Although many of our Founding Fathers were Deists, they did not lean toward Atheism, as secularists allege. In fact, the Deism of the Founders’ day would pass as a rather conservative “Christianity” in much of today’s society. Instead of thinking of religion as something which must be expunged from the public lives of Americas, the Founders were disposed to believe religion an ally of reason and not its enemy. They happily advocated a “freedom of religion,” not a “freedom from religion,” as it is today reinterpreted by insurgent revisionists. It is, therefore, time to awake from slumber, for the day is fast approaching, and perhaps is, when the multiculturalization we are perpetually subjected to will have erased from our consciousness what was an extremely important, commendable and worthwhile heritage. For our children’s and grandchildren’s sake, may God bless, and not damn, America. But unless we awake and come to our senses, we must know He will have no choice but to engage in the latter.
In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus taught us that we are to be “salt” and “light.” We do this by not just “talking the talk,” but by “walking the walk.” We function as salt and light when others see our “good works and glorify [our] Father which is in heaven” (v. 16).
In this way, a world groping in darkness is benefited by the disciplined lives of a “chosen generation, a royal nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet 2:9). So, when a Christian, who the Bible says, in Ephesians 2:10, has been created in Christ Jesus for “good works” is not living a godly life (i.e., is not actively doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God [cf. Mic 6:8]), he is no good to the Lord, himself, nor those around him.
Consequently, we should pray for, and seek to become, salty Christians who understand that although our Lord has returned to heaven, He left us here to faithfully serve the time, place, and people of a lost and dying world until that great and glorious day when He will return to judge the world and glorify His church.
Graciously redeemed by the precious blood of God’s only begotten Son, let us who have been born again be determined to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God as we serve our Families, our local Churches, our local, state and federal Governments, our Employers and Employees, and last of all, but certainly not least, our Neighbors. When we do so, we can be sure we are doing those good works we have been created in Christ Jesus to do, glorifying Him in the process.
“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (Jas 2:24).
The Christian’s mind—a renewed, pure, prepared, spiritually sensitive, self-controlled mind—is the complete antithesis of the Pagan’s mind (cf. Romans 12:1,2). As such, he is called upon to out-think, out-live, and out-die the Pagans all around him. What is the key, then? Simply this: The Christian’s mind does not trust in its own powers, but in the power of I AM THAT I AM (cf. Proverbs 3:5,6).
But in a church overrun with the think-sos of men, as the modern church is, such thinking will become increasingly difficult. Preachers attempting to preach the whole counsel of God will find it hard to maintain their integrity as they’re tempted to simply float along with the opinions, values, and fads of the masses.
At the same time, there seems to be an indication that some are beginning to see the folly of “Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). Shelving the think-sos of the modern scribes, such are returning to the God-breathed Word as their source of authority. The reason for this turning back to God’s Word has been, in part, to the efforts of those hardheaded preachers among us who, like the prophets of old, will not bow or bend to the totems of this world.
In Ezekiel 3:8,9, the prophet, who was sent to speak God’s Word to a rebellious Israel, was told by God:
Behold I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their foreheads. Like adamant stone, harder than flint, I have made your forehead; do not be afraid of them, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house.
If this present generation of Christians isn’t going to be lost, it will be, in part, to the efforts of the hardheaded preachers among us who do not need to test the winds of public sentiment before they decide what they are going to preach. The next decade will be critical. Will the general malaise of the last forty-plus years continue, or will it be a decade in which we, as a people, meet the challenge our Lord has set before us? If the latter, then a strong and vibrant church will be focused on God and His glory, generously supporting the efforts of all hardheaded preachers who will “Preach the word!” Consequently, it’ll be lifting up the hands of those who will “Be ready in season and out of season.” It’ll be defending, not maligning, those who will “Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
Finally, if the modern church is to be saved, then preachers must be willing to exhibit the kind of hardheadedness that, with God’s help, will save not only themselves, but those who hear them (cf. I Timothy 4:16).
The following model, consisting of five principles, is to be applied to particular issues to determine whether or not certain behaviors are acceptable for a Christian to be involved in. As such, these principles are transcultural, which means it applies to every culture equally in that it is inconceivable that God would permit any of these principles to be overridden by cultural norms.
The Five Principles Are:
- Does it violate any clear teaching of Scripture?
- Does it destroy any part of my body (physically, mentally, or spiritually), which is the temple o f the Holy Spirit?
- Does it cause a weaker Christian or non-Christian to be hindered?
- Does it violate the express will of one who has the God-given right to exercise headship over me?
