A Love-O-Meter: Love Does Not Rejoice In Iniquity And Does Rejoice In the Truth

In a very important passage, in 1 Corinthians 13 the Apostle Paul shines love through a prism that refracts into fifteen different colors or hues.  Two of them are in verse 6, which reads:

[Love] rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

As I've written many times, love is one of the most perverted concepts in this culture.  Part of critical theory is that words are power, so changing the definition of words is powerful.  Someone who does not want to love can redefine the word so that he is loving.  He can change the meaning of love so that he is loving when he's actually hateful.  The people who are loving are now hateful.  This is where we stand today.

The two great commandments according to Jesus are (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor.  If love isn't love, then those two commandments aren't being obeyed. The New Testament spends pages clarifying love, and the Apostle Paul gives a very through description in 1 Corinthians 13.

In 1 Corinthians 13:6, Paul says in essence, "If it is love, it will not rejoice in iniquity, but it will rejoice in the truth."  Contrariwise, "it can't be love if it does rejoice in iniquity, but it does not rejoice in the truth."  This is a simple love-o-meter that will eliminate most of what is called love.  I would estimate about 90% of so-called love is invalidated by these two simple statements.

Someone can call "up," "down," on his social media and get agreement that up is actually down in every comment in support of this concept, and it does not change the meaning of "up."  "Up" is still never "down," even if everyone agrees that it is.

As a thought experiment, let's say that a man contended on the internet, and it even went viral with support, that up was really down.  A few people dared to disagree by saying that up was up and down was down.  The man then did six things in response.  First, he deleted and blocked anyone who said that up was up.  Second, he ghosted those who said that up was up and encouraged others do so.  Third, he encouraged employers to fire those who said up was up, to cancel any engagement with anyone who said that up was up.  Fourth, he called all those who proclaimed up to be up very broken people, toxic personalities, with narcissistic personality disorder.  Fifth, he published an instagram photo on behalf of up is actually down and asked for shows of continuous public support for up being down.  Sixth, he issued a restraining order against anyone who says that up is still up and not down.  He requires boundaries, and hearing that up is up triggers him, bringing psychological damages; hence, he must threaten a restraining order.  He must do this to promote wellness and self-care.

You may remember that the leftist values yard sign says, "Love is love."  The term love becomes a vessel to pour whatever meaning someone wants it to mean.  "Love is love" serves to justify two men "loving" each other in a homosexual relationship.  Along with this, saying homosexuality isn't love, is deemed "hate speech."

Paul says that love "rejoiceth not in iniquity."  "Iniquity" is a word that means "unrighteousness."  It is the word for "righteousness" with a "not" at the front of it, a compound Greek word.  If something isn't right, it can't be love.  Someone doesn't love someone by lying to him.  He doesn't love someone by fornicating with that person.   Anything that disobeys scripture, either through omission or commission, isn't love.

The verse doesn't say, "love is not iniquity," but that love doesn't rejoice in iniquity.  That's even stronger.  People supportive of sinful behavior are not loving someone.  People that want support of their sin are not asking for love, because love doesn't support sinning.  When a young person wants support despite his sin, he is not asking for freedom, because freedom according to Jesus is freedom from sin (John 8:32-36).  Sin is bondage.  Love opposes the bondage of sin, hates it, hates what it does to the person.

Jesus says Satan is liar (John 8:44), and He is referring to the lie in the Garden to Eve and Adam.  Satan tells especially young people that standards and requirements and rules are bondage.  He says, sin is freedom.  The loving person, Satan says, gives you freedom, which means, "lets you sin."  He says that the person trying to stop you from sin is bringing bondage and that you need boundaries between you and that person.  One of the boundaries you have already applied means you probably won't even read this, because some good pyschobabble is available instead.

Love does not rejoice at all in any manifestation of what is not right, the word "iniquity" meaning "not right."  Love does not rejoice in dress that is not right, music that is not right, language that is not right, entertainment that is not right, art that is not right, and associations that are not right.  Whenever someone does rejoice in things that are not right, that is not love.  The people who do rejoice in those things that are not right is not loving, but hating.  This is in the realm of up is up and down is down.

On the other hand, love does rejoice in the truth.  The truth is placed in contrast to iniquity.  Iniquity veers off of the truth into some kind error, doctrinal or practical error.  Love does not rejoice in doctrinal or practical error that contradicts the truth.  Love tells the truth, as Paul says in Ephesians 4, speaks the truth.

