Preachers Who Don’t Believe — The Scandal of Apostate Pastors

Mic 2:4 In that day they shall take up a taunt song against you and moan bitterly, and say, "We are utterly ruined; he changes the portion of my people; how he removes it from me! To an apostate he allots our fields."

Sadly we face this daily as we grow more into a socialistic mind set in America as it had already taken all of Europe. Communism is desperately forcing its way into individual lives which America is the the country most wanted to be conquered by these socialists and atheists which basically there are no true such things but only those who love their sin the most so they want to socialize the most with what keeps them all comfortable in their sin and yes Marxism in all its murderous systematic forms drowned in sin has to continue to push its agenda. And as we see it started with the house of GOD.

May we all come back to GOD and Repent so GOD will Bless our nations once again before it is too late.

RW

Preachers Who Don’t Believe — The Scandal of Apostate Pastors

http://www.albertmohler.com/

Are there clergy who don't believe in God? That is the question posed by a new report that is certain to receive considerable attention -- and rightly so. Few church members are likely to be disinterested in whether their pastor believes in God.

The study was conducted by the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, under the direction of Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola. Dennett, of course, is one of the primary figures in the "New Atheism" -- the newly aggressive and influential atheist movement that has gained a considerable hearing among the intellectual elites and the media.

Dennett is a cognitive scientist whose book, Breaking the Spell, suggests that belief in God must have at one point served an important evolutionary purpose, granting an evolutionary advantage to those who had some belief in an afterlife as compared to humans without such a belief. The reality of death, Dennett surmises, might well have been the precipitating factor. In order to make life meaningful in the face of death (and thus encourage reproduction), Dennett suggests that primitive humans invented the idea of God and the afterlife. Now, he argues, we have no more need of such primitive beliefs.

Interestingly, Dennett also proposes a new interpretation of theological liberalism. Noting that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, Dennett suggests that their mode of faith should not be described as "belief," but rather as "believing in belief."

Given Dennett's own atheistic agenda, we can rightly assume that he would be thrilled to see Christian ministers and believers abandon the faith. Indeed, the New Atheists have made this a stated aim. Thus, this new research report, "Preachers Who Are Not Believers," should be read within that framework. Nevertheless, it must be read. This report demands the attention of anyone concerned with the integrity of the Christian church and the Christian faith.

Dennett and LaScola undertook their project with the goal of looking for unbelieving pastors and ministers who continue to serve their churches in "secret disbelief." Their "small and self-selected" sample of ministers represents a microcosm of the theological collapse at the heart of many churches and denominations.

In their report, Dennett and LaScola present case studies of five unbelieving ministers, three from liberal denominations ("the liberals") and two from conservative denominations ("the literals").

Wes, a Methodist, lost his confidence in the Bible while attending a liberal Christian college and seminary. "I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people," he explained. Now, he no longer believes that God exists. In his rendering, God is a word that "can be used very expressively in some of my more meditative modes" and "a kind of poetry that is written by human beings."

His church members do not know that he is an atheist, but he explains that they are somewhat liberal themselves. His ministerial colleagues are even more liberal: "They've been de-mythologized, I'll say that. They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead literally. They don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. They don't believe all those things that would cause a big stir in their churches."

Rick, a campus minister for the United Church of Christ, perhaps the most liberal Protestant denomination, was an agnostic in college and seems to have lost all belief by the time he graduated from seminary. He chose ordination in the UCC because it required "no forced doctrine." Even as he graduated from seminary, he knew, "I'm not going to make it in a conventional church." He knew he could not go into a church and teach his own theological views, based on Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann. He did not believe in the doctrinal content of the Christian faith from the beginning of his ministry. "I did not believe the traditional things even then."

He does not believe "all this creedal stuff" about the incarnation of Christ or the need for salvation, but he remained in the ministry because, "These are my people, this is the context in which I work, these are the people that I know." In the pulpit, his mode is to talk as if he does believe, because "as long as ... you are talking about God and Jesus and the Bible, that's what they want to hear. You're just phrasing it in a way that makes sense to [them] ... but language is ambiguous and can be heard in different ways."

He doesn't like to call himself an atheist, but: "If not believing in a supernatural, theistic god is what distinguishes an atheist, then I am one too."

Darryl is a Presbyterian who sees himself as a "progressive-minded" pastor who wants to see his kind of non-doctrinal Christianity "given validity in some way." He acknowledges that he is more a pantheist than a theist, and thinks that many of the more educated members of his church hold to the same liberal beliefs as his own. And those beliefs (or unbeliefs) are stated clearly: "I reject the virgin birth. I reject substitutionary atonement. I reject the divinity of Jesus. I reject heaven and hell in the traditional sense, and I am not alone."

Amazingly, Darryl is candid about the fact that he remains in the ministry largely for financial reasons. It is how he provides for his family. If he openly espoused his beliefs, "I may be burning bridges in terms of my ability to earn a living this way."

Adam ministers in the Church of Christ, a conservative denomination. After years in the ministry, he began to lose all theological confidence. After reading a series of books, he became convinced that the atheists have better arguments than believers. He has moved fully into an atheist mode, yet he continues to lead his church in worship. How? "Here's how I'm handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I see myself as taking on the role of a believer in a worship service, and performing."

This "atheistic agnostic" stays in the ministry because he likes the people and, "I need the job still." If he had an alternative source of income, he would take it. He feels hypocritical, but no longer believes that hypocrisy is wrong.

John is identified as a Southern Baptist minister who has primarily served as a worship leader. He was attracted to Christianity as a religion of love, but his pursuit of Christianity "brought me to the point of not believing in God." As he explains, "I didn't plan to become an atheist. I didn't even want to become an atheist. It's just I had no choice. If I'm being honest with myself."

He is clearly not being honest with his church members. He rejects all belief in God and all Christian truth claims out of hand. He is a determined atheist. Once again, this unbelieving minister admits that he stays in the ministry because of finances. Amazingly, this minister even names his price: "If someone said, 'Here's $200,000,' I'd be turning my notice in this week, saying, 'A month from now is my last Sunday.' Because then I can pay off everything."

Early in their report, Dennett and LaScola point to a problem of definition. Many churches and denominations have adopted such fluid and doctrineless identities that determining who is a believer and who is an unbeliever has become difficult. Their statement deserves a close reading:

The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked.

In other words, some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart.

"Preachers Who Are Not Believers" is a stunning and revealing report that lays bare a level of heresy, apostasy, and hypocrisy that staggers the mind. In 1739, Gilbert Tennett preached his famous sermon, "On the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry." In that sermon, Tennett described unbelieving pastors as a curse upon the church. They prey upon the faith and the faithful. "These caterpillars labor to devour every green thing."

If they will not remove themselves from the ministry, they must be removed. If they lack the integrity to resign their pulpits, the churches must muster the integrity to eject them. If they will not "out" themselves, it is the duty of faithful Christians to "out" them. The caterpillars are hard at work. Will it take a report from an atheist to awaken the church to the danger?

I Told Mennonites to “Go to Hell” (and they liked it!) by Greg Boyd

To all: Haven't written on this blog for awhile since I have been totally busy with my other blog AMERICAN MORAL LIBERTY ONION because everyday there is a political reason that needs much prayer and focus of our ever fading Republic based on in GOD we trust. But as I was surfing and studying mostly this article caught my eye that I had to post it here..this is an awesome testimony and I hope it uplifts you all who love the LORD and are growing everyday in satisfaction of HIM alone.

Enjoy :o)

Love Richard White

(ps click above on the heading to for this persons BLOG where the article came from.)


I Told Mennonites to “Go to Hell” (and they liked it!)

January 22nd, 2010

Before I explain the title of this blog, a couple of updates.

* My friend Dr. Jen Halverson has been in Haiti for five days now. She is working in one of the make-shift “clinics” that have been set up in what’s left of Port Au Prince. I’d encourage you to follow her blog and hold her up in prayer. The stories and photos Jen shares are horrific, but they help us get on the inside of the devastation we’re dealing with. I honestly doubt any of us will witness suffering of this magnitude again in our lifetime. Sadly, Haiti is already becoming “old news” to the world, while the suffering will go on for years and the rebuilding process for decades or longer. We must not forget these dear people.

* A number of us who are associated with Providence Ministries were hoping to join Jen in Haiti in the near future but we’re now being advised by our connections in Haiti that we should hold off indefinitely, for a number of reasons. We’re bummed by this, but it seems the wise thing to do. Meanwhile, I want to thank the many who have generously supported the Haitian Relief effort, especially those who gave to Providence Ministries. Thank you! Your money will facilitate Jen’s work as well as going towards long term relief efforts in and around Providence House. (If you’d like contribute, go here and use the paypal button or mail donations using the contact information in the right sidebar.)