- Does it glorify God? In other words, can I ask God’s blessing upon what I am doing with a clear conscience?
In what follows, we’ll examine the biblical justification for each of these principles.
The first principle assumes that the Bible is authoritative and normative when it comes to ethical/moral concerns. It is based on the idea that the Bible is God’s revelation to man and is to be used as the standardized guide in determining all matters of faith and practice. In one sense, all the remaining principles are based on this one. It says that any practice which the Christian is trying to evaluate that violates the teaching of Scripture is wrong. This principle covers the obvious incidents of overt sin. If someone is trying to make a decision as to whether it is right to take the property of another, this principle applies. The Bible clearly prohibits stealing. Various cultural ideas about what constitutes stealing have to be weighed according to what the Bible says. Consequently, Bible settings that address the issue of theft serve as the guide in defining what constitutes theft in the biblical sense and certainly take precedence over individual cultures.
Great care must be taken to extract the teaching of Scripture on particular issues. Correct hermeneutical procedures should always be followed in doing this. All the various passages that deal with the particular behavior being questioned ought to be gathered to formulate a comprehensive understanding of the subject and its various ramifications. Any ethical issue must be submitted to this first principle and may be determined right or wrong based on the Biblical data accumulated.
Many passages could be cited to support the claim that the Bible is authoritative in the lives of believers because it is God-breathed (e.g., Jeremiah 36:2; Ezekial 1:3; Acts 1:16; II Peter 1:21; or Revelation 14:13), but for this study we will cite and expound but upon one passage—II Timothy 3:16, 17, which says:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
According to this passage, Scripture is the objective standard in sorting out truth from error. It is the one standard we are to use in order to correct our path so we can do the good works Christ called us to do. Therefore, anything that violates Scripture is ethically wrong despite what any particular culture might have to say about it. Finally, the authority of Scripture is transcultural because one cannot conceive of any circumstances when God would release us from His revelation’s authority.
The second principle has to do with the basic sanctity of the body. The Christian is not to willingly do something which he knows will destroy his body. The body is sacred because it is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. By implication, a holistic concept of the body is in view here. In other words, the body, with its physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions is under consideration. Anything which deteriorates one’s state of existence is prohibited by this principle. Variations as to what such things may be can be different in different cultures. Nevertheless, the Bible is the ultimate standard of authority in these matters. Any willful destruction of the body, mind, and ultimately the spirit is strictly prohibited by the word of God.
The passage we have chosen as justification for this principle illustrates the effects of sexual impurity on the physical body. But, in doing so, it also addresses the sanctification process. In other words, the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Galatians 5: 22,23) cannot be produced in a vessel that is being destroyed by sexual sin. The word of God makes it clear that spiritual and mental factors cannot be excluded when considering the destructive nature of sexual laxity.
In Corinth, sexual impurity was rampant. The city was well-known for its temple of Aphrodite and its over one-thousand prostitutes. That the Corinthian church was composed mostly of Gentile converts is well established. This means these converts would have brought many wrong and hurtful pagan ideas along with their entrance into the Corinthian church. Consequently, a great deal of teaching was necessary in order to direct them in Christian living. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians reflect this fact, particularly his first letter. The text which justifies the principle we are considering is drawn from I Corinthians 6:12-20, focusing on verses 19 and 20, which say:“
What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
In I Corinthians 3:16, the apostle Paul refers to the entire church as the temple of God. In this verse, however, he uses the word “body” in the singular. Each Christian individually represents the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, anything that would be out of place in God’s temple ought to have no place in the Christian’s life; especially sexual impurity. In giving this instruction, the apostle Paul demonstrated he was not willing to let the Corinthian culture define what was sexually permissible. Again, it is the word of God that is the standard. In addition to sexual immorality, modern issues that come under close scrutiny as a result of this principle are the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, non-prescription drugs, certain types of literature, movies, music, etc. If something a Christian is evaluating for acceptability as godly behavior leads to self-destruction, he can safely conclude that it does not respect the sanctity of the body and, consequently, does not glorify God and, thus, should be avoided.
What we do or say may have either a constructive or destructive effect on other people, particularly spiritually weak Christians who may have problems understanding the nature of Christian liberty. The concept of a “weaker brother” means that Christians are not at liberty to do anything which offends the conscience of a brother in Christ. The texts we will use to justify this principle make it clear that everything that is lawful may not actually enhance the spiritual walk of others. If one insists on doing something which may appear to some to be questionable, and he does this at the risk of causing a brother to stumble, then he demonstrates his willingness to put a fragile spiritual life in great peril. In doing so, he sins. Furthermore, the Bible also teaches that the Christian must also be sensitive to the conscience of a non-Christian. I Corinthians 8:1-13, 10:23-33, and Romans 14:14-23 are the passages which give the clearest understanding of this principle. These passages are but a further elaboration of what it means to love one’s neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:28; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; and James 2:8).
