Wicked America in Scripture

"Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading." - Lamentations 2:14 

As I read this verse again recently, I was struck by how well it describes today's America. Ours is a country in which an overwhelming majority of the people describe ourselves as Christians. Yet immorality is rampant, and our government is progressing further and further into fascism. How can these things coexist with that Christian profession? 

When Europeans first colonized our continent, they brought with them a vigorous and all-encompassing faith. the settlers on the Mayflower signed a compact, an early form of constitution, committing themselves and their new colony to the glory of God. Later, the Puritans of the New England colonies built their laws on the Scriptures, conscientiously establishing a society which practiced the justice of God. 

Yet, now, we their descendants look on a country which celebrates "pride" in the very things which were crimes in those days. And their church-centered communities have evolved into a society in which naming the name of Christ is considered to be a sign of fanaticism. 

The answer is seen above, spoken to Israel an estimated twenty-six centuries ago. Due to liberalism, dispensationalism, and pietism, our clergy have turned silent about the sins of our culture. Instead, they preach nice things, uncontroversial things, inoffensive things. There is little talk of sin, except to criticize those who still speak biblically. The sin is no longer the wicked acts of men, but rather the wicked act of pointing out the wickedness. 

Ancient Israel was punished for her apostasy by the destruction and exile perpetrated by the Babylonians. What is the judgment waiting for America? 

The Consequences of Sexual Sin: Are They Hate?

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." - Ephesians 5:1-6 

America is a country which has become unrecognizable, just in my own adult lifetime. As I write this, we see schools and libraries sponsor sexually-explicit "story times" featuring drag queens performing for audiences of schoolchildren. There is a new push to normalize child molestation as a sexual orientation as valid as any other. The new name for it is "minor-attracted individuals." 

Where is the church in this process? There are some churches who are promoting "diversity" by ordaining, not just female pastors, but openly gay and transgendered pastors. In such "churches," the only sin is to criticize such ordinations. Supposedly, Jesus accepted everyone as they are, so we are hateful not to do the same. 

Of course, the Bible is not the standard for making such declarations, because the Bible qualifies as "hate speech," according to such Christians. However, as we see in the passage above, it is the "tolerant" church member who is the real hater. In the holiness of God, sexual immorality is an insurmountable barrier to entry into eternal life. Yet, these Christians choose to withhold any warning of the consequences of sexual sin. They even go further to point the finger, not at perverts, but at true Christian who strive to warn the wicked of the consequences of their wickedness (Ezekiel 3:18-19). 

America's Apostasy and the Innocent Blood of Aborted Babies

In describing the apostasy of Israel, God gave these words through the anonymous writer of Psalm 106:36-39: "They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds."

In my own mind, I recognize in this description my own culture, 21st-Century America. True, worshiping idols has not become widespread. Wicca, Hinduism, and other pagan religions, both ancient and new, even explicit worship of Satan, are spreading and becoming more visible, as they are mainstreamed by the broadcast media, such as the TV shows "Charmed" and "Supernatural." These traditions are being mixed in fashion trends, such as the Goth movement. But they are still relatively small compared to the overall size of the American population. 

On the other hand, the sacrifice of sons and daughters is far more companion than any explicit idolatry. Sixty million Americans were murdered in their mothers' wombs between 1973, when the Supreme Court declared abortion a "constitutional right," and the overturning of that decision in June of this year (2022). Why? For about 99% of abortions, it was merely for convenience: "A baby would interfere with my lifestyle." Babies cost money, and parenthood interferes with an irresponsible lifestyle. Worst of all, a baby puts a block in a lifestyle of promiscuous sex. Thus we have both the prosperity and lasciviousness of the ancient human sacrifice cults. 

America is a land soaked in innocent blood. There has never been, and can never be, a just accusation of a capital crime against an unborn child. The mere suggestion of it is specious. Among humankind since the Fall, there can never be true innocence, but there can be justice. And capital punishment for someone who has never committed a crime is not justice, but is itself a crime.

I am writing this just after the 2022 midterm elections, so I am thinking especially of leftwing candidates who campaigned on the protection of the supposed right to kill the innocent. I have tried to warn them that the blood of those innocents will testify against them in the judgment, but they don't care. May God grant them repentance! Until then, if ever, the innocent blood drips from their hands  and stains every word they speak or action they take. And God holds this nation accountable for not removing that evil from our civil government. 