And now, about those hell-bound Mennonites.

This week I was honored to be the keynote speaker at a leadership conference held at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg Virginia. My talks centered on how radically different the Kingdom of God is from all versions of the kingdom of the world and why it is so important to faithfully preserve this distinction. I just love the warmth and humility of this gentle tribe and they always make me feel at home. It seemed my talks were well received (which is not to say that everyone agreed with me on every point).

There just seems to be a unique chemistry I have with the Mennonites. It’s more than a little odd to me, because, in all honesty, I hardly ever say anything these folks haven’t heard many times before. The radical vision of the non-violent, Calvary-looking Kingdom that is so new to me and that I’m so excited about is the one Anabaptists have embraced for the last five hundred years! You’d think they’d be bored with me! Yet, as one dear lady at the conference told me after one of my talks, there’s a “newness” about the way I articulate this view of the Kingdom that rekindles their passion for it.

Not only this, but this lady felt my “unMennonite” demeanor was refreshing. When I asked what she meant, she said that my “hyper personality” and “iconoclastic humor” in the pulpit contrasted strongly with the Anabaptist tradition in which preachers have been encouraged to be subdued and reverent. In her view, my “unMennonite” style was helping old school Mennonites like herself hear the message of the Kingdom as if for the first time.

This lady particularly liked it when I told my Mennonite audience to “Go to Hell!” “I’m quite sure no Mennonite has ever heard that from a church pulpit before,” she said with a laugh. I honestly hadn’t planned on saying this (as if I plan most of the things that come out of my mouth!), but it just seemed to be an appropriate way to end a little talk I’d given on Jesus’ teaching that “the gates of hell won’t prevail against the church” (Mt. 16:16-18). I taught that, while Mennonites have traditionally tended to be preoccupied with keeping hell out of their communities and have thus tended to be a bit reclusive, Jesus is calling them (and all of us) to boldly take the Gospel into the world and aggressively storm the gates of hell (that is, areas that are under the dominion of Satan rather than God). And so, it just seemed appropriate to conclude this section of my talk by telling them to “Go to Hell!” It seemed they appreciate it!

As the religion of Christendom dies a slow death (praise God!) and the vision of the cruciform Kingdom is caught by more and more people around the globe, it will be interesting to see what role the Mennonites (and other Anabaptist groups) will play, for they alone have the tradition that is centered on this vision. My conviction is that if they will continue to rekindle their passion for this Kingdom while holding loosely to every other aspect of their tradition, and if they can raise up leaders and embrace others who are willing to take this vision of the kingdom and GO TO HELL, the Mennonites are positioned to be used by God to advance his Kingdom in the years to come in ways that will be powerful, beautiful and amazing.

Peace,

Greg

Imagination..does Imagination rule our lives or does GOD's Imagination.

Imagination.


1 Corinthians 2:14-16 (Amplified Bible)

14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

15But the spiritual man tries all things [he [a]examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].

16For who has known or understood the mind (the counsels and purposes) of the Lord so as to guide and instruct Him and give Him knowledge? But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts (feelings and purposes) of His heart.

Lion
Something I like to pass along for some to grow who actually want to grow away from themselves and their imaginations so that More of Christ becomes their life keeping in with what Paul says in the same breathe as John The Baptist says
Paul: "I am crucified with Christ..it is no longer I who live But Christ who lives within me.."
John the Baptist: "HE must increase and I must decrease."

As usual I love to study GOD's Word and dive into the very deep of HIS message to US who are HIS just to continue the daily examination and the meditation I seem to always get caught up in which is actually a blessing....... So Here are my passings along to those who love to share in His Wisdom.... Grin

Coming to this text I have been truly meditating on Imagination for quite sometime because it seem that mostly to as why our BODY seems to be losing its flavor because the salt seems to be losing its taste because of all the denominations ever growing worse and the many many divisions on all kinds of non essential and non edifying points of view really based on outrageous opinions and imaginations that may use Scripture but are out of context with it drastically.. Some in the BODY tend to be to unloving as well to which this is not a fruit of Christ one iota...so I want to pass on this study so LOVE will grow in you and through you so you can head away from LOVE ever growing Cold within you.
So keeping it simple as much as I can I want to just focus on imagination from Scripture.

Starting with my first verses in the OT in Exodus Chapter 20:1-7 and really going no further but to understand what IMAGE God really means as well as the obvious. In Order to do this I must deny all my opinions, imaginations and whatever else my brain and heart wants to logically, superfically and with opinion interpret. Stopping myself and really asking to God really is saying to US. So lets us see and soak in what the Spirit will say.

Exodus 20
1THEN GOD spoke all these words:

2I am the Lord your God, Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3You shall have no other gods before or besides Me.

4You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

5You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me,

6But showing mercy and steadfast love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

7You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Now do we truly see what this all means? Now ask yourself..did you read it very very slowly not missing a single part? Besides the obvious what Truly speaks out to you? Are you getting it yet? Has Godly sense entered into your hardened mind and heart? No? read it again over and over before you move on and really think about it. Meditate on the LORD.

Okay again
Pause and then pause again. Lips Sealed Truly examine the text and please no rushing it. Lips Sealed Just meditate on it. Grin

Now look Sloooooooowly at these verses very carefully I mean with a fine toothed comb so to speak. See what GOD is truly saying. Come on it is okay to be Puritan about it hehehehe. Wink Grin

# Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:4-6 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
# Genesis 8:21
When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor [a scent of satisfaction to His heart], the Lord said to Himself, I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination (the strong desire) of man's heart is evil and wicked from his youth; neither will I ever again smite and destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Genesis 8:20-22 (in Context) Genesis 8 (Whole Chapter)
# Psalm 73:7
Their eyes stand out with fatness, they have more than heart could wish; and the imaginations of their minds overflow [with follies].
Psalm 73:6-8 (in Context) Psalm 73 (Whole Chapter)
# Proverbs 18:11
The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as a high protecting wall in his own imagination and conceit.
Proverbs 18:10-12 (in Context) Proverbs 18 (Whole Chapter)
# Luke 1:51
He has shown strength and made might with His arm; He has scattered the proud and haughty in and by the imagination and purpose and designs of their hearts.
Luke 1:50-52 (in Context) Luke 1 (Whole Chapter)
# Acts 17:29
Since then we are God's offspring, we ought not to suppose that Deity (the Godhead) is like gold or silver or stone, [of the nature of] a representation by human art and imagination, or anything constructed or invented.

So with help above in the blk letters, do you actually understand Christian what this meditation brings? This is truly serious to you and I. With all the things and winds of doctrines of Prophetic subjects, eschatology, and the like, Have we truly been truly seeking out HIS Will in these matters to where confusion and division continue on in our BODY because of our own or someone else critical imaginations disguised as truth OR do we actually set aside our imaginations and opinions and or others taught imaginations and opinions, to truly seek out what these really mean by actually allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture? And Lastly do all we study truly centers ourselves on the Excellency of Christ JESUS alone.?

Slowly take these questions in so you do not miss it.

Ephesians 4:14
So then, we may no longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men, [gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead.

Hbr 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

Our own Imaginations and opinions no matter what are graven images we tend to put in front of GOD and HIS WORD. And we must truly watch and examine ourselves to see if this is so. We are not are own any longer if We are in Christ. Even our imagination belongs to HIM.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is also taking HIS name in vain if we live with a particular world view that is outside of HIS WORD or that we apply to HIS WORD. IF we are not alert and watching even ourselves sometime our imagination or ones we tend to stand on infects the BODY with a foul smell and of arguments that never tend to edify. IF we have a world view we must examine ourselves to see if we are truly in HIS faith which is our faith. Does our world view or anothers agree with Scripture truly? Now is our world view GOD's WORLD VIEW ALONE? IF it truly is then we ALL come to agreement in the SPIRIT with no avail just like ;

1 John 5:8 and there are three witnesses on the earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree [are in unison; their testimony coincides].

Which brings us all into unity YES thinking alike..being Like minded even when we IRON out, the and our differences which should be next to nil.

1 John 5:20 And we [ ALL have seen and] know [positively] that the Son of God has [actually] come to this world and has given us understanding and insight [progressively] to perceive (recognize) and come to know better and more clearly Him Who is true; and we are in Him Who is true--in His Son Jesus Christ (the Messiah). This [Man] is the true God and Life eternal.