If someone wants to "feel loved," actual love, then he should believe and practice the truth.  Love will rejoice in that.  Let's try another thought experiment.  Let's say that someone sees someone sinning, and tells this truth, "That's sad."  This isn't even saying that it is sinful, just that it is sad.  The person who hears, that's sad, should rejoice in that truth.  It is sad.  Everyone should support someone saying that sinful behavior is at least sad, and even something stronger than that.

If someone sees a disrespectful young person and says, "Honour thy father and thy mother," that is not an attack.  That is the truth.  Love rejoices in the truth. The loving person would rejoice in Exodus 20:12.  Those who do not rejoice in that are the ones not loving.  They are the ones calling up, down, and down, up.  A young person should be told to honor his father and mother.  When he does not, that is not only sad, but it is not right.  It can't be rejoiced in.  The truth must be told.

The Bible is a love-o-meter.  What Paul wrote is a simple love-o-meter.  Use it.  If you don't use it, it likely means you are not a Christian.  You are not saved.  Love is of God. They that love, abide in God.  You don't love.  You don't even care what it means if you will not use the Bible to define it.

Millennials Will Rue the Day They Despised Authority

Authority proceeds from God.  When I write "authority," I mean what the Bible says it is, and it is hierarchical (Romans 13:1-3).  It doesn't violate scripture.  God created or originated authority.  It is necessary to accomplish His moral will (God's sovereign will is always going to occur).  Authority orders the divine design of the world.  It will only work the way God designed, if authority is respected.

I'm not saying that all millennials despise authority.  I'm writing about millennials who do, and really anyone who does, but I focus on millennials because this is more characteristic of their generation.  Millennials will still want authority now and especially in the future.  They will need it.  Right now in the short term it is convenient for them to despise authority.

Why should anyone do what these millennials tell them to do?  If they do tell anyone to do, why should they expect them to do what they are told?  Why should these millennials ever possess any authority, if they don't believe in it themselves?

Many Christian leaders today decry the apostasy of the day.  For all the possible causes, a perverted view of authority explains a lot.  In a rudimentary way, it is the underlying problem.  How?  Why?

God is in charge.  He uses under-authorities to be in charge.  He authorizes institutions -- family, church, government, etc. -- to order the world He owns.  Satan merely usurps that authority.  The response to authority is obedience.  The attack of authority undermines God's institutions and then results in disobedience.  Salvation itself comes through the obedience of faith.  The faith is in God, Who is the authority.  His under-authorities are still His authority.  Someone who disobeys those, with the exception of violations of the Word of God, disobeys Him.  They are not believing in Him, because this is how He works, just like He used men for the writing of His Word.  In that sense, obedience to God is obedience to Moses, for instance. 

All of society breaks down with the position of these millennials on authority, really just so they can have their own way, just like Korah and his band with Moses in Numbers 16.  They will justify it or excuse it by saying that their authority is unreasonable or wrong or bad leaders.  They know best about leadership, how it's supposed to be done.  In most cases though, they can't even be challenged, these millennials.  They offer no due process, no discussion, no defense.  They are judge, jury, and executioner.  Like Rehoboam of 1 Kings 12, they look to their contemporaries, their friends, other millennials, as proof or evidence that they are right, their cronies on social media.

No one who despises authority as a practice is a Christian.  God is the Author of authority.  Again, I'm not talking about so-called authority that teaches or requires something contrary to the Word of God.  Just because millenials don't like what they're being told doesn't mean that they can call it unscriptural, and that's their simple, rebellious way out.

The despising of authority starts with not truly glorifying God as God.  The despising of authority is an outgrowth of not glorifying God.  You know someone does not glorify God because he despises authority.  It is indicative of a reprobate mind.

The benchmark or the norm for someone aligned with God is subjection to authority.  His instinct is to do what he is told.  He listens.  With God-ordained authority, he is swift to hear, slow to speak (argue), and slow to wrath (at what he's being told) [James 1:19].  He is apt to do what he is told, rather than bucking it.

If you are millennial, and you despise authority, don't expect your spouse to submit, nor your children.  Why should they?  You shouldn't expect your employees to listen to you.  You don't listen, why should they listen to you?  The culture that you spawn will be one that will break down because authority is necessary.  Your disrespect will come back on you.  There is no way that your world will work.

