that the current Roman pontiff can be directly traced back to “Saint Peter,” upon whom they claim Christ founded His church. Such may be the claim of the Roman Church, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports it. In fact, the only apostolic succession mentioned in the Bible is when Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ apostolate (cf. Acts 1:15-26). Incidentally, the requirement for that apostleship was as follows: “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). Are these qualifications that the present pontiff can claim? Certainly not! So, although the present pontiff doesn’t meet the qualifications articulated by Peter himself to be one of the twelve apostles of Christ, he claims to exercise Peter’s apostolate—an apostolate, incidentally, that the Roman Catholic Church makes more out of than the Bible ever did. Even Peter, who was, no doubt, a chief (i.e., a leader) among the apostles (cf. 2 Cor. 11:5), refused worship by telling Cornelius, who had fallen at his feet in adoration, “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (Acts 10:26). Contrast this with the adulation the Roman pontiffs receive when people bow before them and they extend their hand for kisses, et cetera. Notice also that not only was Peter not given to inordinate adoration, but when he sinned by hypocritically refusing to associate publicly with Gentiles, he was openly rebuked by the apostle Paul (cf. Gal. 2:11ff). Peter was certainly nowhere in the New Testament called the “Holy Father,” which would have been, after all, a direct violation of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9.

Although the Roman Catholic Church claims it is Peter’s Roman See that would be the supreme authority of Roman Catholicism, there is not one word in the New Testament that says anything about Peter ever having been in Rome, much less that he was exercising such authority over the church from that city. However, the claim that he was in Rome (in fact, that he started the church in Rome) and that he did exercise such authority is part of the core argument Romanists make for their church. Before Paul finally visited Rome, there was already a church there. How it came into being is not known, but nothing in the New Testament indicates it was started by Peter. In fact, when Paul wrote to the Romans in the year 58, at the end of his third missionary journey, probably toward the end of his three months’ stay in Corinth (cf. Acts 20:1-6), he did not send greetings to Peter, although he sent personal greetings to, and mentioned, more than twenty individuals (cf. Rom. 16), which would have been a bit strange if Peter had been there. Furthermore, if this was, in fact, Peter’s See, as Catholics claim, then it does not seem reasonable that Paul would have taken it upon himself to teach the church there, as he had made it clear that he did not desire to build upon another man’s foundation (cf. Rom. 15:20). What’s more, he wrote that he desired to come to them that he might impart to them some spiritual gift so that they could be firmly established (cf. Rom. 1:11). In that the Bible teaches that, among men, it was only the apostles who had the power to impart spiritual gifts (cf. Acts 6:1-3; 8:12-18; 19:6-7; 2 Tim. 1:6), and because Paul longed to visit the church in Rome that he might do so, it seems reasonable to conclude that the church at Rome was not started by an apostle, or else it might be argued that if Peter started it and Paul had to shore it up, then Peter must have been negligent in the exercise of his apostolate. If not, why not? Additionally, when Paul finally got to Rome, and he was there under house arrest for two years, he never mentioned the “Holy Father,” which seems strange if, as Catholics claim, Peter not only founded the church there but exercised his pontificate from there, continuing to do so until his death, which is alleged to have taken place about the same time as Paul’s martyrdom.

Was Peter The “Rock”?

The point that Catholics make about Matthew 16:18 teaching that Peter was made the “first Pope” by Jesus is not what the passage actually says. It is their interpretation of this passage, and that alone, that makes Peter, at least in their minds, the “first Pope.” In truth, the title “Pope” is not used in this passage, nor does it occur anywhere else in the New Testament. There is actually no scriptural reason to believe that Peter was the first Pope, as Catholics claim. Nor is there any reason to believe that Peter was ever the head of the church on earth—a position open only to Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 28:18, Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18).

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “And I also say unto you that you are Peter [Petros—’a (piece of) rock’], and on this rock [petra—’a (mass of) rock’] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Although Catholicism places its argument on the relationship between the name “Peter” and the term “rock,” it appears the Lord made a deliberate effort to draw a clear contrast between Peter and the rock upon which His church would be established. Note these very important points:

