The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

Like John MacArthur, despite clearly defining grace as the means of salvation and faith as the channel of grace, Todd Friel occasionally crosses the line into salvation by works.

I highly recommend listening to Wretched Radio. God does call on His children to reform their lives. Too many churches fail to call for reform, and communicating the gospel should describe the cost of obeying the gospel. Becoming a Christian does not mean God will heal all your relationships or make your life easy; and Eternal Security does not mean you can ignore your new life in Christ and do whatever you want without chastisement.

Apostate Christian churches have mis-defined repentance in both directions. Historically, churches, dominated by Roman Catholicism, have over-defined repentance by adding reform to it. In our times, New Evangelical churches tend to under-define it or omit it altogether. Many "Reformed" Christians over-emphasize repentance as an over-reaction to the New Evangelical watering down of the gospel. The mis-definitions of repentance makes it difficult to accurately differentiate between the call for non-Christians to repent and the call for God's children to reform.

While we should, therefore, practice grace when an earnest brother occasionally blurs the line, we should also stand for a correct definition of the gospel and point out failures to do so.

Friel crossed the line on Wretched Radio's "Witness Wednesday" episode for 19 June 2019. The conversation begins at 14:50. https://www.wretched.org/06-19-2019/

Friel crossed the line into a gospel of works while explaining the gospel to a young Roman Catholic woman, saying in his conclusion:

Friel: [W]hat do you need do to go to heaven? What would your answer be? 

Woman: Live for Jesus and for God.  

Friel: Yeah, that's right, to repent, and put your trust in Him. To repent, to ask for forgiveness, forsake your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ. And then you inherit eternal life.

(Note that the woman's answer was about works, and while supplying missing elements, Friel reinforced her error.)

"Forsake your sins" is ambiguous by itself, but a minute before, Friel had described repentance and faith thus:

[Y]ou repent, you recognize that you've sinned against God, you confess your sins to him, then you forsake them instead of living for yourself, you start living for Him, and you put your trust in Jesus Christ as if your life depended on it because frankly it does.

Just as there are sins of omission and sins of commission, there are good works of restraint and good works of commission. Forsaking sins is obeying the Don'ts of the commandments. Living for God is the Do's of the commandments.

What Friel and people like John MacArthur are saying is, "Do good works and then put trust in Christ." They do not say it all the time, but they say it often enough that they need to be called out on it. Making good works a requirement for salvation prevents salvation.

Whether one reforms by obeying God's covenant with Israel or by obeying the Law of Love is irrelevant. In the context of entering into salvation, "works" includes any attempt to be righteous enough to please God. 

The rest of what Friel says is, more or less, consistent with the gospel. It is consistent because we must recognize our sin and deserved condemnation in order to approach God. It is inconsistent because the emphasis is entirely on moral sin; it ignores that "sin" includes holding wrong beliefs.

There are sins we must forsake. For example:

• Worship of false gods
• Rejecting God's standards of sin and righteousness
• Rationalizing our sins 
• Believing we can be righteous enough to be accepted by God
• Believing God will forgive us without a price being paid
• Adding anything to grace and faith -- including reform

These are all matters of heart and mind, not of moral actions. For example, it does no good to give up adultery if you continue to worship the Unitarian god of Oneness Pentecostals or to serve statues and pray to Mary. With time, the fruits of repentance and of God reforming you from within follow. But actions are not included as requirements for salvation.

God sees the sincerity of the heart and the mind. He does not have to wait to see your actions. When you repent (mind and heart) and put faith in God for redemption, God saves you in that instant.

• Repentances does not include its result, reform. 
• Reforming yourself does not cause salvation. 
• Salvation enables repentance to cause reform.

In fact, reforming yourself to achieve salvation blocks salvation because you are attempting to make yourself presentable to God instead of relying on Christ to do that for you.

Preachers like Friel and MacArthur confuse many believers. When they preach salvation through faith alone, and then require works before faith, they contradict themselves and bring heresy into their gospel.


Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Why God Allowed the Fall

My daughter stunned me. People ask, "Why did God allow the Fall and evil?" as though the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. The typical answer is a rather vague, "God has a higher purpose."

My daughter asked, "Do you think what God does for us in salvation is greater than what Adam and Eve had before the Fall?" The thought process behind that question is profound! I'll draw out some of the details.

Before, the Fall, we were merely God's creatures. Made in God's image, yes, but still creatures, earthly. From Adam's and Eve's perfection flowed no logical need for improvement. As Adam and Eve were created, that is all we would ever be: creatures.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." John 12:24

In John 12:24, Jesus spoke primarily of His own impending death, yet in verses 25 and 26, He clearly applied the principle to His followers. The principle applies not only to individuals, but also to humankind.

Namely, our death in Adam created the need for a re-creation that opened a path to our becoming something greater than mere creatures.