The millennial who despises authority won't be in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, because Jesus expects obedience.  He is the King.  Your Jesus might be something more like a therapist, but the Jesus of the Bible, the only true one, will rule over the earth.  You won't like His kingdom and you won't be in it.  It is a kingdom of authority.

2 Peter relates despising authority to lust.  Lust then relates to self, to me, me first.  2 Peter 2:10 says:

But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

They walk after the flesh.  Their lives are characterized by flesh.  Their music is fleshly.  Their entertainment is fleshly.  Their recreation is fleshly.   Someone who lives according to the flesh doesn't want the restraint of a authority, hence, he despises it.  He is not afraid to speak evil of authority.   When the authority arrives to restrain, like the Holy Spirit, the Restrainer (2 Thess 2:7), he tears down the authority.

Righteous men are very careful with their authority, especially in public.  Righteous men don't rebuke an elder, but intreat (1 Timothy 5:1).  This is seen in the servant/master or employee/employer:  "be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling."  "Fear and trembling" is a non-starter with most millennials today.  It's a violation of personal wellness and self-care.

Deuteronomy 5:1 says:

And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

There are verses like that all through Deuteronomy.  Moses says, these statutes and judgments that I speak, learn, keep, and do them.  That is how authority works.  Moses says something and everyone learns it, keeps it, and does it.  This is especially the message of the Bible toward parental authority, that is seen again and again in Proverbs.  This generation is even represented by Proverbs 30:11, "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother." The book of Proverbs reads very serious about this from God.  I'm going to publish all of these just so that you have them all in one place:

Proverbs 1:8, My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

Proverbs 4:1, Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.

Proverbs 10:1, A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.

Proverbs 15:20, A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother.

Proverbs 17:21, He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy.

Proverbs 17:25, A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him.

Proverbs 19:13, A foolish son is the calamity of his father.

Proverbs 19:26, He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach.

Proverbs 20:20, Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.

Proverbs 23:22, Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.

Proverbs 23:24-25, The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.  Thy father and thy mother shall be glad, and she that bare thee shall rejoice.

Proverbs 28:7, Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father.

Proverbs 30:17, The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

Many, if not most, of these statements are axiomatic.  A millennial may question them, but it's like questioning the transitive property or some other axiom.  They are just true.  As you read them, millennial, you can question them or challenge them or just ignore them, but if they are you, then they are who you are.

You will notice that there is very little about the father and what he's doing with his son, but it's about the son and what he's doing with his father.  If the father is disobedient to scripture, and teaches that, that's bad, but this isn't the issue.  There aren't a series of verses that say, "Father, please thy son and make sure he gets to have his way and live like he wants.  Don't be too scary.  You don't want to hurt his feelings."  Your millennial companions might listen to your complaints and justifications, but in the judgment of God, you are still guilty.  You won't escape this judgment of God without repentance.  It's on you, no one else.

"Disobedient to parents" characterizes the apostate in Romans 1 and in 2 Timothy 3 in those tell-tale passages.  Why is this so idiosyncratic of someone who has turned from God?  A person who won't do what his parents want will not do what God wants.  The two are inexorably tied together.

It might seem like a world the millennial will like, one where he despises authority.  At some point, it will be his authority or all authority.  That is a society that is broken down.  It will not characterize the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is not His kingdom.  Millennials will rue the day they despised authority, including the final day characterized for him by weeping and gnashing of teeth.

If you are reading this, there might be an opportunity for you to repent, to consider your ways and turn from them.  You should do it before it's too late for you.  It will not work out for you if you don't.  You will regret and most likely for all eternity.

Support Bethel and Faithsaves.net When Shopping at Amazon

The basic content from this post is now here:

 

Support Bethel Christian Academy, Bethel Baptist Church, and FaithSaves with Amazon Smile!

 

Please click on the link above to read the content.

"Holy" Is Not Related to "Wholly"

Calvary Chapels multiplied here in the Rogue River Watershed beginning in the late 1970s, especially beginning with Applegate Christian Fellowship and Jon Courson, which is the largest congregation in all of Southern Oregon.   This was an outgrowth of the first Calvary Chapel started in Southern California in 1965 with Chuck Smith, proceeding from the Jesus Movement.  Very large other Calvary Chapels have divided off of Applegate here, one called Mountain Church in Medford.  They all have the "Jesus Movement" quality, which was an outlier in the history of Christianity, producing something syncretistic with the culture of the world at a much higher degree than had ever been seen.