As already pointed out, many of the Corinthian Christians were Gentiles who were coming out of idolatrous backgrounds. Consequently, some of the old pagan customs were still sensitive issues to their consciences. It was a Corinthian practice to celebrate festive occasions with an animal sacrifice offered to some pagan god/idol and then eat the animal. Such events were frequently held in the temples of these gods. What was not eaten of the sacrificed animal was often offered for sale in the local meat market. As it was difficult, if not impossible, to identify the meat that had been so “used,” it was quite possible that a Christian buying meat in the market might purchase this meat. Some of the Christians who came out of pagan backgrounds had not evidently matured enough to overcome the meaning they had previously attached to such meat. Some in the Corinthian church were being offended by the careless attitude of others concerning the eating of this meat. In this context, the apostle sets forth a simple principle. Chapter eight contains his basic instructions on the subject. Whatever we do, he instructs, must not “wound…[the] weak conscience” of a brother. If we do so, we sin against Christ Himself. Chapter ten extends this principle even to non-Christians (verses 27-29). In other words, we must be careful to “Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God“ (verse 32). In Romans 14:14-23, the apostle expounds on the law of love and how it specifically relates to this issue.
In society, there must be some sort of authoritative structure to ensure order. When everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, anarchy and chaos prevail (Judges 21:25). Under such circumstances, everyone goes his own way, doing his own thing. But, eventually, the various paths cross. When they do, there is bound to be trouble. If society is going to resolve conflicts, protect individuals, and promote the general well-being of its inhabitants, there must be some kind of order. According to the Bible, certain relationships and their roles have been established for the ongoing good of society. The roles and functions prescribed for each person in these relationships serve as the glue that holds society together.
According to the Bible, the most fundamental social relationship is the family. The biblical model for this unit prescribes roles for the husband-wife and parent-child relationships. Outside the family, the Bible prescribes other roles and relationships. For example, roles and functions are set for the employer-employee (or master-slave) and government-citizen relationships. Fundamentally, the essence of each of these relationships is that of head-subject or leader-follower. In modern circles, the very idea of submission raises people’s ire. Nevertheless, can any social relationship function without there being someone willing to submit to some degree? Any law, or policy, whether decreed or voted on, means someone will have to follow and accept the will of another/others.
At the same time, it must be recognized there is a limit to which one is expected to submit in any such relationship. Even so, this right to resist is not rooted in selfish defiance of those in authority over us, but in the fact that those in authority over us cannot require us to submit to them if they are asking us to do something contrary to the God’s word. Our ultimate authority is the Lord Jesus Christ, and no one has the right to ask us to do anything that would violate this relationship.
The system of headship prescribed in the Bible regulates the horizontal relationships of human social interaction, but only so far as these relationships do not violate one’s vertical relationship with God. If something the Christian is thinking about doing contradicts the express will of his duly authorized spiritual head, then it is sin. We must always remember that the spiritual head is placed over the individual by God. As such, the head has the authority of God unless he negates his own position by expecting other to sin by submitting to his authority.
The key passages that expound this principle are Ephesians 5:22-6:9 and Romans 13:1-7. Other passages that teach this same principle are Colossians 3:18-4:1 and I Peter 2:11-3:7. The key to understanding these relationships is the word “submit.” The Greek word hupotasso was used in military settings and meant “to draw up in order of battle, to form, array, marshal.” According to Strong’s Concordance, the word meant “to arrange under; to subject one’s self, obey.” As already pointed out, to discuss the concept of submission in modern settings often provokes anger. Independence movements, women’s right’s movements, et cetera, all resist such a notion. This, in many cases, has been brought on by the abuse of rights by the spiritual head. The husband, parent, master, employer, and government official, contrary to what some seem to think, do not have the right to exercise absolute, dictatorial control over their subjects. They have been given their positions by God in order to lead and guide those obligated to submit to them with a selfless love. It is sad but true that sin frequently interferes with these God-ordained relationships. For this system to work as God intended, the heads must remember that they, too, are in submission to God. This will rule out any arrogance on the part of the spiritual head.
In summary, if something is going to be correct ethically, it must not cause us to go against the rightful will of our spiritual head or heads.