Through our death in Adam and our rebirth in Christ, God transforms us into His sons and joint heirs with Christ. He makes our final state more glorious now and more rewarding for us in heaven; as well as more glorifying to, and enjoyable for, Himself

Thus, we have the higher purpose that motivated God to permit, and even ordain, such ultimate evils as the Fall and the murder of God the Son. Evil in the world is not evidence of no god; but rather, is evidence of a higher purpose, and therefore, evidence of God Himself.

Isaiah 12:4

What is the background to, and meaning of, Isaiah 12:4?

I first published this commentary on Quora on 25 January 2019. This version may have minor edits.

Quotes below are from the New American Standard translation.

Short Answer

4 And in that day you will say,

“Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name.
 Make known His deeds among the peoples;
 Make them remember that His name is exalted.”

The verse promises complete security to people of a future age who will have placed their trust entirely in God and His works. Although the verse does not apply to this age, the principle behind it is universal. In this age, those who place their trust entirely in God and His works are promised emotional peace, but not the physical victories indicated by the context of Isaiah 26:3. To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Background

During Isaiah’s time, Israel had been split in two. The northern segment, “Israel,” had been conquered, and its survivors had been carried off to other lands. The southern segment, “Judah,” remained but was overtaken with other religions and corruption. Followers of God not only received mistreatment from their own neighbors, but also saw the same thing that had happened to Israel threatening to happen to Judah.

Those who listened to the prophets knew that God’s punishment was coming. At this time, prophets such as Isaiah not only foretold about the punishment, but also foretold that God would restore their people to Judea. Such promises were accompanied by other details. Such details described a savior who would save not only their people, but all who would turn to Him.

So the prophesies not only warned of judgment, but also promised hope.

These prophesied events came like twin mountain tops lined up in the distance. The hearers could not tell them apart. That is one reason the Jews rejected Christ. They wanted the Second Coming to establish their national independence and dominance.

But from our position between the two peaks, it’s easy to see the difference. One mountain top was the incarnation of God the Son. The other was a Second Coming. During the first coming, Messiah would provide redemption through faith in His suffering; whereas during the second coming, He would assert His authority, judge the wicked, and establish peace on earth.

Isaiah 12:1 and 4 go together, but to appreciate their meaning, we have to place them in context. Verse 1 begins, Then you will say on that day… and verse 4 begins And in that day you will say…. So we need to turn to the previous chapter to determine when “that day” is.

Chapter 10 describes judgement and destruction of Judea. Chapter 11 describes Messiah as a descendant of Jesse, King David’s father. The chapter opens by describing His character and segues into describing His work during His Second Coming. It is here that we find beautiful images such as

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them. (verse 6)

In that time, the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD… The nations will resort to [Messiah] (verses 9 and 10). In other words, faith in God would no longer be a parochial religion of the Jews, but a faith among all peoples.

The remainder of the chapter describes the final restoration of Israel and judgement of its enemies.

Meaning

In this context, now we can appreciate chapter 12.

Then you [the believer] will say on that day,
“I will give thanks to You, O LORD;
For although You were angry with me,
Your anger is turned away,
And You comfort me.

“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD
is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.” (verses 1–2)

This could be interpreted either of two ways. The obvious application is that, in the time of Messiah’s Second Coming, God will have forgiven Israel for its blasphemies and crimes. A second meaning comes from the principle described, namely, that there is a relationship between trusting God for salvation and having His justice satisfied. The personal language indicates that the quotations are spoken by individuals and not as a collective nation.

This relationship of redemption and trust allows verse 3: Therefore you [the believer] will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation.. Water represents the cleansing and strength provided by God through this new relationship with Him.

In verse 4,

And in that day you [the redeemed] will say,
“Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name.
Make known His deeds among the peoples;
Make them remember that His name is exalted.”

So in verses 1–2, we have believers rejoicing and praising God, and in verse 4, they encourage each other to praise God and share the good news. They will do so, motivated by thankful hearts described in verses 1–2.

If we apply verses 1–4 to ourselves, it is about the attitude that we should have toward God; and it should have such a magnitude and outworking that we want everybody to share in the same joy. There is no room for “practicing your religion at home” or “freedom from religion.” There should be great joy in salvation, and you should want to shout it from the housetops! (Alas, we are not in the age of the Second Coming yet, and our bodies do not always allow our experience to match up with theory.)

There is one more important implication in this passage. In order for “you,” a believer over 700 years before Messiah’s first coming, to give thanks to God when Messiah returns in 2019+ AD, “you” must be alive and present. This is not an unusual inference. See Mark 12:18–27. Resurrection is implied in the Old Testament and explicitly promised in the New Testament.

I’m sure there are some who will pluck the verse and twist it into some other meaning. Remember this:

If the plain sense makes good sense,
any other sense is probably nonsense.

The Perfect Peace Promised in Isaiah 26:3

What is the background to, and meaning of, Isaiah 26:3?

I first published this commentary on Quara on 28 Janury 2019.

For my answer, I quote extensively from my answer to a similar Quora question about Isaiah 12:4. 

Quotes below are from the New American Standard translation.

Short Answer

3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
 Because he trusts in You.”