As Paul Drastically and loving reminds US daily;

1 Corinthians 12:25
So that there should be no division or discord or lack of adaptation [of the parts of the body to each other], but the members all alike (LIKE MINDED) should have a mutual interest in and care for one another.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Do you see to as to how that even our own imaginations and or opinions can cause division none the less taking Scripture out of context in the process? All this to leads to taking Christs name in vain as well. And division leading into denomination has shown this vain side in our BODY. We still stand divided in our BODY which is not what UNITY or like minded means.

We also allow other interpretations vainly convince US away from the true focus of What GOD's Word truly is centered on. Does GOD's Word alone truly speak to you seriously? Are you truly living Christ Centered in all things that means truly denying yourself and your imagination?

These are things we must consider because it is Christ that should be our main focus and Center on all things not letting any prophetic or eschatological or particular points of view be a focus that will tend to take away our focus on GOD who is the Gospel alone. And Tomorrow is NEVER guaranteed while we yet live in our condemned fleshly sinful bodies we are about to shed when HE calls us home to be with HIM forever which is the chief and final end of man. Yes the ones who LOVE HIM ALONE are going for sure.

What is the Chief and highest end of man?
Man's chief and highest end of man is to Glorify GOD and to FULLY ENJOY HIM FOREVER.

Which leads us to the First part of Exodus 20 again basically in the First verse saying to love the LORD your GOD will ALL your HEART, SOUL, MIND, And Strength ALONE so you can LOVE your neighbor as your love yourselves. And you will not create an Image of any kind because GOD is the satisfaction you seek alone. All the rest will be added unto you. Wink

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols (false gods)--[from anything and everything that would occupy the place in your heart due to God, from any sort of substitute for Him that would take first place in your life]. Amen (so let it be).


Hope you enjoyed this meditation of mine.

Once Saved, Always Saved, But Are You Truly Saved?

Once Saved, Always Saved, But Are You Truly Saved?

These are the crucial things we must look at to examine ourselves daily but with fervor to want to be like Christ. For it is not I who live but Christ who lives in me. So are you crucified with Christ.

Read on... this a good article that needs no comment truly. It explains it all. Read very carefully Christian and pass this on.

RW

Once Saved, Always Saved, But Are You Truly Saved?
By Ray Gano

I have been feeling the need to write a series of articles in these last days of the last days dealing with salvation, due to all the deception taking place in the world today.

To start things off, let me pose to you the situation that we are currently facing.

According to American Religious Identification Survey, 2001, 76.5% of America identifies with some form of Christianity in America. This study included Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness in among the title “Christian.” (1)

Now here is another study, one which I find very interesting by George Barna.

Barna Survey Examines Changes in Worldview Among Christians over the Past 13 Years

The Definition

“For the purposes of the survey, a “biblical worldview” was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.”

The Conclusion

“The same questions were asked of respondents in national surveys by Barna in 1995, 2000 and 2005. The results indicate that the percentage of adults with a biblical worldview, as defined above, has remained unchanged for more than a decade. The numbers show that 7% had such a worldview in 1995, compared to 10% in 2000, 11% in 2005, and 9% now.” (2)

The numbers are going down with those who maintain a biblical worldview.

So my question is, how can you claim to be a Christian, when only 7% - 9% of America maintains a true biblical world view?

But here is a more interesting question, which percentage factor do you fall into; the 90% who do NOT hold to a biblical worldview or the 7%-9% who do?

Now to narrow this down even further, if you are part of the 7% -9% that maintains a biblical worldview, are you truly saved and how do you know / prove it?

The Strait Gate or The Wide Gate

I want to present to you some if not THE scariest verses to a Christian that there is in the bible. Folks, these verses should terrify you if you claim the title Christian.

Matthew 7:13-23
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I have been doing a lot of study on Matthew 7. I have been reading commentaries, listening to sermons, ect. My conclusion is that Matthew 7 of God’s Word is one of the most profound chapters for Christians living in these last days of the last days.

The Profound facts are…

1. In Matthew 7 Christ was talking to and addressing professing believers and not the unbelievers as has been taught for the past 50 or so years.

2. That many who are claimed “Christian” and think they are believers, are in fact non-believers sold a lie and are destined to hell.

3. There are many wolves in sheep’s clothing deceiving and selling many the lie thus leading many to hell.

4. Nothing good at all comes from a false teacher… NOTHING.

5. Finally, it is not our acts / works / fruit that save us, it is our acts / works / fruit that prove we have been saved.

Are You Truly Saved And Walking The Way?

I am a person that stands on the fact that once a person is truly saved, they can not loose their salvation. In other words I stand on the doctrine of Eternal Security.

Eternal Security is the idea that once a person is truly saved, he can never lose his salvation.

The primary verses I stand upon are the following…

1 John 5:13
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 6:37
6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:39-40
6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 10:27-28
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

But here is the point that I am getting to with a question to consider. How does a person know he was ever saved in the first place?

I want to point back to Matthew 7:13-14

Matthew 7:13-14
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

If you read these two verses you see that there are actually two gates and two ways. You see, we have been teaching about the gate since the day of Pentecost, but it seems that in the last 50 or so years, we have forgotten to teach about The Way, which is also spoken of by Christ.

If you remember, my first profound point that I made about Matthew 7 is that Christ is addressing the professing believer / Christian and NOT the unbeliever or heathen. We know that this is fact due to the context Christ was speaking. Who else in the world’s religions truly call Jesus Christ “Lord Lord”? No one but a professing Christian. Not even the Mormons, who DO NOT admit to Jesus as THE LORD, but “a lord” and the same goes with many of the other cults out there that claim connections to Christianity.

So it is only the professing believer, as we read in context that Christ was addressing and talking about and who addresses Him as LORD.

So when we read in verse 13 about the Wide Gate and the Broadway, it is professing “Christians” who have entered that Wide Gate and are walking that Broadway.

But there is more. We learn in reading Matthew 7 about false teachers and how we are called to judge them by their fruit, but in reading, we see that we are judged by our fruit also.

Matthew 7:20
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

See, that is the $500,000.00 question that has been forgotten these past 50 or so years.

How do we know people are Christians?

We know by the fact that they are walking upon the narrow way as Christ clearly teaches. It is by our fruit that we are producing. If we are walking upon the narrow way, we will produce fruit according to that path.

Another point, is that if you are truly born again the World will hate your fruit, but if you are a “Christian In Name Only (C.I.N.O) then the world will love the fruit you are producing.

Examples of the Religious World Fruit…

- Fighting against Global Warming
- Fighting for equal rights for homosexuals (Sodomites) and Gay Marriage.
- Fighting for pluralism in the religious world.
- The end justifies the means.

Where we learn in scripture that the world loves it’s own and the love of the father is not in that person.

1 John 2:15-17
2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

But that is if we are walking The Narrow Way, our fruit is as follows…

- Obeying God’s Word and a thirst to learn the deeper things of God.
- Living a Holy and acceptable Life pleasing unto God
- Our love for the brethren, delight in church and fellowship
- Our desire not to sin and a life of continued repentance
- Judging all through the lens of God’s Word and not of the World.

To the world, those things above seem foolish and to the person walking the Broadway, these things seem impossible. You see we can not achieve those things listed unless we have the Holy Sprit working in our lives and the power of the Lord giving us His strength to do so on a daily basis.

The sad thing is that many believe we are on the Narrow Way, but we often forget the most terrifying part that Christ speaks of about this… FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT.

How do we know that we are walking upon the narrow way?

James 2:14-19
2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Now note here that I am not talking about Salvation, also known as The Gate. I am addressing The Way. See there is a true salvation and a false salvation. Christ calls it the Wide Gate and the Strait Gate.

“For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat.”

If you have chosen the false Christ – the wide gate – and you are walking upon the broad ways, you are leading a life destined to destruction believing you are one of God’s children, when in fact you have been lied to and believing a deception.

How do we know we are on The Narrow Way? We know because our life reflects a life growing more and more in Christ. We live a life where we have presented our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, not only in our public life, but our private life as well. We have not conformed to this world: but we were transformed by the renewing of our mind, that we may prove what is good, and acceptable, and the perfect will of God.

Let’s read what Romans 12:1-2 states…

Romans 12:1-2
12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

If you are walking on the narrow path you will naturally show an outward practical holiness as a mark of one saved by grace.

Let me be very clear here; I am also not talking being saved by works here either. One can not be saved by works, and in fact if someone tells you can get to heaven from works, run away from them as fast as you can. It is only through the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which we are saved.