Applegate has its own radio station, which plays non-stop here. When I jump in my car, I often turn it on, and almost always someone is teaching from somewhere in the Bible.  The teachers on the station are almost exclusively Courson, either the dad, Jon, or one of this two sons, Ben and Peter-John, the latter who died in 2019, but his replays continue.

Until I moved up here to Oregon, I knew of Calvary Chapel, but I had not been around it.  I did not know really what distinguished it.  Southern Oregon though has been heavily impacted by Calvary Chapel and I think it is the greatest religious influence in the area where we are evangelizing and starting a church.  Jon Courson left Oregon for a short while around 2002 to help Chuck Smith in the founding Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, but came back around 2006 and has been here ever since.

With that introduction, coming home last night at about 5:30pm after evangelizing and passing out gospel tracts in town, I turned on KAPL, the Applegate station, and Jon Courson was teaching from Revelation 4.  When I listen, I'm not doing so with the idea that I want to find something wrong with teaching on that station.  Just the opposite, I know when I turn it on, someone is going to be teaching from the Bible.  I would rather listen to something from the Bible.  I would like it to be good.  Very often I agree.  However, I'm starting to get what the Calvary Chapel doctrine is.

Calvary Chapel doctrine is easy believism.  It is second blessing or keswick sanctification.  It is revivalistic.  It is mystical.  It is overtly positive to a fault, going out of the way so that people won't feel guilty.  It is what I've heard termed (and used myself), cheap grace.  It is very often allegorical and especially in the Old Testament, seeing things in passages that are not there.  For all the time I've been listening, I don't hear a true gospel.  They believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but it is mostly a less than saving faith preached.  I don't hear repentance.  I'm sure they use the term when they get to those passages, but I still had not heard it after hours hearing it in the car.

I think people have been saved at Applegate, but it is so weak that it will give most people the false impression they're saved, when they're not.  It changes the nature of Christianity and a true imagination of God.  The doctrine produces worldly people, who call themselves Christians.  They use worldly music and mainly rock.  The sermons are not expository.  They are verse by verse, but they are not finding the point of the text and preaching the text then in its context, which is what expository preaching will do.

What I heard last night is just an example -- understand that I'm writing here based on memory of what I was hearing.  Courson was commenting on "holy, holy, holy," spoken by the angels to God.  He said that the word "holy" relates to "whole" or "wholeness," related to sound, healthy, or complete.  That make sense to a hearer, because the word "holy" sounds like the word "wholly" (actually exactly like it).

Saying that's what holy meant, "whole," then he took off on some related passages, including worshiping God in the beauty of his holiness.  He said that holiness is lovely, that it is attractive to people, because there is a wholeness of completeness to it, as if someone has it all together.  Obviously, if someone gets the meaning of "holy" wrong, that will greatly influence the understanding of Revelation 4, God Himself, the gospel, and the entire Bible.

"Holy" does not mean "whole."  At best, you get out a book of English etymology and you can find a related Old Scottish word, hale, which means "health, happiness, and wholeness."  That's not how you understand the meaning of a biblical word.  Both the Hebrew (qadosh) and Greek (hagios) words translated into the English, "holy," in the King James Version mean "separate" or "sanctified."  God's holiness is beautiful, but that doesn't mean that it is attractive to an ungodly or unsaved person; just the opposite according to Jesus.  He said men are turned away the light of God, that they hate it and love darkness instead.  Believers should worship God in the beauty of His holiness, because that is God's standard of beauty.

Beauty to Applegate is what is "whole," which is attractive to people.  Their "worship" is "attractive," so it must be "beautiful."  Actually, beauty is subjective to Applegate.  It isn't based upon God's holiness.  God's holiness isn't sensual, worldly, and fleshly, among other traits we know God doesn't like and do not correspond to His nature.

Here's how Courson explained what was happening then with the angels incessantly proclaiming, "holy, holy, holy," in the presence of God.  I'm not making this up.  He said that the angels would be considering going back home for the night, but when they look at God, they are so overwhelmed with Him that it produces an ecstatic state, so that out of that impression, they bow down before Him.  They are just blown away by God and then they proceed to get up again to leave, see God again, and are affected again by seeing Him, so that they proclaim, "holy, holy, holy," again.  They just keep doing this and then just never stop.  I'm not misrepresenting what he said.