The verse promises complete security to people of a future age who will have placed their trust entirely in God and His works. Although the verse does not apply to this age, the principle behind it is universal. In this age, those who place their trust entirely in God and His works are promised emotional peace, but not the physical victories indicated by the context of Isaiah 26:3. To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Background

During Isaiah’s time, Israel had been split in two. The northern segment, “Israel,” had been conquered, and its survivors had been carried off to other lands. The southern segment, “Judah,” remained but was overtaken with other religions and corruption. Followers of God not only received mistreatment from their own neighbors, but also saw the same thing that had happened to Israel threatening to happen to Judah.

Those who listened to the prophets knew that God’s punishment was coming if the kingdom did not return to God. At this time, prophets such as Isaiah not only foretold about the punishment, but also foretold that God would later restore their people to Judea. Such promises were accompanied by other details. Such details described a savior who would save not only their people, but all who would turn to Him.

So the prophesies not only warned of judgment, but also promised hope.

Since these prophesied events were future, they were like mountain tops lined up in the distance. The hearers could not tell them apart. That is one reason the Jews rejected Christ. They wanted the Second Coming to establish their national independence and dominance. They did not accept that the spiritual redemption and the political redemption could be two different events.

From our position between peaks, it’s easy to see the difference. One mountain top was the restoration of Israel as a nation that was a territory of Greece and then of Rome. The second mountain top was the incarnation of God the Son. The third was a Second Coming. During the incarnation, Messiah would provide redemption through faith in His suffering; whereas during the second coming, He would assert His authority, judge the wicked, and establish peace on earth.

Meaning

To appreciate Isaiah 26:3, we first have ask about which age the verse directly applies to. Let’s start by connecting it to the preceding verses.

1 In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah:
“We have a strong city;
He [God] sets up walls and ramparts for security.
2“Open the gates, that the righteous nation may enter,
The one that remains faithful.
3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
Because he trusts in You.”

The “that day” in verse 1 refers to the age resulting from second coming of Christ. We could re-read chapters 10 through 25 to point out the evidence, but I’ll go back just to verse 8 of chapter 25 to illustrate one of the characteristics of “that day.”

8 He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces….

Compare verse 8 to 1 Corinthians 15:54

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

Revelation 21:3-4
And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

1 Corinthians 15:54 refers to the beginning of the age marked by Christ’s return, and Revelation 21 refers to the end of that age, which culminates in the reward of the justified, the judgment of the unconverted, and the commencement of a re-created heaven and earth. The direct interpretation of Isaiah 26:3, then, must recognize that it applies to age which is, to us, in the future. 

That does not mean that the principle stated in the verse cannot apply in our age. The promise of both emotional and physical perfect peace applies to that future age, but the promise of emotional perfect peace applies to all times. Verse 4 continues,

4“Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.

Compare Psalm 62, written centuries before Isaiah’s day

6 He [God] only is my rock and my salvation,
My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.7 On God my salvation and my glory rest;
The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God.8 Trust in Him at all times, O people;
Pour out your heart before Him;
God is a refuge for us. 

and in Isaiah chapter 12, concerning the age following the incarnation

2“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD
is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.”

Trust in God and having emotional peace — the opposite of fear — is a universal promise throughout the scriptures. For example, in Ephesians 2:11–22, Paul writes of a peace between Jews and non-Jews, and between man and God, that Christ established. He established this peace by providing redemption from the condemnation that the Old Testament commandments make us aware of and joining Jews and non-Jews into a single body, the church. 

Conclusion

Do not believe the lie of many highly visible, false, evangelical leaders who teach that the promise is for peaceful circumstances today. Jesus said in John 16:33, These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. In the close to his letter, 2 Thessalonians, Paul writes

16 Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all!

For this age, the perfect peace means emotional peace in every circumstance. The promise is conditional, it is for The steadfast of mind who trusts in You [God].  To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Anoint Yourself with Olive Oil

Someone asked, 

What does the Bible say about anointing yourself with olive oil?

after a preacher used Matthew 6:16-18 as the basis of a sermon telling people to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Being anointed was a cultural act that had several meanings in the Bible. Most references to anointing with oil denote a ceremony that gave authority to a prophet, priest, or ruler. Oil symbolized the Spirit of God blessing the person with His presence, so the ceremony symbolized God giving the person gifts such as authority to mediate between men and God (priesthood), the ability to speak with God-breathed words (prophecy), or power, wisdom, skill, or discernment.

Cultures around the Mediterranean Sea practiced anointing with oil. It was part of grooming, similar to using gel to make hair stay in place. Some aromatic chemicals in plants dissolve in oil (and not in water), so oil might be perfumed. Omitting oil from grooming could indicate poverty, grief, or a religious reason for self-deprivation such as fasting.

It was also a health practice similar to applying hand or body lotion to skin and a medicinal practice similar to applying salve to a burn or cut. Here are two such references:

• The Good Samaritan came to a wounded man and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. (Luke 10:34, NASB) (Luke 10:34, NASB) The wine prevented infection and the oil promoted healing and reduced pain caused by exposure to the air.
  
• Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord… (James 5:14, NASB). The anointing here conveys the medical sense, rather than the ceremonial sense, as is commonly misunderstood — although the treatment is to be done in the name of the Lord and with prayer. Note in the following verse that any supernatural healing effect results from the prayer, not from the anointing.

The grooming and skin-care practices are referred to in several passages.

• You shall have olive trees throughout your territory, but you will not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olives will drop off [the trees without ripening]. (Deuteronomy 28:40, NASB) This was part of a warning that listed several ways Israel would suffer if the nation departed from serving the Lord.
  
• Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. (Ruth 3:3, NASB) The meaning here was like saying, “Put on your makeup to make yourself presentable and attractive.”
  
• In Matthew 6, Jesus talks about doing things out of sincere caring instead of to be seen and praised by others. Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father… (verses 16-18).

The Bible nowhere commands anointing oneself in the sense of taking on authority or the power of the Spirit of God. God delegates authority. Seizing authority without God’s having granted it would be an act of rebellion. Similarly, the power, wisdom, or joy of the Spirit is a gift, and it is a sin of presumption to claim such a gift and give it to oneself.

The Bible does command walking in the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit — that is, living in obedience to what God has already commanded in the scriptures. We are to walk in accordance with scriptural principles such as purity, honesty, love, service, and a thirst for more knowledge of, and deeper relationship with, God and each other. But we are to receive such things as gifts, in dependence on God, not to confer them on ourselves as though we had the authority to do so. 

Preaching a message, based on Matthew 6:16–18, about being filled with the Spirit is like telling a child not to run with sharp scissors because the vitamin A in carrots is good for your eyes. The lesson is good, but the reason given has nothing to do with it. A pattern of such poor logic is reason to seek a different church because, eventually, poor logic will lead to lessons that are bad.

Copyright 2018, Richard Wheeler

Can the Sin of ____ Be Forgiven?

The good news is that, it can be forgiven. Jesus said, “And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31) This may not mean you are forgiven. It means you can be forgiven. Since you can be forgiven, you probably want to know more about that.

Let’s look closer. Why were you confused? There are three probable causes. First, you may be too new in faith to have much knowledge. That is understandable, as long as you determine to learn so you won’t be easily fooled again. Second, you may have had faith for a while but never bothered to do your homework. In this case, the sin of allowing yourself to remain ignorant can be forgiven, but you still bear the consequences. Third, you remain outside the faith. You may be close to conversion or far from it, but the result is the same.

If you are “in the faith,” then God, as Judge, has already forgiven you. (As loving Father, though, He may still need to correct you.) If not “in the faith,” then it is wise to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) and “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.” (2 Corinthians 13:5) There are three topics in the test.

The first test is what you believe about yourself. The second is what you believe about God. The third is whether you put your trust in God.

You know you need forgiveness, so I will only expand on that point for the sake of other readers. Atheists (there is nobody to forgive and nothing needs forgiveness) and Universalists (everybody is already forgiven) think they need no forgiveness. For this answer, let’s ignore them.

The next group thinks they have a free pass to heaven just because Grandpa was a preacher or because they can trace their genealogy back to Judah, son of Israel, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Be we do not inherit good deeds; we answer for our own thoughts and actions. Someone has said, “God has no grandchildren.”

A related group knows that right and wrong exists, but they don’t think they are bad. They think the good they do outweighs the bad they’ve done. But will that work in court? If you are on trial for shoplifting, do you think the judge will acquit you just because you volunteer at the food kitchen? It doesn’t work that way! We owe it to God to do right. If we fall behind and use the July rent payment to pay for June, we still owe for July. So we cannot “do good,” which we owe to our Creator, to pay for our sins.

Well, I keep the Ten Commandments, some say. But God gave the Commandments (there are actually over 600 — not that I counted) not to give us a standard by which to justify ourselves, but to show that we are on the “bad” side of the ledger. Everybody breaks the Commandments. Everybody. Because the closer you look, the more sub sections pop out.

For example, Jesus said, “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder…’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell…. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart…. everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” *Matthew 5:21-32).

Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote that nobody will be justified in God’s sight by keeping the Commandments (also called the Law); because the purpose of the Law was to make us aware of sin and shut the mouth of every person who would boast of their own righteousness. (Romans 3:19-20) The Law was a schoolmaster whose purpose was to make us aware of our need and bring us to reliance on God (Galatians 3:24).

So if we cannot be good enough, can we be saved from hell? Yes, if we let go of self-righteousness and let God, our Judge, pay the penalty that we cannot afford to pay. That is where the Cross comes in. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). Notice in this verse that Christ suffered once, not continuously or in every mass, as a certain megachurch tell us. He suffered once for all of our sins, not for just the ones we’ve repented from. There are so many that we don’t even realize we’re committing! He took our punishment that we deserved. And He did it to bring us to God. As a perfect, omnipotent Shepherd, He brings His flock, ALL His flock, home.