For Christ said…

John 14:6
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Ephesians 2:8-9
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

It is Jesus and Jesus alone who is the Strait Gate. The problem is that many have chosen the Wide Gate thinking it is The Narrow Gate. That is because we preach about “The Gate”, but no longer “The Way.”

Living as a Changed Man or Living as a Filthy Pig?

Charles Spurgeon stated the following…

“The man who is born for heaven "hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity." All men have their joys, by which their souls are lifted up; the worldling lifts up his soul in carnal delights, which are mere empty vanities; but the saint loves more substantial things; like Jehoshaphat, he is lifted up in the ways of the Lord. He who is content with husks, will be reckoned with the swine. Does the world satisfy thee? Then thou hast thy reward and portion in this life; make much of it, for thou shalt know no other joy.”

Imagine that there is a pig and I am standing about 100 ft away. To one side is a beautiful 7 course dinner and to the other side is a large bucket of slop.

We release the pig and where is he going to run to? To the slop of course! Why? Because he is a pig and that is all that pigs know.

Now imagine if you will that we were able to change that pig into a man, all the while he is eating the slop. What will happen? Well the odds are that he will lift up his head and look around at his environment and then spit out the slop he was feeding upon when he was a pig. Why? Because he is no longer a pig that is able to feed upon slop, but a man needing a form of food to give him nutrition that he might live.

This man is now a new creature and is no longer a pig.

Now from time to time he may even have pig thoughts about the wonderful slop he once ate when he was a pig. He may even go to the slop bucket from time to time, smell it, look at it. But the moment he feeds upon it what will happen? He will spit it out because he is no longer a pig but a man. Even if he as a man he forces himself to eat the slop, which men are able to do, it will eventually cause him to vomit it all up and make him sick possibly unto death because his body no longer accepts slop because he is a new creature.

Now if one thinks he is a man and can still stomach the slop day in and day out, what makes him think he was changed into a new creature in the first place? If he is feeding upon the slop of the world and does not get sick to his stomach, maybe he was never changed into new creature in the first place and to this day remains a pig.

Scripture says…

2 Corinthians 5:17
5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ephesians 5:5
5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Hebrews 12:6
12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

When we are truly converted, we can no longer stomach the slop of the world, the fleshly sin that we once indulged in. When we entertain the sin, and all of us do from time to time, it makes us sick with guilt and shame because it is the Holy Spirit working in our lives chastening us from the inside out because God loves us as His children. Scripture says that God chastens His own.

…That my friend is part of walking The Narrow Way.

What you need to fear, is if you are living a double life and living in sin; AND… God does not chasten you. You may ask, how do you know God is chastening you? Oh believe me you will know. Your life will be absolutely miserable, that is until you repent and get back on the narrow path. But more importantly, you as one of His children KNOWS that you are called to repent and a refusal to do so is rebellion unto the Lord. Your own heart, soul and mind call you to repent, but you may choose to still run. Friend; God will let you run, but for only a short distance, then he will chastise you, bringing you to your knees and bringing you back as His own.

My friend, if you do not have God working and changing and chastening you in your life and you are claiming to be a Christian, you need to rethink your salvation and ask if you are truly saved in the first place.

There is no such thing as a Carnal Christian living long periods in the world. If you are, you are not saved. God does not let you run very long if you are one of His and if you are one of His, you know this for a fact because you yourself have experienced exactly what I am stating and you know it is true.

If your ways are not His ways and you do not feel God’s Hand chastening your life, odds are that you are not born again and are just one of those who checked of a box, raised a hand and that is about all. You are one who has walked through the Wide Gate and is upon the Broadway bound for hell.

You have no fruit showing that your life has been changed by Christ. Instead your life reflects that of the world and a love for the world. It is the worldly music you listen to, the sex driven TV shows you watch the things of the world you indulge in. They are not the ways of the Lord, but the ways of the world. In fact you are like the many, indulging in the world, your sin, the flesh and walking upon the broad way which leads to hell and your fruit show it.

How Do I Know That I Am Truly Saved And Walking Upon The Narrow Way?

First John lists ways we can know that we are one of God’s elect…

1 If we keep His commandments

1 John 2:3
2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

2 If we keep His Word

1 John 2:4
2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

3 if we walk in love

1 John 2:5
2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

4 If we love the brethren

1 John 3:14
3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

5 If we love in deed, not only in word

1 John 3:19
3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

6 If we have the Holy Spirit within us

1 John 3:24
3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

7 If we love one another

1 John 4:13
4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

8 If we don’t continue in sin

1 John 5:18
5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Walking through the gate, is the first part, but we must make sure WHICH gate it is that we have truly walked through and this is why Matthew 7 is one of the most terrifying chapters in all of scripture.

Christ said the following…

Matthew 13:3-9
13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
13:4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

If you are truly saved, you are as the good ground that brought forth good fruit, but if you are not, the seed that was sown was cast upon stony place, where the sun scorched or among the thorns. All of that seed did not produce good fruit and in all cases withered away and died.

What did Christ tell us?

Matthew 7:20
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

If you have gotten this far with me and are asking yourself " Are You Saved?” You need to examine yourself.

Do you love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind? Do you obey His commandments? When someone looks at you, do they see the world or do they see someone who reflects a life of Christ?

OR… do you make excuses and tell half truths about yourself.

Folks, a half truth is a full lie and you are not fooling anyone, but more than that, God knows and you are not fooling Him either.

Folks, if you are not saved, it is true that you can fake a lot of this. But as we have seen by many of the false teachers out there, it is only for a season and sooner or later they fall and their true secret lives are reveled. What do you do when you are alone and no one is watching? What are your private pet sins that you indulge in and truly enjoy? What “Christian” masks do you wear, fooling those around you and even yourself?

Romans 8:5-8
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

1 John 2:3-6
2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

I pray to continue this series as the Lord leads me. I am deeply concerned about the church today. Many have chosen the Broadway because that is what they have been taught. The sad thing is that it is a lie that leads to hell.

But more importantly, you need to sit yourself down right here and right now and really examine yourself.

Scripture says…

2 Corinthians 13:5
13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

After that, ask yourself…

Who Do You Serve?

Jesus stated the following…

John 14:6
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If you do not have Christ in your life, you will spend eternity in hell. This is a fact. It does not matter if you believe this or not, it is the truth spoken by Jesus himself. If your name is not written in the Lambs Book of Life you will go to hell for what you have not done and that is accepting Christ as your personal savior. To be placed in the Lamb Book of Life, you need to turn your life completely over to Him. Having “head” knowledge or “just believing in Christ” is not the same as having “heart” knowledge with Christ living in your heart. Even the “devils” believe in God.

James 2:19
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

We work hard at Prophezine to show that Bible Prophecy is coming to pass. Because of this fact, we know that the Bible is true. Since the Bible is the true and is the inerrant word of God, there is a heaven and there is a hell.

If you claim the title of “Christian” then take account of yourself this day. Many claim the title, but we read in God’s Word that the title does not get you into heaven.

Matthew 7:21-23
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Who you serve will determine where you will spend eternity. If you are not serving Christ and a true child of God, then you are serving satan and a child of the enemy.

If you are not 110% sure, then take account of yourself, your very life depends upon it.

1 John 1:9
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

http://www.prophezine.com...ed/tabid/918/Default.aspx

Good article.

RW

Natural law and conservatism.

HERE have a History Lesson........RW

Issues analysis
Natural law and conservatism
August 10, 2009
Fred Hutchison, RA analyst

Natural law is a vital part of the conservative intellectual heritage. Among the five ancient kinds of conservatism, natural law is the second oldest. Natural law ideas were vital to the American founding fathers.

In this essay, we shall enter the modern era through the natural law of G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, and through these outstanding Christians, demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity and natural law.

Natural Law and the 5 kinds of conservatism

The five kinds of conservatism are listed below in order of their first known historical appearance:

1) Traditionalist conservatism as inspired by Hesiod's mythical golden age (8th century B.C.).

2) Natural law philosophy as expounded in elemental form by Aristotle (4th century B. C). Roman stoics such as Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, developed natural law principles and a universal moral law based on nature (1st century B.C. — 2nd century A.D.). Natural law theory was perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

3) Neo-conservatism for the world of imperial Rome by Virgil (1st century B.C.).

4) Christian conservatism (1st century A.D.). The perfect agreement of Apostles' Creed (2nd century), the Nicene Creed (4th century), and the Augsburg Confession (16th century) illustrates the astonishing continuity and stability of the doctrinal orthodoxy of Christianity — which is the very essence of Christian conservatism.