1. Petros (Peter) is a masculine gender noun; petra (rock) is a feminine form. The change in grammatical form appears to not be just incidental. But even if it could be demonstrated that this is not all that significant, such would do nothing to advance the argument that Peter was the “first Pope.”
2. Petros, as the definition quoted above from Strong’s Greek Dictionary indicates, suggests a small rock, whereas petra indicates something larger, like a boulder. This contrast is not insignificant.
3. Jesus employed the second person, su (you), when addressing Peter, but changed to the third person, taute (this), when referring to the rock upon which His church would be built.
4. If Peter is to be understood to be the rock upon which Jesus would build His church, then it would have to be within the construction format found elsewhere, in that the apostles (not just Peter) are the foundation upon which the church of Christ would be built. I mentioned this earlier in noting that Christ’s apostles function as a foundation for the church (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:10). But as I also pointed out earlier, when this metaphor is used, Christ is referred to as the “chief corner stone,” namely, that one essential and necessary part of the foundation which, if lacking, there is no lasting foundation (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11). However, and in further keeping with the construction metaphor, I believe that in the Matthew 16:18 narrative Jesus does, in fact, use the symbolism of constructing a building to emphasize not Peter, but the “rock” upon which His church would be established—namely, the knowledge of and the confession of the truth that Jesus was and is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Yes, the Bible teaches that there is no other foundation than Jesus Christ. This means that without Jesus and His work there would be no church. Yes, the Bible teaches that the apostles served as the foundation of the church. This means that without their work, the Lordship of Jesus Christ would not be established in the hearts and minds of men and women. These foundations are not contradictory, but work together with Jesus as the chief corner stone. At the same time, and validating it all, is men and women believing the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and in this sense, this is the foundational truth upon which the church belonging to Christ would be erected.

There is, therefore, nothing in God’s word that teaches that the church of Christ was founded upon Peter, per se. It was founded, instead, upon the firm foundation of what Peter, by divine inspiration, confessed on that occasion. Peter was not the first Pope, and there is absolutely nothing in Matthew 16:18 that teaches he was.

Although the Roman Catholic Church considers celibacy to be a holier status than matrimony, and therefore the Pope cannot be married, Peter was clearly a married man according to the Scriptures. Matthew records an instance where Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (cf. 8:14), and Paul, in defense of his apostleship, argued that he had as much a right to “take along a believing wife” as did Peter or Cephas, as he was sometimes called (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). Peter was also an “elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), which means he had to have been a husband (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).

Catholicism is a departure from and a corruption of the primitive Christian system. It is, without a doubt, a manifestation of that great falling away from the faith of which the apostle Paul warned (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff).

In service to Him,

Allan Turner

Where is that man that God created to be male, not female? Where is that man who is a leader of and provider for his family? Where is that man’s man who exhibits those qualities that will make him desirable to God’s woman? He is, unfortunately, an endangered species! But if he can’t be found in society, then surely he can be found in the church. Sadly, this is not always the case, for instead of the church being the salt and light it needs to be to a lost and dying world, the world has risen up to force its image upon the church. Consequently, too many Christian men act neither like Christians nor men.

But take heart, the image is not faded altogether. For there is Jesus, the personification of what real manhood is all about. And then there are Peter, Paul, Timothy, Titus and the others. Plus, there are those qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 that speak to the fullness of Christian manhood:

Without reproach or blameless, given to hospitality, good testimony from without, a lover of good, no lover of money, not greedy for ill-gotten gain, temperate, self-controlled, orderly, gentle, not contentious, not a brawler, sober minded, apt to teach, not a novice, children in subjection, able to rule his own house, the husband of one wife.

This is what true manhood is all about and it ought to be what every Christian man strives for. Such a man is the “head” of his wife, as also Christ is the head of the church. “Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:23-24). The true man of God is not a neutered “wimp” who has emasculated himself at the altar of anti-God, anti-Christ and anti-Biblical feminism. The true man of God is not willing to relinquish his leadership role in the family or the church for a bowl of egalitarian porridge, and God’s woman does not want him to do so. All this may make us “peculiar” to those around about us, but it must be remembered that this is precisely what God created us in His Son Jesus to be (cf. Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9).

May God help us to be true men and women, for it is in such efforts that we glorify Him, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Portrayed by some as a closet Muslim, Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has found it necessary to interject his religious convictions into his campaign for President. By doing so, he has given us a glimpse of what he really believes and the “bully pulpit” (his words) he intends to exercise, if elected, and it’s not a very pretty picture.

Gay Marriage

On last Thursday (2/28/08), for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his website an “open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) equality in America.” In this letter, Obama made it clear he favored same-sex unions that were equal to traditional one-man, one-woman marriages. “As your President,” he said, “I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.” He went on to say: “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples—whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.” Consequently, it ought not to be a surprise that Obama is on record as believing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which says that marriage is between a man and a woman (thereby prohibiting “gay marriage”) ought to be repealed.