Courson said these angels were not automatrons, like, he said, the characters on the Disney ride, Pirates of the Carribean, who just keep singing their refrain in a loop.  He tried to sing "holy, holy, holy" to the tune of the Disney ride.  He said, No, these angels are of greater intelligence then humans, so they are speaking out, "holy, holy, holy," because of the effects of their seeing God.  Is that what you think?

Here's a simpler explanation without reading into Revelation 4 this idea that the angels in heaven would go home for the night, but His wholeness is too inspiring to leave.  God created certain angels with the express purpose of praising Him like they do in the heavenly holy of holies.  I don't doubt their intelligence, but I don't think they are just blown away by the "wholeness" of God, that He's just got it all together so much, that they can't help but stay forever, continuing to say exactly the same thing.  They are fulfilling their duty out of fear of God, which is why they cover their face and feet with separate sets of wings.

"Wholeness" is an easy vessel in which to pour all sorts of ideas, especially for new age teaching.  It helps with cheap grace.  When God commands, "Be ye holy," like in Leviticus and then 1 Peter, He then doesn't mean, "be separate," or distinct, in accordance with the character of God, but that someone has his life all together, whole, happy, and attractive.   People don't like separation.  God's holiness is a uniqueness of God, His majesty, the glories of the perfection of His attributes, but they are all maintained by His keeping separate from everything.  Nothing about God then is common or profane. The world will be blown away by this person, who is holy, because his life is so complete, thinking that it is beautiful.  To be holy, he could work on self-care and wellness, to present himself as an attractive person.  This is deceit about the holiness of God.  How could someone sincerely think this, I don't know.

Another ride in the car two days before, I had KAPL on again, and someone not a Courson was teaching on Acts 10 and 11, and the entire time he was parking on Acts 10:15 (and 11:9):  "And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."  His exclusive point was the someone who believes in Jesus is not common, whether he's even not doing what God doesn't want him to do, since all of us still sin.  I bring this in, because it is related.  When someone isn't living a righteous life, he is common (or profane).  He isn't holy.    Sure, if he's truly saved, he's positionally holy, but not to sin, and if he is sinning, he is common and profane.

The passage was unrelated to the point this teacher was making.  The truth is that people are not unclean or common just because they are Gentiles or just because they don't follow the dietary restrictions.  However, it doesn't mean that people who are actually sinning are not common.  They are.  God doesn't want believers living in a common or profane manner.  This is just another issue of personal holiness that is twisted that results in a different, unbiblical version of Christianity being presented, and again related to the holiness of God.

Angels Marrying Humans and Jesus Preaching in Hell? The Happenings of Genesis 6 and 1 Peter 3

Why this subject now?  I have taken the same position on these two passages since I came to my position on these two passages.  Other men I respect a lot have taken drastically different positions.  You can't confuse the difference between them, they're so, so different.  If you have some general knowledge of this, you know what I mean.  I have to admit, the ones I don't take are in my opinion very weird.  They are some of the strangest things you will hear in biblical interpretation.  But again, why now?

A youtube feed on my phone read this video:  R. C. Sproul VS John MacArthur on 1 Peter 3:18 - Biblical Clarity.  It's kind of a fabricated debate, because they're not really debating.  It just shows that the two men take two totally different positions on both Genesis 6:1-7 and 1 Peter 3:18-21 on the related passages.  I knew I differed than John MacArthur on both of them.  I didn't know that R. C. Sproul did too.  Then I went looking to see if I've written a post on either of these in all my years of blogging.  Answer:  no.  In one post, I'm not going to end this debate.  The positions are so different that they can't be confused.  They are not the same.  There is no way they could both be right.

Do the two differing positions make any difference?  They will definitely change your angelology.  I believe that there is very rich doctrine in the correct position that is lost.  I'm saying, since they are true, they would be missed.  Scripture, all of it, is sufficient.  If all scripture is sufficient, and we take some it away, it isn't sufficient then.  We need all of it.  We need this teaching.  Our church decided long ago that a difference of interpretation on these two passages would not be a separating issue.  That doesn't mean they aren't important.  Everything is important in the Bible.  For some readers, not separating over something is the biggest news of this piece.