Human pride makes us want to contribute to our justification through good works, but our works and God’s gift are mutually exclusive. You cannot earn a gift. If you receive a gift and then work to complete it or to retain it, then it turns from a gift into wages. That insults the Giver. The hardest part of the test for many is letting God give the gift freely. Baptism is good, but that cannot be part of receiving the gift. Joining a church (a bible-teaching church) is good, but that is not part of receiving the gift.

The only thing you can do to receive the gift is, knowing that you need it, submit to receiving it.

Many people say the words, but not from their hearts. Years back, because so many people had shallow, false conversions, it became popular to add, “you must make Jesus the Lord of your life.” That is a good thing, and He is Lord regardless; but that is not what the Bible commands for conversion. It is popular now to add, “you must repent of your sins.” That is more complicated. A common error includes reforming yourself as part of repentance. But repentance simply means changing your mind and your heart. In fact, we must repent from the idea that we can reform ourselves. We need God’s help to do that. So we do not reform to receive the gift; we reform afterwards, because we have received the gift.

I will finish with one last element of the test. Who is God? Many ideas have sprung up in the last 2,000 years to distract us from God. I will not describe them all but will leave it to you to discover the evidence in the Bible for yourself. i will just describe God for you.

God created the heavens and the earth. (Whether He did so less than 10,000 years ago, did it in phases, or did it billions of years ago, I don’t know, and I am comfortable not knowing.) Physics tells us that creative power over matter and energy implies creative power over time and space, as well. When you consider that God knows the future, it makes sense that he exists before, outside of, or above time. As Creator of time, God entered His creation to reveal Himself and experience it as three Persons. One united God, three distinct (yet united) Persons, each fully God, all-powerful, omnipresent, all-knowing, holy, righteous, relational, and loving.

The three Persons have distinct roles. One identifies Himself as the Father. The second identifies Himself as the Son. And the third identifies Himself as the Holy Spirit. The three roles both share and divide the labor of creation, redemption, and restoration, and they teach us by example, so there is purpose to it.

I said God is love, and love is relational. A unitary god such as that of the Watchtower, Islam, and certain Pentecostal churches, had nobody to relate to before creation. So that god had an unmet need for fellowship. Islam says, “Allah is great,” but the triune God who had no such need is greater. Moreover, it is an inferior god who forgives without justice being fulfilled, whose holiness can tolerate unredeemed sin, and whose love cannot bring him to redeem.

The only sin that cannot be forgiven is what Jesus called “blasphemy against the Spirit.” Blasphemy against the Spirit had a specific meaning and a generalized principle. The Jews had accused Jesus of performing miracles using the devil’s power. Since the Holy Spirit supplied the power in Jesus’ miracles, they were saying the Holy Spirit was the devil. God takes blasphemy personally!

The principle is broader. The Holy Spirit makes us aware of our sins and draws us toward trusting Christ for redemption. If we resist that drawing, then we repeat the Jews’ rejection of the Holy Spirit. Since that means we will not repent and be converted, we will never receive forgiveness, not only for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but for any sins.

If you have seen yourself as lost to sin, as God sees, then you can entrust yourself to His provision for your redemption and receive that gift and the many blessings that come with it; and He does not take back His gifts.

Leftist Question: Why Are Conservatives Proud They're Not Progressives?

What Opposites Share

Why are Conservatives proud they're not Progressives? For many of the same reasons that Progressives are proud not to be Conservatives. Contrary to many opinions, both sides share the same human frailties and motives. Since the questioner is, presumably, in the Progressive camp, he/she/? already knows most of the answer. All he/she/? needs to do is answer why Progressives feel the same pride and apply the same reason to Conservatives.

It is true that extreme Conservatives resist any change, but extreme Progressives will accept any change (except when things really need to be changed back; then, they become the reactionaries). Both extremes share mindless attitudes about change.

Domanance

Unfortunately, among Progressives, the extreme has become mainstream, dominating entertainment, news media, education, the Democrat Party, and new-media giants such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook. If your grasp of reason, facts, and history arm you to resist all of that, you have something to be proud of.

Intellectual Honesty

Another difference is that Conservatives are not really that inflexible. They are willing to be convinced when proposed changes are specific, effective, and efficient, and will cause minimal unintended consequences such as chipping away at God-given rights. I don’t see willingness to learn from Progressives. For example, in debate after debate, Progressives repeatedly confuse semi-automatic with assault and confuse scary style with military performance. If there’s a way to obfuscate, they will use it. Conservatives can get things wrong, but since they cling to “outdated” values such as thou shalt not bear false witness, they lack the ability to intentionally spin language that way. And that is another thing Conservatives can take pride in.