God Hates Divination

One of the worst condemnations of Israel found in the Old Testament prophets is found in Zephaniah 1:12: "I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who are complacent, those who say in their hearts, 'The Lord will not do good, nor will He do ill.'" God's judgment against His covenant people is not a matter of their denying of Him. They didn't become atheists or convert to a pagan religion. Rather, they denied His relevance. They professed that this God who had brought them out of captivity in Egypt had no place in their lives. 

One claim that the triune God of the Bible makes is to be the source of truth (e. g., John 14:6 and 17:17). Moreover, He claims to be the determiner of history: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring 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 46:9-10). Yet, they turned to other sources of immanency, or so they imagined, accusing Him of irrelevancy and insufficiency. 

God, being the jealous God that He is, rebukes them for such syncretism: "You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes... Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:26, 31). 

These things occur in today's America, and even more so in Europe. In some European countries, mediums outnumber Catholic clergy. Most Americans consider ourselves to be too sophisticated for such superstitions. Yet, do we not look to scientists in the same way? As I write this, we keep hearing "follow the science" as we deal with the covid-19 virus. However, we have been seeing it for much longer in the orthodoxy of Darwinian evolution. Rather than the determinative witness of the Creator, we look to the presumptions of, not science, but of scientists, people who have a vested interest in philosophical domination, but not in evidence. The declarations of orthodox scientists have become the Tarot cards and sheep entrails of the modern unbeliever. 

A Diagram For Interpreting Sheep Liver

Jesus the Cornerstone versus the Claims of Mormonism

Mormons refer to their organization as restored Christianity, because, they claim, the original Christianity of Christ and the Apostles was lost. Then they refer to the creeds of all other professing Christians as "abominations." 

There are many biblical reasons for saying that a general apostasy is impossible. The main Scriptural evidence of that is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." The rock is Himself, the chief cornerstone and foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). If the true church disappeared, then it can only be said that the cornerstone had failed. 

But I want to turn to a different verse: "'And as for Me, this is My covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and My words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore'" (Isaiah 59:21).

Here, Jehovah, the preincarnate Christ, includes among His covenant promises that His words will never completely disappear from among His people. Is that not exactly what an apostasy would be? 

The message of that verse is exactly the same as that in Matthew: Jesus makes it His personal guarantee that His Gospel, by which His church is gathered, will never depart completely from among men. That is exactly the opposite of the claims of the Mormon organization. "Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, 'That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged'" (Romans 3:4).

The Intolerance of Jesus

"Tolerance" has become the theme of our age. Even among professing Christians, the phrase "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced by "you shall not judge." Judging is defined as denying the validity of anything the other person wants to believe or say or do. It is never tolerance for the person who advocates values or morality or the Bible. The only absolute truth, now, is that there is no absolute truth. 

Yeah, that is a self-refuting worldview, which is why we also see irrationalism's enthronement as our cultural guiding principle. 

The Christians who proudly quote Jesus, "You shall not judge" (Matthew 7:1, out of context), snarl in response if anyone quotes something else that Jesus said about judgment: "Judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). That is because the first quote, ignoring its context, seems to support the spirit of the age which has been imbibed by these Christians, while the second exposes it as a pagan intrusion. That exposure cannot be tolerated by today's tolerant Christians. 

We have other intolerant teachings from Jesus, as well. 

For example, in the Epistle to the Church in Ephesus found in the Revelation (Rev. 2:1-7), Jesus praises that church: "I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves 'apostles' and are not, and found them to be false" (Revelation 2:2). This church is praised by Jesus for their intolerance of evil men! That is totally opposite the milquetoast Jesus of today's post-modern tolerant Christian.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Epistle to the Church in Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17). Jesus actually chastises that congregation: "I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of My mouth" (Revelation 2:14-16). This congregation is noted for its tolerance! The Christians here are noted for their tolerance of those who teach the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. We may not know exactly what those doctrines were, but the wrath of Jesus is apparent. Wrath against what? Against the toleration in the church for heretical teaching! 

It is apparent that the Word of God teaches nothing like the doctrine of tolerance advocated by so many of today's professing Christians. Instead, they have adopted the attitude of the humanist, and baptized it by quoting ad infinitum, "You shall not judge." In contrast, the consistent message of the biblical Jesus is that we shall judge, or we shall be judged, and harshly! 

