What Is the Fear of God?

To the modern reader, there may be nothing written in Scripture more bewildering than one short phrase: "the fear of God." For example, believers are given this commandment: "You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 25:17). In contrast, the fear of God is described as the one thing that unbelievers lack: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).

Then we have this verse: "Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin" (Exodus 20:20). Do not fear, but fear?

Ah, but then we see some light at the end of this tunnel: "That you may not sin."

Consider also this verse: "You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deuteronomy 13:4).

From our own cultural perspective, we naturally see "fear" as meaning "be afraid." And the example from Exodus shows that it means that in the Bible sometimes, too. However, it has a broader meaning than we give it today.

We Americans have never had a king, so we sometimes miss some of the imagery of the Bible, which unreservedly portrays God as an absolute king, even calling Him, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (I Timothy 6:15). The God of the Bible is King in such an absolute sense that He is king of all kings, and lord so absolutely that He is lord of all lords. We are to understand His rule as so singularly absolute that we have no higher words by which to name it.

Now think of the average person on the street who randomly runs into the President, or Prince William, or some TV or sports celebrity. In such a circumstance, the person is often struck dumb with awe, trembling even. He isn't afraid of the personage in the sense that he fears that he will be hurt. Rather, he is struck with such an awe that he cannot conceive of any other thought or action.

To a greater extent, that is the fear of God described in Scripture. The believer is so in awe that he cannot be distracted by any lesser concern or influence. That is why Moses can say that it is fear of God that inspires us to serve Him and hold fast to Him. This isn't a fear of punishment. Rather, it is an awe that precludes any lower considerations. Moreover, the hard part for an American is that it leaves no room for personal autonomy. God is the absolute sovereign, not me. This is not a democratic concept!

The Trinity and the Divine Son from Heaven

Oneness Pentecostals are very difficult to pin down on their doctrine. They will profess something at one moment, and then vociferously deny it the next.

One thing that I have seen them assert is that the deity of Jesus is the Father in Heaven, while the Son was His humanity on earth. Therefore, the Son began with His conception in the womb of Mary. That means, depending on how you look at that assertion, that they either deny the deity of the Father, making Him Jesus instead, or they deny the deity of Jesus, making Him nothing more than a vessel for the Father. I should say that Oneness deny both of those implications. However, they also deny the applicability of logic to their doctrine. It is just "human reasoning," they claim. The principles of logic violated by their doctrines are the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states that a thing and its contrary cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way, and the Law of Identity, which states that a thing must be itself, not something else, again at the same time and in the same way.

In John 6:62, that apostle quotes these words of Jesus: "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" They apply very specifically to the matter at hand. Jesus says that He was in heaven before His incarnation. Oneness claim that this is a reference to His deity as the Father. However, He explicitly refers to Himself as the Son in this verse, not the Father. Here is where the laws of logic apply: Oneness deny the Law of Identity by making Him something other than what He is -and says that He is - to avoid the implications of this verse. And they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction by making Him the Son and the Father at the same time, in violation of their own doctrine. I should repeat, however, that these logical problems don't bother Oneness, because they consider logic to be "human reasoning." 

In contrast, the Trinitarian violates neither rule. Since orthodox Christians hold that the Son has always been the Son, never the Father, both divine Persons keep their respective identities without contradiction. The Son was in Heaven from eternity as the Son. With Him was the Father, as the Father from eternity, just as we are told in John 1:1. Thus we maintain the full deity of both Father and Son, sacrificing neither in order to maintain a manmade doctrine.

Because of Particular Atonement, No Charge Can be Laid Against the Elect

"Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."
- Romans 8:33-34

The Christian should find great comfort in these verses. There is no one who can maintain a charge against God's elect. Why? Because he has been justified, and Christ Jesus intercedes for him before the throne of the Father. However, it is bad news for the reprobate, because there is no theanthropic Mediator in heaven for him.

These two verses provide a simple description of the doctrine of particular atonement. The believer has a mediator, while the unbeliever does not. The believer can take encouragement from the mediation of Jesus, but the unbeliever cannot.

"This purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell, so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ, which may steadfastly love, and faithfully serve Him as their Savior, who as a bridegroom for His bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross, and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity" (Canons of Dordt, Head  II, Article 9).

The Sabbath in the Pre-Mosaic Period

Anti-Sabbatarians often argue that the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, and was, therefore, abrogated by the incarnation, atoning work, and resurrection of Jesus. I addressed that argument in part here.