Reason Versus Hysteria

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Conservatives rhetoric trends toward deductive, left-brain thinking whereas Progressives rhetoric leans toward inductive, right-brain thinking. And right-brain thinking is the gateway to hysterical, lizard-brained, fight-or-flight thinking. Progressivism is home to unions and Antifa (fight), and to snowflakes (flight). Recent studies have supported this, showing that Conservatives consider a significantly wider range of values and perspectives when thinking about an issue. For example, a Conservative will balance the suffering and loss of life when a child is vivisected during gestation against a few months inconvenience and comfort if nobody will help a mother kill her child. All the Progressive can see is the mother. The person who balances more values and perspectives has good reason to take pride in Conservative thinking.

Consistency Versus Hypocrisy

Conservatives tend to be far more consistent than Progressives. For example, a Progressive holds the lives of murderers sacred, as well as the temporary convenience of a mother who has engaged in risky reproductive behavior, but disregards the life of a pre-born child. They rescue the guilty and help kill the innocent. Progressives condemn racism against Blacks and then institute racism against Whites. Hate speech is speech that Progressives hate. For example, a Twitter user created two accounts and sent out identical rants. One set ranted against “Whites” and the other against “Blacks,” both saying the same words. Twitter censored the anti-black account and left the anti-White account alone. When Conservatives build out applications from principles and balance different perspectives in a consistent manner, they have reason to be proud.

Religion Versus Magic

Conservatives are rooted in reality. Religious Conservatives also look to time-tested tenets of the social contract. Progressives also are rooted in religion, but they hide it behind Relativism. Relativism has led to magical thinking such as, a boy can think himself into a girl, a baby not yet seen is not yet a baby, and if irresponsible reproductive behavior is right for you, then it’s OK. At least the religious Conservatives are honest about the supernatural element behind some of what they think, and it does not conflict with physical reality. Conservatives, even religious Conservatives, can take pride in refuting the delusions of Progressives.

Reasons for Pride

There are fanatics, quislings, idiots, fools, and evildoers in any movement, so this is all painted with a broad brush. Conservatives are standing against powerful cultural influences. They are teachable, more reasonable, more balanced in weighing more principles and perspectives, more honest and consistent, and more rooted in reality. These are all reasons for them to take pride.

Honor, Therefore, Conservatism

But perhaps we are looking at this backwards. Perhaps Conservatism attracts people who have pride, people who have enough honor to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming others for their place in life.

I started life in abject poverty. I worked my way through college, taking ten years to finish a five-year degree. My career plateaued because less-qualified, favored-class people received the training I needed and the promotions I had sacrificed for. My career collapsed because the Democrat-caused housing bubble trapped me in a 180-mile per day commute. My career died when Democrats decimated my industry, right at the worst possible time, the depths of the recession in 2009. I have gone full circle, back to my roots in poverty.

It is tempting to think the government owes me for what it did to the career I sacrificed to achieve. It would be nice if being a White, educated male did not disqualify me from the benefits that allow my neighbors to live far better than me. But I have not discarded reason and pride, so I remain Conservative (though moderately Liberal by the standards of my parents’ generation). And thus, I retain my honor, too.

Commies and Fascists, Sitting In a Tree

Why do conservatives consider communism and fascism to be close cousins and the opposite of conservatism?

More Like Siblings

Quora has a page with some wonderful answers that describe common characteristics of Communism and Fascism and that contrast them with Conservatism. However, common characteristics merely makes for similarity. “Close cousins” implies common heritage and genetic commonality that cause the commonalities. The metaphor bears truth.

Just as Vladimir Lenin and built Mao Zedong built their bloody Communist regimes upon a foundation of Marxism, so did Giovanni Gentile built his philosophy of Fascism upon Marxism. (Is Fascism Right or Left?) Thus, Communism and Fascism derive from a common philosophy. They are more like half-sibling rivals than like cousins. (Progressivism shares those roots, and Communist governments had a hand in establishing it in American politics.)

Children of Marxism

The children of Marxism are rooted in the idea that the collective (that is, in practice, the State) is a higher organism than man. They require acceptance of a Utopian notion of citizens submitting their interests to the common good.

That is a fine idea, as long as the system is filled with hypothetical, ideal humans. However, in practice, it has two fatal flaws. First, humans are a competitive, self-interested species. Someone will always claw his or her way to the top, and bolder citizens will fight for freedom.

Second, the State will always have to use indoctrination, intimidation, and force to cause everybody to submit to the collective’s will or to preserve the top dog’s rule, crushing freedom and removing incentive to excel. Thus, Marxism’s children, Communism and Fascism, always lead to totalitarianism.

Conservatism

American Conservatism is rooted in the idea that the individual is the ultimate earthly organism. That is why the Founders established a government with the People at the top, a Constitution expressing their will, and Government at the bottom. Whereas the People subjected under Marxism exist to serve the government, in Conservatism, the government exists to serve the people. That is why Marxist governments claim for themselves all capital, or at least control of capital, whereas Capitalist governments remove as little capital as possible from the People.

Conservatism also recognizes what happens when you introduce flawed, self-interested humans into any system. Freedom and retaining the fruit of one’s labors give people incentive to excel, raising metrics for the whole society. Moreover, Conservatism recognizes the need for balancing powers within politics and government, a major tenet of the US Constitution, so that competing interests keep each other in check. This contrasts against rule one-party rule and dictatorship that always develop in Marxist governments.