5) Libertarianism as per Thomas Hobbes (17th century). Hobbes had an extremely individualistic view of natural law and came up with a formula for proto-libertarianism. Some of the proto-libertarians morphed into "classical liberals" in the 18th century. They adopted the natural law ideas of Grotius, Locke, and Montesquieu, and the classical economics of Adam Smith and perhaps also the individualistic pragmatism of Benjamin Franklin.

Several of the founding fathers were classical liberals. Their views of natural law were metaphysically deeper and more harmonious and balanced than that of proto-libertarians like Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry. Revolutionary fervor was stoked by proto-libertarians like Paine and Henry. However, the U.S. Constitution, written mainly by James Madison, a classical liberal, was a masterpiece of mature and harmonious natural law principles.

Now let us skip forward to the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Natural law vs. positive law

Natural law was generally assumed to be the proper basis of legislative law in the 19th century. It was "the law above the law." It has been seriously challenged and almost eclipsed by a rival theory of law in the 20th century — namely, "positive law" or "legal realism," which simply means that man makes up his own law. Instead of consulting universal principles, man consults his own needs, wants, and agendas, or the changing norms of the society in which he lives.

Positive law advocates fancy that they are realistic about the contemporary world, but they are not. They are blown about by popular fads — and therefore are uniquely out of touch with the world.

One might suppose that ideological, agenda-driven politics — like that of President Obama's administration — would have a certain stability and continuity in policy matters. Yet no administration has ever been blown about by changing winds like this one. In contrast, natural law is immune to fads and changing winds, yet provides a stable vantage point from which to view the contemporary scene.

Positive law and judicial activism

The legal revolution in which positive law replaced natural law preceded and facilitated judicial activism and progressive agendas to remake society through law.

I must disagree with the venerable and learned Judge Bork on this point of legal history. In The Tempting of America (1990), the venerable judge pointed to spectacular early cases in American legal history in which judges overstepped their bounds. He gloomily concluded that the subversion of the legal system started early and corrupted the whole system. Not so. As a whole, 19th century judges followed judicial precedent and stayed within constitutional bounds. This contrasts favorably with the judicial activism of the 20th century. The judge is correct that the examples of early judicial activism that he cited are outrageous, but these are the exceptions, not the general practice of the judges of the day.

The telling difference is that 19th century jurists as a whole were grounded in natural law and 20th century jurists were increasingly attracted to positive law. A judge is first corrupted by positive law and then lawlessly defies precedent and steps beyond constitutional boundaries.

Every legal positivist has a built-in hostility to the Constitution — because the Constitution is redolent with natural law — and natural law is a rebuke to positive law. The secret motive of activist judges is not to produce a "living Constitution" as they claim, but to destroy the Constitution. If this had been understood by our GOP senators, they would not have put up such a weak resistance to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court.

We shall not decisively win the war against judicial activism or progressive social engineering until we defeat positive law and restore natural law. The "original intent" school of constitutional law is a step in the right direction, because it exposes the jurist to natural law ideas built into the Constitution. Original intent judges have to study the Federalist Papers and Blackwell's Commentaries to understand what Madison meant by certain words and phrases in the Constitution. Such studies are an education in both traditionalist and natural law thinking. Now we need to bring natural law into legislation in Congress and in state legislatures.

Chesterton: no stealing allowed in any universe

In the early 20th century, the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes was the most famous proponent of positive law. G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis were very popular proponents of natural law.

Chesterton's fictional detective, Father Brown, was a like a Christian Sherlock Homes. He was on the trail of Flambeau, a criminal mastermind. Before Father Brown solved a case against Flambeau, he debated Flambeau about natural law versus positive law. Flambeau speculated that there are many worlds in the starry heavens and that each one has a different moral law. Father Brown replied that every one of those worlds has a mortar board, "Thou shalt not steal." In this way, Father Brown emphasized the universality of natural law and rejected cultural relativism. His terse comments rebuked Flambeau for being a thief. His comments also rebuked him for temporizing the immorality of his thefts by using the relativistic philosophy of positive law.

Flambeau is representative of a long line of rascals who have argued for positive law to provide a place to hide from their guilty conscience. Natural law is written in the human heart, and human laws based on natural law sting the conscience. In contrast, positive law is neutral to the human conscience. Calls for "the separation of church and state" are really calls to separate the human conscience from the law.

Alan Keyes once said that capital punishment vindicates the law against murder. When the murderer is executed, the law against murder that is written in the heart of every man is awakened and vivified in the conscience of the citizens. When one is tempted to murder, his conscience rebels, he fears, and refrains. This is the real reason why capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. It is not the fear of execution that deters him, but the protests of his conscience that deter him. That inner protest of conscience is more powerful if murderers are being executed.

Finally, the awakening of the consciences of the citizens is not just for deterrence. It teaches the citizen to cherish life. A society that executes murderers is also a society that has laws against abortion. It is no accident that the same Alan Keyes who said that capital punishment vindicates the law is also a crusader against abortion.

C. S. Lewis: Mere natural law

Just as C. S. Lewis reduced Christianity to essentials in Mere Christianity, he did the same thing with natural law. He was mainly concerned with the basic elements of the universal moral law that all men everywhere can agree upon. He emphasized that natural law crosses religious and cultural lines.

Lewis wrote: "If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopedia of Religion or Ethics he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Sams, from the Laws of Manu, the Australian aborigines and redskins, he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppressions, murders, treachery, and falsehood, the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty." (From The Poison of Subjectivism, an essay by C.S. Lewis. Thanks to Timothy L. Hall, A Law for all Seasons. Touchstone, June 2009)

Lewis insisted that natural law was not just for Christians, but for all mankind. He was a fierce opponent of Christian theocracies. He thought theocracies generated mischievous agendas that are prone to the abuse of power. Mixing the issues of God, the divine kingdom, natural law, politics, and human ambition can confuse and corrupt the mind and obscure the issues of natural law.

Interestingly, the Christian Republics of Geneva, Massachusetts Bay, Cromwell's England, and Holland were authoritarian, legalistic, and inadequate defenders of human rights. All of these Republics failed after two or three generations. Natural law does not flourish in tight, legalistic theocracies — but it prospers in constitutional republics like America.

By opposing theocracy, Lewis emphasized the universality of natural law. Kublai Khan, sitting in his pleasure dome in Xanadu, could make decrees based upon natural law if he wanted to.

In Kipling's The Man Who Would be King, a British sergeant found himself to be the king of a pagan tribe through freak circumstances. He was the sole judge of disputes among the people. Some of his ad hoc judgments included simple elements of natural law. Although the sergeant was starting from scratch with natural law ideas that he had picked up by osmosis, there is no question that these shaky attempts at natural law swept away a lot of the injustice from the life in that savage tribe. To the extent that the people learned these principles, their way of life was improved long after the departure of the lawgiver.

The Christian compatibility with natural law

Lewis notwithstanding, the Christian has a head start in discovering natural laws. All of the laws of Moses that were carried over into the New Testament were, without exception, universal moral laws — do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not practice homosexual perversions, etc. All the laws of Moses that were not carried forward were, without exception, explicitly for ancient Israel, and not for other nations or for modern times. In short, they were not universal moral laws. For example, the tithe, the Sabbath, Jewish dietary laws, laws of the temple, laws of clean and unclean, laws of animal sacrifices, and laws of stoning for adultery and witchcraft were not carried forward and were thereby abolished in the New Testament.

Enumeration of the abolition of particular laws is not necessary because of the several New Testament verses that abolish the law of Moses. Laws of Moses that are not brought forward into the New Testament are abolished.

Natural law is in perfect agreement with the laws of Moses that the Apostles brought forward into the New Testament! Hence, we notice the wonderful compatibility of Christianity with natural law. Judaism and Islam fall far short of this level of compatibility with natural law. Christianity is unique in its compatibility with natural law! It is no accident that the greatest flourishing of natural law ideas has come in Christian nations! And it is no accident that Christendom, being in command of natural law tools, has outdistanced all of the non-Christian nations of the world in almost every category of practical achievement.

The Bible promises the faithful believers that God will write his law in their hearts. Surely a Christian with God's law written in his heart has an advantage over an aborigine when it comes to seeking natural law. I feel that C.S. Lewis underestimates this Christian advantage. Yes, the aborigine has natural law written in his heart. At the same time, he lacks the Christian advantage of the testimony of the scriptures and the indwelling Spirit of Truth.

Posting the Ten Commandments in court

In spite of its comparability with Christianity, natural law is discerned by reason and not faith, and therefore is not a religion.

The posting of the Ten Commandments should not be barred from a courtroom on the grounds of the separation of church and state, because the Ten Commandments are universal moral laws. These laws predate the religions that embraced them. Recall that natural law is the second oldest kind of conservatism, while Christianity is the fourth oldest. Most religions accept the natural moral laws because they are written in the hearts of all people.