One of the reasons that I disagree with that argument is that the Sabbath was not created by Moses, unlike the actual ceremonies, such as the sacrifices or the priesthood. Rather, the Sabbath was a creation mandate, established by God in the creation period of Genesis: "On the seventh day, God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation" (Genesis 2:2-3). Thus the Sabbath was not a Mosaic ritual, but was rather a creation mandate, just as marriage was.

Generally, the response I get is something to the effect of, "Then prove that anyone celebrated the Sabbath between the creation and Moses." There is so little thought put into that statement that it is obvious that they are merely repeating something that they have been told. The reason I don't believe that it is the result of study is that it is an argument from silence that cuts both ways: if I can't prove that people kept the Sabbath during that period, neither can the anti-Sabbatarian prove that they didn't. Additionally, even if the argument were correct, it is not to the point. The failure of the people to keep the commandment is not proof that the commandment was... Well, was what? Good advice? The anti-Sabbatarian doesn't say. They also don't say why failure to obey the land sabbaths didn't abrogate that law (Leviticus 26:45, II Chronicles 36:21).

Now lets fast-forward to Moses, in the receiving of the Ten Commandments. What we notice is that eight of the Commandments begin with "you shall" or "you shall not." The Fifth Commandment starts with"honor." However, only the Fourth Commandment begins with "remember." "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). Remembering involves something that existed in time before our effort to remember it. The commandment even refers to the creation in its phrasing. Therefore, that one word proves that the Fourth Commandment wasn't creating the Sabbath; it was restoring it.

If God Has Determined All Things, Then Is He Responsible for Sin?

Let us be unequivocal: Scripture says that God has determined all things, from the beginning of the universe to eternity future. He Himself says, "I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:10). We also read this: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Proverbs 19:21). Short of being deliberately obtuse, we cannot miss the meaning here. God has determined all things according to His own plan, not according to ours. 

OK, so He has determined all things. Does He change course midway, whether because He has thought of a better way or because men have not approved of His plans? "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret" (I Samuel 15:29; see also Numbers 23:19). To claim that God would change His mind is to make Him like us, to bring Him down to man's level. And Scripture says that any such attempt is based on a false view of God. 

Then comes the question, what of the wicked acts of men? God could not have predetermined them, because that would make God responsible for sin, right? Well, no, not right. First, let us say that Scripture affirms that God has predetermined even the wicked acts of men: "Truly in this city [i. e., Jerusalem] there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). So, in a prayer to God, Peter and John, while addressing God, confess that He had planned all of the events around the suffering and death of Jesus, even in planning the evil actions of Herod and Pilate. But what was the goal in those actions? The atonement of God's people. In other words, our salvation is dependent on God's predestining the evil actions of particular men! 


Look also at Paul's words in Romans 3:7: "If through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Using the words of a hypothetical unbeliever, Paul has that unbeliever confess that his lies, his sins, glorify God. "However," the unbeliever pleads, "then I shouldn't be punished for them." The first part is true. His wickedness glorifies God, both through His justice to the unrepentant unbeliever and by His mercy to the repentant elect sinner. However, that wasn't the purpose when the sinner committed his wicked acts, just as Herod and Pilate planned nothing good by their murder of Jesus. That is why God is still just in bringing them under judgment. His bringing about good from their evil is to His praise, not theirs.

And it is also why God cannot be said to be the author of sin.

Justification by Faith Can Never Be Justification for Sin

As an orthodox Protestant, I advocate and defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the standard against all false expressions of Christianity. And the consistent response from advocates of works righteousness is almost always that it means that a person can believe, and then live however wickedly he wants, and still be saved. They usually cite James 2:24 (an objection which I address here). I get this supposed trump-card most consistently from Mormons and Catholics.

Their claim is a caricature. Worse, it is a slogan, repeated from some apologetics book or class, not something thought through by the person making the accusation.

It is easy to refute. I have provided one such refutation in the link above. Another is found in the little epistle of Jude, especially verse 4: "Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude here describes people who profess to be Christians, but are then involved in some unspecified sin. But notice what else he tells us about them, that they are "condemned" as "ungodly." So, they do not have faith; they have a label. And that is a denial of Jesus, not faith.

This should be an indication to anyone who has been taught this as an argument against justification by faith that it is an accusation based on something that the Scriptures say is impossible. That means that the argument is false.

Then a far more important question should come to mind: If my religious teachers have taught me this falsehood, what are they trying to keep me from seeing as truth? They want to keep you from understanding justification by faith alone because that makes you dependent on Jesus alone, instead of them.