The Conscience: Which Way Shall It Lead?

An important theme in the New Testament is the role that conscience plays in human lives. We immediately think of its role in the life of the believer, but we should never forget that the unbeliever has a conscience, too, though he deals with it in a very different way.

Let's start with the origin of the conscience: "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). This verse shows that the conscience is part of the image of God, which, though marred by sin, remains in every man. It is a remnant of the Law of God which had been implanted in the heart of Adam, and which is renewed in the heart of every believer as part of regeneration (Hebrews 10:16).

That conscience in the unbeliever will always produce a reaction, but that reaction can be in either of two directions, as the verse above indicates. For the reprobate, the conscience is solely a source of accusation. We see this, for example, in Judas after the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:3). Did Judas seek forgiveness for his betrayal? No. Rather, he committed suicide (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18-19). These possibilities, guilt or forgiveness, are the only two possible reactions to the truth of the Gospel (II Corinthians 2:16).

For the elect, his conscience drives him to the only place that he can clear his conscience, to faith in Jesus's atoning blood (I Peter 3:21). For the reprobate, the conscience can never be salved, but can only be suppressed (Romans 1:18).

"The burden which presses with intolerable weight upon the soul is the terrible conviction, wrung from the depths of our moral natures. that we have done wrong and deserve to die. It is this feeling that we deserve our doom which kindles the hell within us. If we would strip ourselves of the burning consciousness of this fact, no amount of evil could ever be regarded in the light of punishment."
James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"

The Continuing Validity of the Sabbath, as Demonstrated by Israel's Exile

In discussions about the Sabbath, I often get challenged by people, often from dispensationalist backgrounds, who claim that the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, an was, therefore, abrogated by the cross work of Jesus.

And I agree with the part about the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonies. they pointed to the atonement purchased for His people by Jesus, and, therefore, have no place in the lives of Christians. However, I firmly deny that the Sabbath was part of those ceremonies.

rather, the sabbath was a creation ordinance, together with marriage and productive labor. We see it in Genesis 2:3: "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation." Other than to deny it, I have never gotten a coherent explanation as to why that reference is not to the Sabbath.

The problem with that objection is what Moses actually does say in the Fourth Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20:8-11). So Moses tells us that God's declaration in Genesis 2:3 is the basis for the Fourth Commandment. It is not the other way around, as these dispensationalists claim.

The implication of this is that the claim of these same people that the Sabbath was part of, and, therefore, abrogated with, the Mosaic ceremonies is unbiblical. Some of them go on to add, to reinforce their weak abrogation argument, that there is no record of the celebration of the Sabbath between Genesis and Exodus. Well, that is an argument from silence, and is insufficient evidence with no other biblical support. Also, even if correct, it is not to the point. The failure of the people to obey the command does not abrogate the command. We see this in regard to the land sabbaths (Leviticus 25:1-7). We are explicitly told that Israel never obeyed the command to give the land a rest every seven years, so those missed land sabbaths are the basis of their seventy years of exile in Babylon (II Chronicles 36:21).

I think this brief case refutes any view of the Sabbath as an abrogated ceremony, or that failure to obey it is proof that it was nonbinding.

The Aroma of Life in the Preaching of God's Word

"Thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life."
- II Corinthians 2:14-16

This is an odd passage, in which Paul compares the Gospel to smells. That is not the image that usually comes to mind for me, probably most of us, but stimulates him to great enthusiasm.

A triumphal procession was a Roman custom, in which a triumphant general, upon his return to Rome, would lead a parade consisting of him, his triumphant troops, and memorabilia of his conquest, such as idols, works of art, and, most importantly, prisoners. This is the image that Paul gives of his missionary work, with his "conquests" being those that had received the Gospel. But then he suddenly switches from that visual image to the olfactory image of the means of his conquest. The weapons of the Christian are never implements of the military, such as swords and spears, but are only spiritual: "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:4).

Our spiritual weapon consists in the verbal proclamation of the Gospel (Romans 10:14-15), because God has promised His power, not in man's weapons, but only in His word: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).

Another thing we notice in Paul's remarks is that the response to God's word is not of just one kind. There is always a response, but it can be either of two kinds: "to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." To him who shall die in unbelief, the word of God is a smell of death, a warning that he rejects, falling further into unbelief. However, to him who will believe, the word of God bears life as the Holy Spirit applies it to his heart in regeneration. The true preaching of the Gospel will always have one effect or the other.

American Evangelical Tolerance: The Game Plan That Failed

In America, the popular version of evangelical Christianity has followed our new national orthodoxy: "Thou shalt not offend." God loves everyone unconditionally. Even the Pope has joined in, claiming that atheists might be saved without knowing it. To talk about God's holiness, wrath, or judgment is to be considered too fanatical for polite company.