Lutheranism and a two-tiered natural law

Lutheran theologians recognize two kinds of natural law: 1) "orders of creation," and 2) general natural law. Lewis recognized only the second kind of natural law. "Orders of creation" apply to Christian families, churches, and communities. Some things that natural law allows, the orders of creation do not allow. For example, Sarah Palin was allowed to be governor of Alaska and govern according to natural law, but she was not allowed to be the head over her husband or the head of her house or the pastor of her church according the orders of creation.

A state or a corporation must be run according to the general second tier natural laws. They must not be run according to orders of creation, because that would reduce these entities to theocracies. In contrast, a church must be run according to the orders of creation. Woe to the church that is run like a corporation. Woe to the corporation that is run like a church.

The Protestant mistake

The magisterial Protestant denominations accepted natural law during the Reformation era. However, some of these denominations have rejected natural law in the modern era. The rejection of natural law by certain denominations of conservative Protestants and by some Evangelicals has crippled them in three ways: 1) Their understanding of the universal moral law is metaphysically weak; 2) Their leaders do not have the same restraint against the abuse of power as they would have had if they were seasoned with natural law; and 3) The full development of their reasoning powers has been hindered in a way that often makes them inarticulate and unpersuasive in the public, political, and moral discussions of their culture. They were not just thrown out of the public square by a hostile culture. They disqualified themselves by throwing away the tools of the debate.

In order to cure this defect, some churches have foolishly tried to become more "relevant" to their culture. In doing so, they have spiritually compromised themselves by becoming worldly and failed to become one whit more persuasive. A study in natural law would have made them a) more persuasive in the public square and b) less prone to compromise with the culture.

Natural law bombshells in committee

A few years ago, I was testifying in favor of a proposed defense of marriage law (DOMA) before an Ohio state legislative committee. The committee chairman, Bill Harris, was a Republican, an evangelical, and a tough ex-marine, and he favored the DOMA law. He passively accepted the outrageous ad hominem cavils of certain left-wing citizens and committee members, but strangely, he silenced the conservative voice. When I exposed the gay agenda, questioned the validity of gay marriage, spoke of the potential harms that come to children through gay adoption, and mentioned the vile exhibitionism of the gay pride parades, the chairman was scandalized and shut me up. Why would an evangelical legislator give total freedom to the pro-gay agenda — which he opposed — and silence the conservative opposition — which he agreed with in principle? What was it that crippled this powerful man?

Harris (who is now Ohio Senate president) belongs to a conservative Evangelical denomination that rejects natural law. When he heard the words of natural law in a public forum, his conscience was shocked, and he had to struggle to keep from weeping. The man was a novice and an emotional child before the sheer power of a natural law. His denomination managed to keep him ignorant as a babe and unexposed to natural law ideas.

Harris hinted to me that since I was going to get what I wanted (i.e., passage of DOMA), there was no reason for me to throw these bombshells into the committee. The hint was that I should go along with his wimpy ways, be content, shut up, and be happy with good outcomes. Something about this offer to become a spineless jellyfish like him offended me, so I threw one more natural law bombshell into the committee. He treated me as though I was a lawless rascal and a disrupter of his committee. Actually, he was the one who was lawless, because he abused his power and denied freedom of speech to a citizen at a lawful public forum set aside for the testimony of citizens — in order to suppress the voice of natural law.

His evangelical denomination rejects natural law and is infamous for authoritarian abuses of power. A church leadership that is ignorant of natural law can more easily drift towards a legalistic and authoritarian church theocracy. The last time I entered a church of his denomination, I smelled the spirit of death. The spirit of bondage of that church fell off me like Lazarus' grave clothes, as I walked out the front door and breathed the sweet breezes of American freedom.

If an evangelical Republican leader will lawlessly suppress the voice of natural law in the legislature, how much more will Democratic liberals want to lawlessly silence the conservative voice on talk radio and television? Whenever political conservatives speak freely, a lot of natural law ideas comes out, even though the conservatives often do not realize it.

Karl Barth's bad faith

Natural law is not the same thing as religion. We do not know natural law through faith, revelation, authority, or dogma. We know it through reason and conscience. Therefore, some modern theologians have seen natural law as a threat to Christianity where no threat exists.

During the twentieth century, the neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) was responsible for driving natural law out of favor in many Protestant circles. He thought natural law compromises the transcendence of God.

My answer to Dr. Barth is yes, we need to put more emphasis on transcendence. However, God is both transcendent and immanent. If He is immanent, some of His works have an immanent quality that may well be within the reach of human reason. Human reason itself is one of the immanent creations of God. He created natural law and created the rational powers of men so they can find out about natural law.

But yes, Dr. Barth, God's transcendence means that some aspects of his works are "past finding out." (Romans 11:33). This means that we must be modest and put limits on what we claim to know about natural law through reason. It is a challenge for proud philosophers to respect the limits of reason.

However, it is a case of bad faith to pout because some things are out of our reach — and then to refuse to learn those things that are within our reach. Barth's bad faith involves throwing the metaphysical baby out with the bath water. Barth is like Aesop's embittered fox who declares the grapes to be sour because he can't reach them.

Let us think of the high grapes that are out of reach as things "past finding out." Let us think of God 's immanent works as the low-hanging grapes. We ought to leave the high grapes alone, while we satisfy ourselves with the sweet low-hanging grapes, unlike the foolish fox. The low-hanging grapes are the elements of natural law within reach of human reason.

Is reason ruined by the fall?

Some of the theologians of the Reformed Tradition believe that the rational powers of man were too marred by the fall of man to be competent to discover natural laws. Yes, to some extent man's rational powers have been marred, damaged, and distorted. But man has not been maimed so badly that he cannot build civilizations.

It is well to keep in mind that we can be deceived because of the fall and corruption of our reasoning powers, but this is all the more reason why we should be continually learning. Let us therefore use what tools of reason we have — including the tools of natural law.

I argue that without some degree of implicit or explicit knowledge of natural law, it is impossible to build civilizations — or to renew civilizations that are faltering. Our frail, marred, myopic powers of reason need the lamp of natural law to help us grope our way forward, so as to heal society — and to settle difficult controversies like evolution and "gay marriage." Natural law might even help us find our way to work through the thicket of legislative committees with weak, deeply confused committee chairmen.

In contrast, the American founding fathers were richly endowed with the knowledge of natural law, and they founded the most long-lasting and resilient republic known to history.

Now let us raise the question of how much we can know through natural law. Saint Thomas Aquinas thought we can know a lot.

Aquinas and epistemological optimism

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 A. D.), lived at the confident summit of the civilization of the High Middle Ages and had three centuries of brilliant scholastic philosophers behind him. He came up with a definitive solution to the age-old puzzle of universals and particulars, a mystery that had eluded all the great philosophers who had gone before him. His solution upheld philosophical realism, defeated nominalism, and defended the integrity of both universals and particulars without compromising either and without falling into dualism. This premier achievement of Western philosophy gave the West a rational and aesthetic advantage over all other civilizations.

Obviously, Aquinas was an extraordinarily brilliant and knowledgeable man. He was also very confident and optimistic. He was as devout a Christian as a proud man can be.

Aquinas was a vigorous and systematic proponent of natural law. He wrote that natural law is the rational dictate through which God governs his creation ... that natural law is imprinted on human nature or essence. We must use reason and this special imprint to ascertain the best course of action. Natural law is the human participation in the Eternal will through reason and will. Through this process, one discerns good and evil, virtue and vice.

This formula might be true, and then again it might not be. God is a spirit being, and the incorporeal spirit of man is the part of us that has self-awareness and the part that "knows" God and has faith in God. In contrast, it is through reason we know natural law. The reasoning mind is always corporeal — that is to say, it always works within the body. Reason is a hybrid entity composed partly of brain activity and partly of spiritual activity. Ontologically, spirit is higher than mind. Therefore, there are natural limits for the mind.

Aquinas' formulation posits a proud exaltation of the rational mind that transgresses these limits — or so it seems to me. Beware any philosopher who presumes to makes the mind equal to or superior to the incorporeal human spirit. If it were not for the conscious spirit within him, man would not even be aware of his thoughts — Aquinas and Descartes notwithstanding.

The Great Dane of metaphysics

Aquinas had an extremely optimistic view about what man can know (epistemology), and he boldly stomped through the front door of the temple of truth. His overconfidence, which occasionally bordered on certitude, sometimes makes me uneasy and a little dizzy. At such moments, my instincts tell me that Aquinas was too clever by half and tends to overrun the boundaries God set for reason — like a dog breaking free of his leash. If only we could do without him — but we can't.