I want to admit that I didn't listen to every single bit of the youtube video, but I listened to enough of it to know that R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur take a different position on both Genesis 6:1-7 and 1 Peter 3:18-21.  I also listened to enough to know that I take the same one as Sproul on Genesis 6:1-7.  Sproul seems to like two positions on 1 Peter 3:18-21 as if both of them are good, not the MacArthur one in this instance.  He gave three positions on 1 Peter 3:18-21 on the video and sounded like he liked both of the two, preferring one slightly above the other though, that were different than the one MacArthur took.  Both were very different than MacArthur's.

None of the positions are a new position.  All of them have been around for a long time.  I'm not going to get into the history, even though that is important to the ones taking the varied positions.  In the midst of arguments, someone will say that he read support in the church fathers.

MacArthur says that angels intermarried with men producing a race of giants in Genesis 6.  He says that Jesus went to Hell to preach to demons in 1 Peter 3.  Sproul says that the godly line of Seth intermarried with ungodly line of Cain in Genesis 6.  He says that Jesus preached to people held captive by sin, these are the spirits in prison, through millennia since the days of Noah in 1 Peter 3.

In a casual moment, I heard someone I know, who takes both MacArthur positions, that these positions are very important to an overall understanding of the Bible and history.  It was a casual moment years ago after playing basketball.  I didn't follow up because I knew there wasn't time for that discussion.  It still intrigues me though what he might have said.  I can't wrap my brain around a position grammatically or contextually that says angels procreated with human beings to produce giants, and then Jesus later went to preach to these fallen angels while they were chained in demon prison.

I believe Genesis 6 explains how things went south before the flood.  It is a consistent theme that runs through the Bible, which is why it is so important that believers are not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.  Intermarriage between believers and unbelievers produces an ungodly line.  There isn't a great threat for intermarriage between angels and humans to destroy mankind.  However, read through Genesis alone and see what interhuman relations does to cause great sin and difficulty.

I Peter is about suffering.  Noah suffered in the days he prepared the ark, but God saved him and his family from the world by water.  Noah suffered when the preincarnate Spirit of Christ preached through Noah to that generation of men before they were killed by the flood waters and ended in Hell.  The spirits in prison weren't in prison when Noah and Jesus preached to them, but Noah and Jesus did preach to the spirits in prison before they were in prison.  Who was suffering worse in the end?  Noah or those who rejected His preaching?

During a debate with a major Campbellite debater years ago now in Oakland, the crowd was silent when I brought an argument from 1 Peter 3 against baptismal regeneration from its context.  It is a powerful passage on an important purpose of baptism.  Baptism saves men from the world, so that they will have a good conscience toward God.

The Belly or the Bowels (part two): Either a Belly Church or a Bowel Church

Part One

In Philippians 3:19, the Apostle Paul uses these words:  "whose God is their belly."  Let's play a thought experiment with a potential reader of those words at the end of that chapter of Paul's epistle to the Philippians church.  He says,

My God is not my belly, so Paul isn't talking about me.  He must be referring to unbelievers or apostates, and I'm not one.  I believe in the true God.

This is important to consider, especially in the changing nature of churches today.  Just because the name of God and of Jesus are both used doesn't mean that these are the true God and Jesus of the Bible.  This reader isn't going to say, "My belly is my God, you're right, Paul."  No, this reader is going to say that the true God and the true Jesus really are truly their God, but in fact their belly is their God.  True faith in God is not some arbitrary check in a box.  Many false religions put the check in the right boxes, but are not genuine faith.

The belly and the bowel contrast presented in part one distinguish between two religions or even two churches, with the exception that one of them isn't even a church, because it isn't preaching true conversion. The belly religion or church contradicts true salvation.  No one in the kingdom will have his belly as God.  It is a fabricated kingdom in someone's imagination, that he calls God's kingdom, because then he envisions being in God's future kingdom, while also pitching his tent in the kingdom of this world.  This has now long become the norm in evangelicalism, churches pandering to bellies.

The bowel approach relies on scripture alone, exclusively scriptural methodology, what the Apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 1-3.  That always "works."  When I say works, God's Word is powerful.  What I mean is that it really works.  However, it also doesn't "work."  It never "works."  The belly approach works far more in getting some tangible result and almost everyone reading this knows what I mean.  The belly approach incidentally is the Rick Warren approach of Purpose Driven Church.  Growing up, Warren didn't like how unsuccessful his father's church was, so he crafted a strategy that would always work.  His belly wanted more.  The nature of how the belly approach works reminds me of the moment Dr. Seuss's Grinch gets its idea.  It's either a wonderful or an awful idea, all depending on how one judges the two.  An awful idea became a wonderful idea, that was still awful.