However, that American religion is not at all like the biblical faith from which it came.

Here is what the Bible says about the justice of God: "That day [of judgment] is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge Himself on His foes. The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood" (Jeremiah 46:10. Where is that tolerant, all-loving deity of today's Christian? Certainly not in this verse.

Here is another one: "The LORD has a sword; it is sated with blood; it is gorged with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom" (Isaiah 34:6).

These verses are just examples, not alone in expressing the violence of the judgment of God. Moreover, they reveal a God who is utterly unlike the creampuff advocated by the average American professing evangelical. Why is that?

It is because of the content of the "love" advocated by that brand of evangelical. He thinks of God's love as requiring approval of whatever he wants to do. Only a meanie describes anything as wicked or as deserving of judgment.

The problem is that the love described by such people is love for them, and for what they want. They do not allow the other side of love, God's love for Himself. God is not allowed to love Himself or His holiness or His word. In other words, such people advocate a one-directional tolerance, a tolerance that benefits them. They feel no obligation to tolerate God or what He values. And, sadly for them, God does not feel bound to honor their definition of tolerance. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:20-21). 

You see, when these evangelicals created their religion of unconditional love and tolerance, they just assumed that God would go along with the gameplan. If they had consulted Him, though, they would have discovered that God doesn't play by their plan.

Who Was the Whore of Babylon?

A strange description occurs near the end of the Bible: "'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.' And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.' And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus^'" (Revelation 17:1-6).

The account continues to verse 18, which tells us, "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." The woman is traditionally called the Whore of Babylon, from the King James Version of this passage. Her identity has been variously interpreted. The majority view is that she is a symbol of Rome. I, however, join with the minority in identifying her with apostate Israel, represented by Jerusalem, i. e., those Jews who rejected her Messiah and joined in crucifying Him 

I am going to speak to that here.

One of the challenges I have gotten from dispensationalists regarding this passage is that, supposedly, Jerusalem didn't rule the nations; rather, Rome did. However, the usage of Scripture does, actually, make Jerusalem the ruler of the nations: "How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave. She weeps bitterly in the night, with tears on her cheeks; among all her lovers she has none to comfort her; all her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they have become her enemies" (Lamentations 1:1-2). Does this passage not echo John's words? It is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC.

In fact, I think that this is a prominent flaw of dispensational interpretation: it consistently ignores Old testament usages in dealing with New Testament prophecy. the Bible is a whole, with the later revelations building on the earlier. While dispensationalists talk about "rightly dividing the word of truth," their practice is better described as "wrongly dividing" it. Their hermeneutic is built on presuppositions outside of Scripture.

The Deity of Christ and the Inadequacy of Watchtower Doctrine

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to a succession of people, first to the women at the tomb, then to Peter and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, and then to the disciples locked, hiding, in a secret chamber. Somehow, the Apostle Thomas was absent at each of these occasions, and expressed doubt of their authenticity: "Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe'" (John 20:24-25). It took a week for Thomas's desire to be fulfilled: "Eight days later, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in My side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' Thomas answered Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:26-29). 

We see a couple of things in the interaction between Jesus and Thomas here. For one thing, Jesus gives no rebuke to Thomas for his doubting. However, more importantly, He makes no rebuke for Thomas's addressing Him as Lord and God. Surely if a mere creature were to receive such adulation, it would be great sin not to object. Yet Jesus receives Thomas's words without refusal or rebuke! 

In dealing with this passage, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Thomas was just making an emotional outburst, as a person today might exclaim, "Oh, my God," upon receiving some shocking news. However, they offer no proof that there was any such custom among First-Century Jews. Moreover, they cannot explain why Jesus makes no objection, given the Watchtower's claim that He was but an incarnate angel. In other biblical occasions, angels made very vocal objections to any such intimations: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God'" (Revelation 22:8-9). On the contrary, John explicitly tells us that the comment was to Jesus, not just an exclamation to no one in particular.

Why the difference? The Jehovah's Witness has no rational answer. But the Christian does.

"The death of Jesus was glorious, not because it was His death, but because it could be the death of no other. A [mere] creature might as well have undertaken to create us as to save a world. The work itself demands the interposition of God; and any theory  which fails to represent the death of Christ as an event which, in its own nature, as clearly proclaims His divinity as His superintending care and preservation of all things, cannot be the Gospel which Paul preached at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, and which extorted from Thomas, upon beholding the risen Savior, the memorable confession, 'My Lord and my God'!"(James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity", emphasis in the original).