Martin Luther expunged the works of Aquinas from the university curriculum in Germany. I rarely disagree with the great Dr. Luther, but Aquinas is, for all his faults, indispensable and irreplaceable. However, we have to keep him on a leash, lest he run rampant in the neighborhood into those properties where he is forbidden to go. Aquinas is like a magnificent Great Dane that is well-muscled and full of energy because it has eaten its fill of rare red meat. Aquinas had eaten his fill of the rare red meat of metaphysics.

As a child of the Reformation, I am more cautious and equivocal than was Aquinas about what we can know through reason and how far we can safely go. My caution about reason makes me conservative in my claims about natural law — and perhaps it makes me conservative in other ways as well.

I have a horror of being like a Great Dane running wild in the neighborhood and digging up the neighbor's flowers. When reason makes us more civilized, we are on the right track. When we become proud of our intellectual prowess in unseemly ways, it makes us less civilized — and we tend to overrun the natural boundaries of civilized life.

There is a second reason why we put sane limits on the reach of the intellect. When we are arrogant and presumptuous, it is because of intellectual pride. Such things displease God who knows how to humble the proud. God humbled Aquinas at the end of his life by showing him the vanity of his proud achievements.

Instead of stomping through the front door of the temple of truth like Aquinas did, I shall tiptoe through the back door and start with what we can know for sure and work cautiously from there. I can make a robust argument on the steps of the temple, but I become hushed and reverent when I enter the temple. Deep waters and sacred mysteries lie within.

Reasoning from nature or from God

Some natural law philosophers reason from nature. "By real ideas I mean such as have a foundation in nature in conformity with their archetypes" (John Locke 1690).

Some natural law philosophers start with God. "Let us seek the dignity of knowledge in the archetype or first platform, which is the attributes and acts of God" (Francis Bacon 1605).

Like Locke and Bacon, I shall use "archetypes" as stepping stones in my search for knowledge about natural law. I get better results when I start with God, the designer, as did Bacon did, than I do when I start with nature, as Locke did.

However, I cannot ignore Locke's foundational archetypes in nature — for these were the first archetypes I found out about as a child and have been precious to me all my life.

The Great Designer

"[W]hat may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead so they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19).

Certain things about God can be clearly seen being understood by things that are made. The Apostle is talking about human reason! To clearly see with the understanding is to understand with the reasoning powers. What is it we clearly see with the understanding? We see "things that are made," that is to say, we see the creation — i.e., we see nature.

But what is it in nature that is peculiarly accessible to reason? We must have a precise answer to this question that is trustworthy. The answer must open the door to a kind of knowledge that is universal to all men — because natural law is universal.

Recognizable design

All people who've reached the age of reason have the capability to differentiate between something that was designed and objects with accidental qualities. An arrowhead is designed, but a rock is accidental. A piece of pottery is designed, but a lump of clay is accidental. An oak tree is designed, but a babbling brook is accidental.

Marriage follows a design. A gay union is a human arrangement that follows the ad hoc arrangements of individuals. All humanity has the rational powers to recognize pottery and marriage as designs and perceive that a lump of clay as an accidental entity that lacks design. Gay marriage not only lacks design, but it is contrary to a design — that is to say, it is against nature. All mankind can use their powers of reason to discern that homosexuality is unnatural.

Notice that I said that we can all readily recognize design. I have not yet made a claim about understanding the designs we recognize. Remember, I am tiptoeing through the back door of the temple of truth.

All the works of nature, including man himself, are assembled according to a design. If there is a design, there must be a designer. Hence, "his attributes are clearly seen being understood by things that are made" (Romans 1:19). The Bible is particularly clear that we can know some things about Christ and the church from marriage, and know some things about marriage from Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:23).

In contrast, we can know nothing about God from a gay union, because it is not an entity formulated in according with the creator's design. Marriage has mystical overtones of divinity, and therefore it is blessed and sanctified by God. Gay unions only manifest the confusion and perversion of individual human beings who have lost their way. Marriage is universal. Gay unions are unique to the individuals involved.

The opening lines of Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy, say: "Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Allow me to rephrase it thus: "Happy marriages are all happy in the same way because marriage has a universal design. Every unhappy gay union is unhappy in its own way because gay unions are unique ad hoc arrangements."

The futile denial of design

An evolutionist who denies design cannot force himself not to see design. The harder he tries not to see design, the more he sees design everywhere. In the lectures of evolutionists, they continually stumble into the language of design. "This species has an interesting design. Oops, I mean that it has an evolved form that is like a design." The point of this caricature is to show that the evolutionist is trying to tell a lie and can't quite pull it off. As with all mankind, the evolutionist recognizes the difference between an accidental form and a design — but denies that he recognizes it. A species is an integrated, coherent design, not the accidental accumulation of random events.

A gay union might attempt to mimic marriage, but a relentless inner voice will whisper to them, "You are living a lie — this is not a marriage." Here again, the denial of design is futile. The condemning voice cannot be silenced. It is no accident that some gays are paranoid about those who oppose their agendas and fly into a rage if anyone doubts the legitimacy of their unions. Rubbed raw by the constant contradiction of an inner voice, they cannot endure hearing further contradiction from outer voices.

The inner voice that cannot be suppressed comes early. When did I first understand that there is a design behind things that are made? I knew it at age seven, the age of reason, without anyone telling me.

The perfect pumpkin

Two months after my seventh birthday, my mother gave a pumpkin to my sister and a pumpkin to me so we could each carve a Halloween jack-o-lantern. My sister recognized it as a test of creativity, originality, and personality.

I was more serious in my intentions, and I aimed high. I asked myself, "What is the ultimate Jack-o-lantern?" I asked, "What is the archetypal form for a pumpkin face?" "Is there an iconic form I ought to follow?" (I did not yet know the words "archetype" or "icon," of course. My budding reasoning powers outran my vocabulary.) I pondered the ideal pumpkin and the perfect pumpkin. I thought there were perfect designs in a higher realm. When I got older, I learned that Karl Jung called them "archetypes" and that Plato called them "forms."

The jack-o-lantern face I carved was commonplace and mediocre. It was clearly inferior to my sister's spectacular jack-o-lantern. This humiliating experience taught me that archetypes are not suited to certain tasks. The mediocrity has no discernment in when or how to use archetypes. I learned this from a mediocre boss at work. Many of his mediocre writings, decisions, and decrees made me cringe in the same way I cringed at the mediocre pumpkin.

In spite of the pumpkin humiliation, I never for a moment doubted the existence of archetypes. I did not desist seeking archetypes in the years to come. This had good and bad outcomes. By my college years, I had developed and internalized a systematic code of ethics. This happened prior to the awakening of my faith in Christ.

Unfortunately, I also played with the idea of an ideal woman. I did not yet know that it is wrong to use a person in order to realize an archetype. To the extent I did this, I had unmitigated disaster in my social life. I was developing powerful tools of reason that I did not yet know how to use in practice. Archetypes are fatal when it comes to pumpkins and women. But they are useful in developing a code of ethics.

The pursuit of excellence

The mediocre pumpkin changed me, and made me eager not to be a mediocrity. Civilizations that acknowledge the archetypes of natural law and have discernment in their use will hate mediocrity and love excellence.

I suppose that the love of excellence reached its all-time summit during the Baroque civilization (1600–1750). The best braumeisters (beer makers) and violin makers of today aspire to attain in quality what the best braumeisters and violin makers of the baroque era achieved — but cannot quite do it. No one even tries to duplicate the excellence in sculpture of Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini (1598–1680).

Without archetypes, we would have no concept for perfection or excellence. When men say "God is perfect," we know what they mean by "perfect" because we all intuitively understand archetypes.

Aquinas tried to prove the existence of God — i.e., a being who is perfect — based on the fact that we all understand the concept of perfection, an understanding that would be impossible if there were no God.

I propose an alternate proof: God is the designer of archetypes. Archetypes reveal to us the conception of perfection, symmetry, harmony, and beauty. God reveals these qualities about himself as we discover the idea of perfection, symmetry, harmony, and beauty from his archetypes. Therefore, a being of perfection, symmetry, harmony, and beauty must exist — i.e., God must of necessity exist.

The first platform of knowledge

Based upon the root words in Greek, the word "archetype" seems to refer to the stamp that was used to impress an image on a coin or to impress a seal of authority on paper. An Archbishop had a ring with which he could press a mark on a document to show his imprimatur of approval and authorization. It is his signification that the document is official and authentic. Thus, the word in Greek can mean a design prototype, a means of creation, as in pressing an image on a coin, or an imprimatur of authority.