Another contrast is that Marxist “Social Justice” dictates equality of outcome that places heavier burdens on disfavored classes, such as forced redistribution of wealth to less successful classes, whereas Conservatism emphasizes equality of rights, individual responsibility for outcome, and voluntary charity. Thus, Conservatism champions personal charity and individual justice whereas Social Justice depersonalizes charity and undermines equal justice.

I have specified American Conservatism because the word Conservatism is defined by its context. It generally indicates a philosophy of preserving the current system. American Conservatives who want to restore lost values are insultingly called "paleo conservatives," when in fact, many of them would have been considered moderate-to-liberal just a generation ago.

American Conservatism is known in the rest of the world as liberalism because it champions conditions that allow liberty, unlike monarchy and Marxism. More importantly, American Conservatism could be better described as Americanism because it promotes the foundational values of American society and government, in resistance to Marxist values that now dominate the Left.

However, we stick with the label Conservatism because we can’t stomach the screams of “How dare you call me un-American” from un-American Leftists.

Where the Popes and Cardinals Are in the Bible

The Short Answer

The best answer is simply that the Bible says nothing positive about popes and cardinals. It doesn’t take many words to point out an absence of evidence. I will require many words, however, because it is not so simple to refute rationalizations for violating what the scriptures do say.

Titles Are Not "Wrong"

In a hierarchy, it is desirable to give titles to different levels. For example, in a corporation, you might have a president, several vice presidents, managers, and supervisors. Even Moses, upon the advice of his father-in-law, appointed levels of supervision. The New Testament has words such as deacon, elder, shepherd, and bishop, and they are used descriptively rather than as titles. Man focuses on titles, but God focuses on the work.

Industry, especially the software industry, is returning to the model of allowing people to self-organize, at least at the bottom levels, because they know what needs to be done and how best to accomplish it. This trend is called “Agile” and helps produce more value sooner, especially in changing environments. 

Similarly, the New Testament is intentionally ambiguous so that creating offices such as Pastor, Bishop, and Cardinal is left to individual churches. Not every model, such as independent churches versus worldwide denominations, fits every political and cultural environment. So the fact that the scriptures do not spell out a title is not enough reason to reject it.

The Unbiblical Title and Role of Pope 

The title of Pope, however, is strictly anti-biblical — and worse. Jesus said, Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) One rule of Bible interpretation is, if the plain sense makes good sense, any other sense is probably nonsense.  It is not only anti-biblical to call a priest Father, but also to call a man Pope.

Further explanation ought to be unnecessary, but I anticipate heated objections, so I’ll elaborate.

When we consider the title, Pope, we must first recognize that it comes from Greek papas, father. This is echoed in another title of the pope, Holy Father. In Mark 10:18, Jesus said, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 

There are many similar statements with the term holy, such as 1 Samuel 2:2, There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. Goodness and holiness can be ascribed to God alone. Peter would have been appalled at being called Father or Holy Father.

Do you see a trend, yet? 

In John (see 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7), Jesus gave a descriptive title to God the Holy Spirit: Paraclete, which has the meanings of comforter and advocate. He described the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) as coming in His place, to be His vicarious Presence. That meets the definition of Vicar of Christ (substitute for Christ). 

Catholicism puts these usurped titles into action by placing its “Fathers” between believers and God, discouraging non-clergy from fully enjoying the personal relationship that God desires to have with his children. All three members of the Triune God fulfill the relationship without human interference:

• The Son -- He [God the Son] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25
  
• The Spirit -- In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to [the will of] God. Romans 8:26–27
  
• The Father -- Let us then approach God's [the Father’s] throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:16

The system instead inserts itself between people and God, encouraging people to bring their prayers to its priests, to believers in heaven, and to angels — as though they had the omnipresence and omniscience that allows God to receive all prayers.

No First Pope

Before closing, one more issue, and a tangent, need addressing. You will observe circular reasoning that Peter was the first pope, so the papal office is legitimate, so the first pope was Peter. 

First, nobody called Peter a pope until hundreds of years later. The proof text, Matthew 16:15–19, used by Catholic teachers, simply does not call him pope, and it does not give him the extent of authority they claim.

Christ Is the Rock

The rock on which Christ said He would build His church is Peter’s confession. You can see Peter as being the rock only if you are biased to see it that way. In the Greek, Peter is masculine gender petros whereas rock is feminine gender petra. A petros is a stone whereas a petra is a monolith. If Jesus had meant Peter was the rock, He would have used the same word, saying You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petros) I will build my church, not on this rock (petra). 

To the contrary, the Bible gives the title of Rock to God the Son, as in 1 Corinthians 10:4, that rock was Christ, and as in 1 Samuel 2:2 (above). Even Peter himself identified Christ as the Rock toward the end of 1 Peter 2:4–8, and anyone who grasps biblical metaphor can understand that “rock,” Christ, extends to the recognition of whom Christ is — the core of the gospel. Again, Catholic teaching misapplies a title that belongs to God alone to a human.