The Bible, Philosophy, and the Mormon Doctrine of Pre-existence

One of the least-known doctrines of Mormonism is the pre-existence of souls. One of their websites explains it this way: "Before we were born on the earth, we lived in the presence of our Heavenly Father as His spirit children. In this premortal existence, we attended a council with Heavenly Father’s other spirit children... Throughout our premortal lives, we developed our identity and increased our spiritual capabilities. Blessed with the gift of agency, we made important decisions, such as the decision to follow Heavenly Father’s plan. These decisions affected our life then and now. We grew in intelligence and learned to love the truth, and we prepared to come to the earth, where we could continue to progress. None of us on earth has a memory of the premortal existence.  This is because a 'veil of forgetfulness' has been drawn over our minds."

Another of their websites proudly proclaims that the Mormon doctrine is from philosophers, not from the Bible: "Several philosophers from Plato through Leibniz and Kant to twentieth-century Cambridge intellectuals, dozens of poets from antiquity to Robert Frost, and numerous religious thinkers throughout the Jewish and Christian traditions, propounded a pre-earthly realm peopled by the souls of men and women yet unborn. Pre-existence has been invoked to explain 'the better angels of our nature,' including the human yearning for transcendence and the sublime; it suggests a reason for the frequent sensation of alienation and the indelible sadness of human existence." This is in spite of their oft-repeated - but false - accusation that Christians have gotten the doctrine of the Trinity from philosophy. Apparently, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Scripture warns us against undue influence from unbelieving philosophy: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

Furthermore, the Scriptures, which Mormons profess to believe, are contrary to their doctrine: "Then King Zedekiah swore secretly to Jeremiah, 'As the LORD lives, who made our souls, I will not put you to death or deliver you into the hand of these men who seek your life'" (Jeremiah 38:16, cp. Zechariah 12:1). The Mormon must answer the question, If God created our souls within us, then how can you claim that we had some eternal pre-existence? Those two things are mutually-exclusive. Where does the the authority for your doctrines lie? 

The Source of the Doctrine of the Pre-existence of Souls

Contending for the Faith Against False Teachers

I have regular apologetic and evangelistic interactions with pseudo-Christian cults, mainly Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. In each case, someone always says something like this: "Why do you judge us? Why can't you just go practice your beliefs, and leave us to practice ours?" It's a form of guilt manipulation, trying to make it seem as if I am just a big meanie.

Yet, their repeated "why's" have an answer: the commandment of Scripture.

First, we have the warning against false teachers: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you'" (Jeremiah 23:16-17). The danger of false teachers is that they leave their followers under the wrath of God, while blithely imagining their safety. That is why false teachers are so popular. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (I Thessalonians 5:3). And it isn't just the cults which are the danger here. The popular TV preachers, such as Joel Osteen, are equally dangerous. They promise peace and prosperity, but never mention sin or the wrath of God. So their followers march, grinning and satisfied, into the waiting maw of Hell. 

In the face of such deceivers, the Scriptures give me a stark warning: "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). If I see the false teacher and those deceived by him, and I make no effort to warn them of God's judgment, then God holds me guilty of their death! 

That's why the New Testament also gives every true Christian this commandment: "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). I do not face accounting to cultists or other false teachers for challenging their errors; I face the wrath of God if I fail to do so.

John the Baptist, the Refuter of Jehovah's Witnesses

The person of John the Baptist is a curious character in the Gospels. He was a cousin of Jesus, but about six months older. We see the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 3:1-3: "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.'" The portion quoted from Isaiah is Isaiah 40:3. 

What is significant is that Isaiah doesn't say "Lord" (Hebrew, "adonai"), but rather "LORD" (Hebrew, "Yahweh"). More on that later. 

While the identification by Matthew is sure, because it is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit, Jesus added His personal identification, as well: "The disciples asked Him, 'Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' He answered, 'Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that He was speaking to them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:10-13). Here, Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes." Notice that here, too, the Hebrew uses "LORD" ("Yahweh").

The significance of this is that both Old Testament prophets refer to Elijah's return to announce the coming of Yahweh (or "Jehovah"). Then in the New Testament, we have the testimony of both the Apostle Matthew and of Jesus Himself that the reference to Elijah was fulfilled by John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus. That is, Elijah equals John the Baptist, and Yahweh equals Jesus.

This should be an earth-shattering revelation to the Jehovah's Witnesses, who very vocally contrast Jehovah with their unbiblical version of Jesus. They try to make Jesus to be a creature, a mere angel, and deny His deity. But they make much of Jehovah, even naming themselves after Him. Yet, they blind themselves to this one fact: Jesus is Jehovah!