But on Sunday (3/3/08, in a speech to an audience at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, he said, in all too typical politicalese: “I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.” He continued: “So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called a marriage, but I think it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.” I’ll have some comments on this momentarily, but there is something else to consider first.

Abortion And The Non-Personhood Of Babies Who Have Survived It

When Mr. Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined a baby that had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive as a “person.” In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about the bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would grant it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would, therefore, lend credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and, thus, could not be aborted. But even after the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical with a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade, Obama still opposed it.

But on Sunday, in typical politicalese, he said: “On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue. I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible…But I think the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

At the beginning of this speech, Mr. Obama said: “In terms of my faith, there has been much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts. I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often…So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

Well, since he brought it up, it seems safe to say that Barack Obama is no New Testament Christian. But truth is, few are. Even so, he purports to speak for Christ, making it sound like He would embrace practicing homosexuals without their repentance. No matter how glib such a claim, it is nothing but pure, unadulterated claptrap.

In His “Sermon on the Mount,” which is recorded in Matthew 5-7, Jesus says nothing which could be viewed as sanctioning the practice of homosexuality, and absolutely nothing about any kind of civil union (gay marriage) between homosexuals—nothing even close! In fact, when speaking of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in 5:27-32, Jesus mentioned a marriage involving a man and a woman (wife), not two men or two women. Therefore, when Mr. Obama intimates Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount approves of such, he is guilty of being one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing that Jesus spoke about in that very sermon (5:17).

Furthermore, if Mr. Obama were, in fact, not just a “Christian,” but a “devout” one, as he claims (and not one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing that Jesus spoke about in His famous sermon), he would be ashamed of himself for trying to paint the picture in his hearers’ minds of the sayings of Jesus being pitted against the words of the apostle Paul. To put it as bluntly as I know how, no one with a modicum of respect for God’s word would ever believe or promote such an idea. Truth is, Paul’s statement condemning homosexuality in Romans 1:26-32 would not have been “obscure” to a first-century reader living in the midst of a decadent Roman Empire. Therefore, it seems it is only obscure to twenty-first-century readers looking for an excuse to justify that which God’s word clearly and strongly condemns.

Finally, no “Christian,” especially a “devout” one, would ever try to defend the murder of the innocent (cf. Jeremiah 19:4), which is what abortion-on-demand really is. But this is precisely what Mr. Obama does, going so far as to attempt to prohibit an innocent child who has survived abortion the right to be called a “person”—for if the poor little thing were to be described as such, the result would be that a woman’s “right” to an abortion would be threatened. Calling it a “tragic and painful issue” that “we should prevent…as much as possible, he then goes on to say we must keep it legal at all cost, even when that cost is the personhood of an innocent child who has survived his or her attempted abortion. Shame on you, Mr. Obama, shame, shame, shame!

When the drafters of the Declaration of Independence wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they were writing of the kind of phaneros en autois (”evident in themselves”) truths the apostle Paul was writing of in Romans 1:19. As a matter of fact, in Romans 1:20, the words tois poiemasin nooumena kathoratai (”by means of things that are made, are understood, being clearly seen”) are the exact equivalent to “self-evident.” Paul uses both of these phrases in the context of what men know naturally by natural revelation, apart from the special revelation revealed in God’s Word. According to Paul, what can be known about God apart from the Bible is known by all men, because He causes them to know it. Therefore, all men are without excuse. But, although men know the truth, the Bible tells us they are bent on suppressing it in unrighteousness (cf. Romans 1:18). In other words, we can’t expect our opponents to be honest. If they have to lie about this nation being founded upon the principle that there is a “law above the law” (i.e., God’s law above man’s law), then they will lie. For example, during the bicentennial celebration of the U.S. Constitution in 1987, I was appalled when, watching the proceedings on television, I heard the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance with “under God” left out.

This is made even more appalling when one considers that Thomas Jefferson, who a secularist would proudly call his own, is reported to have said: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Doesn’t this sound like Jefferson thought the nation he was instrumental in founding ought to be a nation under God?

Furthermore, as recently as 1952, in Zorach v. Clauson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” If an extremely liberal Supreme Court justice can understand this, then why is it becoming so difficult for people to understand that ours is a nation that was founded by our forefathers to be under God? In truth, it would not be difficult at all if it were not for those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

In Psalm 11:3, the question is asked, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Of course, when the foundations are destroyed, the righteous are made a prey of the wicked. Consequently, the very purpose of government is the protection of the righteous or law abiding. In other words, Government is ordained by God as a mechanical remedy against evil (cf. Romans 13:1-7). Thomas Jefferson clearly understood this principle, and so must we if we are to keep the “unalienable rights” endowed us by “our Creator.” Jesus Christ is sovereign of the universe. Consequently, His law is above all laws and all men everywhere are subject to His authority. Many earthly authorities have not understood this. Consequently, they have not heeded the wise counsel of the psalmist, who said: “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way” (Psalm 2:11,12).