Keys to the Kingdom Fulfilled in Acts

Catholic teaching says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to total authority over the church. That is inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Act 1:8, the theme verse of that book, declares, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.  Acts describes the expansion of “God’s people” from the disciples, to Jews in Jerusalem, to Judeans, to Samarians, to the gentiles. Peter was present for each of those expansions, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were opened up to those concentric groups through him. 

However, Peter did not remain at the head of the church’s earthly hierarchy, as it had another president long before Peter left the scene (Acts chapters 15 and 21).

Catholic Bishops are Unqualified

Second, the Catholic explanation avoids the apostle’s description of a bishop’s qualifications. The Catholic will say that the bishop is married to the church, but Titus 1:4–9 specifically speaks of not only a wife, but also children. Indeed, Paul pointed out how Peter, Jesus’ brothers James and Jude, and other apostles each had wives, and had a right to have wives, in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul clearly teaches that God makes some people for marriage and others for single lives. Imposing celibacy on all clergy is strictly anti-biblical.

On a metaphorical level, it violates common sense for the church (the body of all believers) to take multiple human husbands when it is already the future Bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25-27, Revelation 19:7-9) Likewise, it makes no sense for the married apostles to have both earthly and corporate wives. Thus, the Catholic priesthood usurps yet another title and role of God, that of divine Husband.

The Sin of Papal Veneration

Catholicism gives to its chief the titles and roles of Holy, Holy Father, Pope (papas), Paraclete, Vicar of Christ, intercessor, husband of the church. It delegates those roles and titles, in reduced form, to its local representatives. These titles all belong to God. Catholic priests may have been taught that God delegates these to them, but the claims contradict the Bible. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8 Usurping the titles and roles of God is a severe form of blasphemy.  

Over a millennium of rationalizing does not make the rationalizing any less sophistic. It is worth considering whether allegiance to an organization that creates new standards (traditions that morph with the culture) in order to justify contradicting the unchanging original standard (the scriptures) is the right choice.

Uncertainty and the Rapture

As an engineer, I learned to live with uncertainty. People want absolutes, but an engineer is perfectly comfortable saying, "A is probable, B is possible, and C is not likely." The engineer will then plan for A, but have a backup plan in case B happens.

That's how I think about the Rapture.

The Pre-Trib Rapture is probable, but other models are possible, so I'll plan to do right, whatever happens. That includes the high probability, in light of two millennia of history, that I will be neither raptured nor martyred.

Will Disappointment Trip Rapturists?

Persecutions have always happened and still happen. Therefore, we know that great persecution can and probably will come upon us between now and, assuming there is one, the beginning of the Tribulation. 

Should those who hope for a Rapture before the Tribulation find themselves in the Tribulation, they'll probably be too busy with survival to lose faith just because there was no Rapture. If they're true believers, they'll buck up anyway. Those who fall and receive the Mark were never true believers.

Whose Day of Wrath?

As for the rapture itself, today is the age of the devil's wrath against the church. The Tribulation is the day of God's wrath against the world. 

God may in this day, as Father, allow the devil's wrath to purify us, to purify the church of false believers, and to demonstrate His victory through our faithfulness.

However, in the day of His wrath, as Judge, He will be loathe to unleash His wrath against His own children. It would make sense, therefore, for God to remove us from the path of His vengeance. 

Earth Sans God the Holy Spirit

Moreover, evil is hindered by the Holy Spirit's presence in us, making us preservative salt to the world. Removing the Holy Spirit without us would require God to retract multiple benefits of salvation from us; for example, the seal of the Spirit. Even worse, God would have to break His promise (Ephesians 1:13). 

Therefore, the unleashing of the Antichrist requires the rapture.

The removal of the saints by the Rapture does not mean that no saints will walk the earth during the Tribulation. The world will notice the disappearance of the church, and many who had heard the gospel would then be converted. Since the removal of the pre-Rapture saints would already have unleashed the Antichrist, God could continue all the promises to the new, post-Rapture saints, including the promised Holy Spirit.

Pan Millennialism

My friend, the late Greg Knapp, once declared, "I have studied all the eschatological models and can argue in favor of or against any of them. After all that study, I chose to call myself a Pan Millennialist." 

"Let me guess," I said after a moment's cogitation, "it will all pan out in the end?"

"You got it." At the first coming of Christ, nobody foresaw that it would occur in stages, and those most adamant about their interpretation were wrong. Some of us may be close, but I have no doubt that the End Times will likewise pan out in ways more perfect than we ever imagined.

Hope and Reality

God removed Lot before nuking his town and removed Noah before flooding the world. I'm hoping for the Rapture, because it seems the best interpretation and a lot more fun than dying of a traffic accident, sickness, or martyrdom. But if the Tribulation comes and I'm still here, I will remind myself of Job's words, "Yea, though He slay me, yet I will trust in Him."

Copyright 2017, Richard Wheeler