Churches that proposition the belly introduce a different God.  God doesn't work through the belly.  He addresses the bowels.  God makes this plain in scripture.  It is determinative.  If your means or agency is belly, this isn't God.  It is a kind of bait and switch.  A belly allurement is not offering God.

What is a belly church?

To follow Paul in Philippians 3:19, the belly church minds earthly things.  BDAG provides two definitions of the Greek word translated "earthly":

1.  pertaining to what is characteristic of the earth as opposed to heavenly; 2.  pert. to earthly things, with implication of personal gratification, subst. worldly things

Someone again might ask:  But this is a church, isn't it?  It calls itself a church.  This is where discernment comes in.  In the next verse, Paul writes, "Our conversation is in heaven."  He is saying literally, "Our citizenship exists in heaven."  The word "is" or "exists (huparcho) is to say "what belongs to someone," so that heaven is where the believer's possession is.  The church is the domain of heaven on earth, not the domain of earth on earth.  The domain of earth on earth is the world.

The belly church tries to make earthly ones at home on earth instead of heaven.  Belly things are earthly things.  The belly church charms its subjects with its dress, music, recreation, and in general way of life, which is the meaning of culture.   It presents a worldly culture, and then says it represents God.  It isn't a solemn or reverent assembly.

The contemporary belly church labels its earthly culture, the grace of God.  Its adherents call this culture authentic, because it is who they really are.  They are free to be themselves, earthly and at home on this earth.  Their redemption brings a quantity of life, but not a quality of life.  It isn't redemption, because their god is still their belly and they are still minding earthly things.  They love the world, so the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15-17).

Some churches have just modified the earthly things, dialing them down and adding heavenly things, in accordance with the bowels, the affections.  Their worship isn't sacred.  It's just less worldly.  It's church schedule is still filled with earthly activities.  Very often these churches attract using earthly attractions, retaining a semblance of church.  An erosion has occurred to where the modifications of heavenly things, syncretizing them with earthly things, have become their own culture.  They're not really sacred anymore.  They're just called sacred, because the church has been using them.  Being used in the church doesn't make something sacred, whether it is a modified heavenly thing, mixed with earthly things, or completely earthly things.

Associates of or supporters of belly churches, please consider whether your God is your belly.  You might call it Jesus.  You're being fooled, and this deception will send you all the way to Hell.  Let's just say it.  You think you're on your way to heaven, but you're going to Hell.  When you're there, taking in the deception that your belly religion is Christianity, that will be an eternal, painful regret of the nature of gnashing of teeth.

(To Be Continued)

Updated Evangelistic Bible Study #1

The evangelistic Bible study series online at faithsaves.net are being updated.  Study #1, which covers the inspiration, preservation, and canonicity of Scripture, has been updated with pictures and other things that make it much nicer looking.  I would encourage you to start using the updated ones if your church uses these evangelistic Bible studies.

In addition to improvements in the appearance of the Bible study, some facts have been updated.  For example, the chart below:

which was in the older version of the study is no longer accurate.  The Bible still has far, far better manuscript evidence for it than any other ancient document has in its favor, but the specific numbers in the table are no longer accurate as more copies of various ancient texts, as well as more Biblical manuscripts, have been discovered.  The updated version of the study contains updated information.

You can download an MS Word file of Bible study #1 here to personalize with your church's information, while seekers can be directed here to get PDFs of it and to have access to other helpful gospel resources.

-TDR

Woke Cards: First in Series of Woke Holiday Cards

Send someone a Woke Card for the next holiday.  Here is the first in a series of Woke Holiday cards.  This one is for Thanksgiving holiday.  Don't worry about paying for someone's housing, actually providing them a home, like parents do their children.  Instead, send that homeless person this Woke Thanksgiving card.  The person (not a he or a she) will enjoy this card.

If you want to signal your own virtue to your friends at Thanksgiving, send a card to a homeless person.  Your other woke friends will be impressed.  Make sure you let them know by talking about what you've done.  Tell them about Woke Cards.

Rather than spending money you could use for designer ripped jeans, yoga pants, or your own alcohol (not the alcohol that helped them become homeless), just buy a Woke Thanksgiving card instead.  Everyone will love you.  That homeless person will still be homeless, but these woke cards might make them feel something.  Woke Cards is here for you.