Currently, the political walls of atheistic communism seem to be crumbling. Perhaps we are privileged to be observing His divine providence at work in these matters. But, even if we are not, let the men and women of all nations soberly reflect upon the eminent advice of Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The reproach (i.e., disgrace and shame) openly being manifested in America today is indicative of the fact that we are quickly becoming a nation without God. Frankly, what this means is that the continued existence of this country is at stake. It may be that God usually judges individuals at the end of time, but the Bible clearly teaches that He judges nations in time. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul gives the four step decline in the history of the nation that forgets God:

1. A nation rejects God,
   
   
2. it turns to false religion,
   
   
3. it becomes bogged down in immorality and violence,
   
   
4. and then God judges it.
   

Consequently, a nation without God is a nation in serious trouble.

As a people (I’m speaking now of God’s people), let us be actively engaged in doing justice and righteousness, and let us be praying that there is still enough salt left to preserve the blessings of God upon this nation.

Many have the idea that the moral standard contained in the Bible is limited to a certain group of people. Making this mistake, they believe Biblical ethics have no place in the public square and argue that Christians should keep their code of ethics (i.e., the standard of Righteousness taught in the Bible) under wraps, confining these within the walls of their homes and church buildings. These advocates of the naked public square (i.e., a completely secularized society) view Christians with a jaundiced eye. Anyone, they think, who advocates imposing a code of ethics across an entire society—and the right-thinking Christian is certainly guilty of this—is not just intolerant and bigoted, but dangerous as well. When this sentiment finally becomes enacted into law, Christians will be persecuted, imprisoned, and eventually executed. I do not think this is about to happen, but the stew of sentiment is already being stirred in our culture. Without national repentance, I am convinced that this can, and will, happen. Therefore, the interaction of “church and state,” or the sacred and secular, is extremely important to individual Christians, as well as the whole nation.

Unfortunately, our post-modern culture has clearly lost its way. Nevertheless, this same culture can frequently be heard clamoring for Justice. But, post-modernism has summarily rejected that absolute standard of Righteousness taught in the Bible—a standard that is necessary if acts of Justice are to be consistently carried out. Consequently, as our nation continues down paganism’s slippery slope, everything that was once thought to be morally right will be questioned and ultimately rejected. Without national repentance, Divine judgment will eventually result (Isaiah 13-23; Jeremiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32; Amos 1-2, et cetera). Make no mistake about it, the Bible makes it clear that God’s adversaries, when the time is right (cf. Genesis 15:16), will meet the fire of His wrath. Why? Because they have seen fit to neglect His absolute standard of Righteousness (Psalm 97:1-9). In other words, “Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

I am not a prophet. Therefore, it is not possible for me to know just where our nation is on that path between a Romans 13 government (i.e. a government ordained by God) and a Revelation 13 government (i.e., a government ordained by Satan). Even though we have been cut off from our Biblical roots, there is still much that is good about America. Consequently, our nation continues to be blessed by God. Why? Because He said He would (Proverbs 14:34). So, even though we are a cut-flower generation, there remains enough residual Justice and Righteousness in our nation to motivate God’s continued blessings upon it. But be sure of this: When there is no longer enough righteous influence left in this nation, God’s judgment will fall (Genesis 18:26). Presently, there are more New Testament Christians in America than any place else in the world, and these, I am convinced, function as the salt that continues to preserve this nation (Matthew 5:13). Therefore, the righteous acts (viz., Justice) of Christians are not only important to the eventual salvation of individual Christians, but they are essential to the preservation of our nation, as well. Conversely, if our government ever becomes a full-fledged Revelation 13 government, openly and deliberately persecuting God’s people, it will go down to the pit, as did the Roman Empire. Any nation that messes with God’s people, makes itself an enemy of God. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the godly salt of faithful Christians continue to preserve our great nation. But, and here is a sobering thought, what happens when the salt loses its savor? In answering this question, it is important to note that the Lord said that the salt that loses its savoring influence is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot (Matthew 5:13). When a Christian, who the Bible tells us has been created in Christ Jesus for good works (cf. Ephesians 2:10), is not living a godly life (i.e., is not doing Justice), he can no longer save himself from this perverse generation (Acts 2:40), nor can he act so as to preserve this nation from God’s righteous judgment. Such Christians, then, are total failures.