As soon as the word passed from Greek and Latin into English, it quickly took on natural law connotations. The idea of a design prototype is what interested Bacon and Locke. Bacon in 1605 saw the archetypes as the "first platform of knowledge." Locke in 1695 claimed "real knowledge" is based upon a "foundation" that in turn is based upon archetypes.

Natural law was one of many topics Locke wrote about. His seminal political philosophy of human rights was grounded in natural law. That philosophy was the rationale for the "glorious revolution" in England (1688) and for the English and American Bill of Rights. The American founders were steeped in Locke's political philosophy.

Like the Romans, Englishmen began to have a facility for archetypes. Fifty years after Locke wrote about real knowledge through archetypes, England had become the richest, most powerful, and most technically advanced nation in the world. By 1900, Great Britain under Queen Victoria ruled a third of the world's people and a third of the world's land. Is there a connection between the rise of empires and the knowledge of natural law archetypes? I hope to consider this question in another essay.

Archetypes are snippets from God's design schematic. How did Bacon and Locke know about archetypes? It must have been a combination of innate knowledge and following the clues God left in the Creation. Does God tease and tantalize us with these clues? Yes indeed!

How is design connected with natural law?

We are still skimming the surface, because there is a difference between design and natural law. We can recognize design at a glance, but must dig for natural law. However, we know with confidence and cannot doubt that there is a natural law because there is design.

Look at a skyscraper. Instantly you recognize and cannot doubt that it was designed by an architect. This immediate understanding leads you to infer that the design was developed from orderly and rational principles. If you looked at the architect's design schematic (which used to take the form of blueprints) you would recognize a complicated and orderly design, but you might not grasp the principles behind the design. You might study the schematic for a long time and only figure out only a few of the principles. You might miss most of the important principles. Yet it would be impossible for you to doubt that the schematic was orderly and based upon rational principles.

Suppose you could stand with the architect with the schematic laid out before you both. He could easily point to principles that you had missed in your own examination. He could correct principles you had misunderstood. Some of these principles he could help you to understand. Some of the principles would remain beyond your grasp in spite of the architect's best efforts to explain — until you read special books or went to special classes.

The principles behind the schematic are like the natural laws that lie behind God's designs for nature. Some we can infer from the design. Some can be explained to us — and we can sometimes understand the explanation and sometimes not. Some of our false presumptions can be corrected. And some principles will remain beyond our grasp until we stand side by side with the Great Architect in glory, and he rolls out the grand schematic before us and explains the natural laws running like threads throughout his design for the world.

Designs have rules

All designs come with rules. If you buy an appliance from store, it always comes with instructions for correct and incorrect use of the product. There must be rules for correct and incorrect use of a designed product. In the case of a designed being like man, there must be rules for right and wrong living. The rules can take the form of a code of ethics or a universal moral law.

It is no accident that I was able to build a code of ethics from archetypes. Aristotle did the same thing in his Nicomachean Ethics, a work full of natural law principles. Aristotle's ethics probably has had a more powerful effect on Western culture than any other classical work. Everyone who has studied law or professional ethics had learned some of Aristotle's ethical principles.

The low-hanging grapes

What then are the low-hanging grapes of natural law we can reach through reason?

We can discern when something has been designed, when something has not been designed, and whether something is contrary to a design. Little by little, we can discover archetypes. We can discern if an archetype is applied in accord with excellence or if it is used in an inappropriate or mediocre way. We can be inspired to seek excellence from archetypes.

We can sense some qualities of God's excellence and perfection from archetypes. We can learn ethical and moral rules from archetypes.

Sometimes amid the low-hanging grapes, we can discern a natural law principle or two. But very often, such principles will be beyond our grasp. These are the higher grapes pertaining to things among God's works that are "past finding out." Humbly leave these things to God. As lowly finite beings, there is far more that is beyond our grasp than there is within our grasp. This is the realization that shocked and humbled Aquinas at the end of his life.

© Fred Hutchison

RenewAmerica analyst Fred Hutchison also writes a column for RenewAmerica.

Why it is good to refrain from watching to much TV and Movies making sure you feeding yourself with the real food of the Gospel

1 Corinthians 6:12
Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

Sometimes we get way too caught up in the worlds business with work, play, and or come home and watch the toob as basically normal families of today do. It is usually a routine for some of us. We all been doing it since TV and movies were invented in our aeon but of course now TV doesn't leave much to the naked eye so to speak. Immorality has infiltrated and is trying to make perverts of us all. But that is a different subject.

Just thought I would post this article by John Piper for OUR edification. It is not that I do not watch TV in which I do, But a question was asked in response of this to John Piper and I liked Pipers answer so I thought I would share it for those who like to still read and maybe some will go to Desiring GOD to learn more from this wonderful man who loves GOD and it truly shows. HE is one of my favorites and heroes.

RW


Why I Don’t Have a Television and Rarely Go to Movies

June 25, 2009
By John Piper

Read

this article on our website.

Now that the video of the Q&A

at Advance 09 is available, I can look at it and feel bad all over again. Here’s what I regret, indeed what I have apologized for to the person who asked the question.

The first question to me and Mark Driscoll was, “Piper says get rid of my TV, and Driscoll says buy extra DVRs. How do you reconcile this difference?”

I responded, “Get your sources right. . . . I never said that in my life.”

Almost as soon as it was out of my mouth, I felt: “What a jerk, Piper!” A jerk is a person who nitpicks about the way a question is worded rather than taking the opportunity to address the issue in a serious way. I blew it at multiple levels.

So I was very glad when the person who asked the question wrote to me. I wrote back,

Be totally relieved that YOU did not ask a bad question. I gave a useless and unhelpful, and I think snide, answer and missed a GOLDEN opportunity to make plain the dangers of the triviality you referred to. . . . I don’t know why I snapped about the wording of the question instead of using it for what it was intended for. It was foolish and I think sinful.

So let me see if I can do better now. I can’t give an answer for what Mark means by “buy extra DVRs,” but I can tell you why my advice sounds different. I suspect that Mark and I would not agree on the degree to which the average pastor needs to be movie-savvy in order to be relevant, and the degree to which we should expose ourselves to the world’s entertainment.

I think relevance in preaching hangs very little on watching movies, and I think that much exposure to sensuality, banality, and God-absent entertainment does more to deaden our capacities for joy in Jesus than it does to make us spiritually powerful in the lives of the living dead. Sources of spiritual power—which are what we desperately need—are not in the cinema. You will not want your biographer to write: Prick him and he bleeds movies.

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners.

There are, perhaps, a few extraordinary men who can watch action-packed, suspenseful, sexually explicit films and come away more godly. But there are not many. And I am certainly not one of them.

I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father.

I’ll put it bluntly. The only nude female body a guy should ever lay his eyes on is his wife’s. The few exceptions include doctors, morticians, and fathers changing diapers. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). What the eyes see really matters. “Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Better to gouge your eye than go to hell (verse 29).

Brothers, that is serious. Really serious. Jesus is violent about this. What we do with our eyes can damn us. One reason is that it is virtually impossible to transition from being entertained by nudity to an act of “beholding the glory of the Lord.” But this means the entire Christian life is threatened by the deadening effects of sexual titillation.

All Christ-exalting transformation comes from “beholding the glory of Christ.” “Beholding the glory of the Lord, [we] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Whatever dulls the eyes of our mind from seeing Christ powerfully and purely is destroying us. There is not one man in a thousand whose spiritual eyes are more readily moved by the beauty of Christ because he has just seen a bare breast with his buddies.

But leave sex aside (as if that were possible for fifteen minutes on TV). It’s the unremitting triviality that makes television so deadly. What we desperately need is help to enlarge our capacities to be moved by the immeasurable glories of Christ. Television takes us almost constantly in the opposite direction, lowering, shrinking, and deadening our capacities for worshiping Christ.

One more smaller concern with TV (besides its addictive tendencies, trivialization of life, and deadening effects): It takes time. I have so many things I want to accomplish in this one short life. Don’t waste your life is not a catchphrase for me; it’s a cliff I walk beside every day with trembling.

TV consumes more and more time for those who get used to watching it. You start to feel like it belongs. You wonder how you could get along without it. I am jealous for my evenings. There are so many things in life I want to accomplish. I simply could not do what I do if I watched television. So we have never had a TV in 40 years of marriage (except in Germany, to help learn the language). I don’t regret it.

Sorry again, for the bad answer. I hope this helps.

Pastor John