This principle is really the practical extension of the second and third principles. Paul’s whole argument in addressing the various issues at Corinth is that whatever one does in regard to ethical questions, it ought, in the final analysis, to glorify God. In I Corinthians 10:31, Paul summarizes his entire appeal that ran through the preceding four chapters by saying:
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”The idea is clear—all things are to ultimately glorify God!
The idea is clear, then, all things are to ultimately glorify God!
Admittedly, discerning whether something will glorify God can be a highly subjective process. Yet, at the same time, it can be very practical. Faith, the Bibles tells us, comes by hearing God’s word (Romans 10:17). Consequently, if we are going to do something that will glorify God, it must be done by faith. This means we ought to have book, chapter, and verse for what we are thinking about doing. If we don’t have biblical authority, then what we are about to do is sinful. Further, if we don’t know whether we have Bible authority to do a particular thing, but we do it anyway, we sin by violating our conscience (Romans 14:23). Such cannot possibly glorify God.
However, having fleshed out a model for developing a biblical ethic based on five scriptural principles is absolutely useless unless we are willing to bring to this model a willingness to seek, find, and follow the will of God regarding any particular ethical issue. When we do so, we will know how the Lord wants you to conduct ourselves ethically (John 7:17).
We live in a society where the prevailing worldview is Evolutionism. Another name for Evolutionism is Naturalism. Evolutionism/Naturalism has five major tenets:
- Matter exists eternally and is all there is. There is no God.
- The universe exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.
- Human beings are just complex “machines.” Their personalities are an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand.
- History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without any overarching purpose.
- Death is the extinction of personality and individuality.
These five tenets are built upon seven astounding presuppositions:
- everything ultimately came from nothing,
- order came from chaos,
- harmony came from discord,
- life came from nonlife,
- reason came from irrationality,
- personality came from nonpersonality,
- and morality came from amorality.
Of course, these seven premises are built upon blind faith. I say blind because nothing in our observation of the universe indicates that any of these seven premises are true. In fact, all the observations of science tell us these seven premises are baseless. Consequently, Evolutionism/Naturalism, much to the embarrassment of its disciples, is nothing more than a Religio-philosophical system built on nothing but blind faith.
As an objection to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every obedient believer, some argue that such a personal indwelling would be an incarnation, of which, they claim, there has only been one; namely, the case of Jesus of Nazareth. What follows is my response to such thinking.
Only One Incarnation
I, too, believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the only incarnation. However, my use of the term “incarnation” comes with a caveat. Because the term is nowhere used in the Scriptures, but is, nevertheless, a word that stands for the divine Logos becoming flesh (John 1:14, NKJV), how we are using it is vitally important. In Webster’s definition of the subject at hand, he says it refers to “the union of God and man in the person of Christ” (New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, Lexington Publications, 1992). I have no problem with this definition as I believe it correctly identifies the scriptural idea being discussed. However, under the same word, Webster’s list as one of its definitions as “an embodiment” (Ibid.). So, if you’re using incarnation as “an embodiment,” then such a definition would include the indwelling of the actual Holy Spirit in our bodies. But, if you’re using the incarnation to refer to “the union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ,” then it would be wrong to say that our bodies being indwelt by the Holy Spirit is an “incarnation.”
One meaning of “to equivocate” is to use “the double meaning of a word” to one’s advantage. Therefore, for one to insist on using the two very different definitions of incarnation mentioned above as if they were interchangeable, especially after such a difference has been noted, opens one up to the charge of equivocation, which no Christian would knowingly engage in. Anyway, when it comes to the bottom line, the point is not what Webster’s has to say about the term “incarnation,” but that the Bible means by “became flesh.” As surprising as it may sound to some, the thing that makes the Incarnation the Incarnation is not that deity indwelt flesh, but that deity (viz., the divine Logos) became flesh (i.e., human—viz., Jesus of Nazareth). John does not say the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. Instead, he says He became a man. This is why the Scriptures point out that anyone who denies Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is exhibiting the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7).
There is only one Incarnation. God, in the person of the Logos, “became flesh” and dwelt among us as Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn’t always Jesus of Nazareth. That’s who He was (and still is) when He became flesh. That is far different than Allan Turner, along with other Christians, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I’m not God incarnate; I’m Allan Turner who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When indwelling me and other Christians, the Holy Spirit does not become flesh. That is, He does not become anything other than what he is and always has been. That is far different than the Incarnation. Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit does not make me the Holy Spirit nor does it make the Holy Spirit Allan Turner. There are many such indwellings (1 Corinthians 3:16; Romans 8:9), but only one Incarnation.
Therefore, I see no validity to the “Why isn’t the indwelling of the Holy Spirit an incarnation” argument.