It must be remembered that the gospel of Jesus Christ is such a dynamic force in the lives and hearts of the true believer, and the transformation it makes so revolutionary, and its effect so totally radical, that the Bible calls the Christian a “new creature,” a creature who has been “born again” (1 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Peter 1:23). It is this totally new creature who provides the life-giving remedy for that which ails our society. And although it is contrary to the thinking of uncommitted, part-time Christians, it is the true disciple of Christ, the one who has been truly converted to the Lord and, as a result, has been renewed and transformed in his mind (Romans 12:1-2), who is the one making the difference the Lord created him to make. Such a disciple has no trouble understanding just how important his spiritual/intellectual quest really is. As a result, he is willing to “gird up the loins of [his] mind” (1 Peter 1:13). In doing so, he is both “salt” and “light” to a lost and dying world (Matthew 5:13-16). Apart from this, nothing else matters, for there is no greater cause or calling. This is “the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13), and it requires nothing else of us than “to do justly” (i.e. to engage in acts of Justice), “to love mercy” (i.e, to temper these acts of Justice with mercy), and “to walk humbly with [our] God” (i.e., manifesting the mind of the Lord who said, “Not My will, but Thine be done”)[Micah 6:8].

The New Testament depicts the church and the state as separate entities (Matthew 22:17-21)—both of which are accountable to the One who has been given “all authority…in heaven and on earth” by His Father (Matthew 28:18). Not only is Jesus the “head of the church” (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18), but as the book of Revelation points out, He is also the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5). Therefore, both church and state must respect God’s authority, upholding Righteousness and Justice in the process. Failure to do so results in the removal of the candlestick for the church (Revelation 2:5) and the rod of iron for the nation (Revelation 12:5). Although it is true that under the Old Testament the kingdom of Israel was a theocracy (i.e., a combination of church and state), under the New Testament there is to be a separation of these two entities.

The role of the church under Christ is presented as one of spiritual warfare (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). On the other hand, Caesar (i.e., civil government) is given a physical sword (i.e., the penalty of death) to aid in its warfare against evildoers (Romans 13:4). Unlike Israel of old, the church today is not in the business of taking human life. This is, however, the prerogative of the state (Romans 13:1-7). But in doing so, the state is not free to arbitrarily and capriciously exercise itself, but must do so consistent with the principle of Righteousness and Justice taught in the Bible. The government is, therefore, duty bound to protect the law-abiding and punish the evildoers. If a government consistently fails to meet its obligation “under God,” and this would be evidence of a Revelation 13 government, then there can be no real Justice. Under such a government, the law-abiding become the prey of not just evildoers, but the government itself. When this happens, the society eventually experiences the fiery wrath of the Lord’s righteous indignation (i.e., His judgment).

The Christian is to be praying for the government so that it will meet its obligation to maintain order in the society (1 Timothy 2:1-2). In addition, he will dutifully pay his taxes to support the government, and he will always be found obeying the laws of the land as long as these laws do not constitute a contravening of God’s Word. But, and this is most important, the government has no right to tell the church what to do in spiritual matters. It cannot (i.e., “under God”) tell the church when, or when not, to pray; when to preach or not to preach; when to worship or not to worship. In these matters, the church takes its orders only from Christ, not Caesar. In purely secular matters, the church of Christ is obligated to respect and obey the laws of the land. This is, however, as far as it goes, and if, and when, the state seeks to regulate the church spiritually, the church is obligated to engage in holy disobedience (cf. Acts 5:29).

On the other hand, the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and must preach the truth whenever, wherever, and to whomever it applies. It must do this without respect of persons. This may involve telling Caesar he is wrong on some moral or spiritual issue. The Truth must always be preached without fear or favor (i.e., not “having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage”) [Jude 16]. Yes, the state is separate from the church. These two God-ordained entities have two very separate roles—one spiritual and the other physical. However, the state is not unaccountable to the Lord’s principle of Righteousness and Justice. The state is subject to Christ and will answer to His “rod of iron” if the policies of government are contrary to His principles, and this is true whether the state likes it or not. Furthermore, the degree to which a government finds such things offensive is probably a good indicator of just how far down the path toward a Revelation 13 government it has traveled.

Now, I said all that to say this: If New Testament Christians are not being salt and light, they are sinning, and these sins, if unrepented of, will not only damn their souls, but serve to place yet another nail in the nation’s coffin. Remember, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17).