Ancient Pergamum

 

How the Church Paved the Way for Humanism

There has long been a tradition of dividing the Ten Commandments into two tables, commandments one through four and then five through ten. I am OK with that division. The first four deal primarily with man's relationship with God, and the other six primarily with his relationship with his fellow man. They are often portrayed this way in images of the commandments. That might be a bit fanciful. We have no record of how they were divided between the two tablets. Or even if they were divided. Some people believe that each tablet displayed all ten.

That's fine so far. 

There is also a common view that the civil government is supposed to enforce the second table, the laws against thievery and murder, etc., but has no authority over the first four. 

My question is this: Why? 

Sometimes the answer is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. We have freedom of religion in this land, so we can't have laws against idolatry. Yet our country has a heritage of so-called "blue laws," laws that required businesses to be closed on Sunday in honor of the Sabbath. "Blue," in this case, derives from a historical usage, in which "blue" was used for something which was overly strict. It was a pejorative term, but passed into general usage. The courts have upheld Sunday-closing laws on secular grounds, such as the practicality of providing a day off for workers. 

However, the question must be, Why does the First Amendment - in reality, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment - outweigh God's commandments? Should a cultural preference become the standard by which even Christians are to live, over the Word of God? 

When God tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), His desire is clear. So also when He says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (verses 4-5). So, on what grounds do we decide that His will in these two commandments is less important that it is when He says, "You shall not murder" (verse 13)? There is certainly no biblical justification for that judgment. 

When the Westminster Standards were originally written, the Larger Catechism, question and answer 109, included among the sins forbidden by the Second Commandment, "tolerating a false religion."  However, in 1788, when the first Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church met in the newly-independent United States, they removed that clause as offensive to religious liberty. Not as offensive to the Word of God. 

What this should tell us is that the secular humanism which has come to dominate these United States is not a new phenomenon, and did not suddenly puff into existence because prayer was removed from government schools in the 1960's. Rather, it was the culmination of that decision in 1788 to place political and cultural considerations above the enscripturated Word of God. The door was opened to the supposed independence of "secular life" from God. Now we have parts of our lives which are designated "religious," and parts which are designated "secular." And the humanists are perfectly happy with allowing Christians to enjoy that distinction, because it turns all of life outside the church doors over to them. And the church doors are only a temporary barrier, until the humanists have secured their territory against that day.

When Times Are Chaotic, Does It Mean That God Has Abandoned Us?

As I am writing this, America is in the grip of chaos. America has been shaken by understandable protests over the police killings of black people. In most places, those protests have wound down, but there a few cities, such as Portland, OR, which still see a lot of property damage and some violence. At the same time, we face the attack of the coronavirus. In some states, hospitals are at capacity, yet we still see a death toll which has surpassed one-hundred fifty-thousand.

Why are these things happening? Where is God as we face these things?

Well, we can be glad that God is where He has always been,on His throne. He is no less in control during days of chaos that He was when our society was at its most placid.

So, does that mean that there is no spiritual dimension to these circumstances? I would definitely not suggest that! Rather, it is not God who has failed us. I think that it is the organized church which has failed.

When Jesus gave us the Great Commission, He gave us a step that most Christians ignore: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). We are fine with making disciples and baptizing them. In fact, there are even some mission organizations that proudly state that they do no more than that. But the command of Jesus did not stop there. In fact, even in those first two clauses, many Christians make a false assumption, equating "making disciples" with "making converts." Of course, a person must be converted first, but he is not then a disciple. Rather, it is the third clause that makes a convert into a disciple, for a disciple will obey all that Jesus has commanded us.

I place the blame for the chaos not on President Trump or on Democrats, as culpable as they may be. Rather I blame the pietists and dispensationalists in the American church. The pietist defines his faith as just a private relationship between himself and Jesus. He never intends for his private religion to have an impact on the world - and it doesn't. The dispensationalist (and I am using the term in its classical sense, such as seen in Scofield's Bible) denies the validity of God's Law in today's world. If anything, he might replace it with rules, such as hairlength for men. But they never notice that the Great Commission says nothing about obeying the rules of men; the obedience which is commanded is to what Jesus commanded.

Where are those commands? The answer is easy: all of Scripture was mediated to its authors by Jesus (see, for example, Exodus 20:2, , Luke 24:27, and I Peter 1:11). It is the same moral law (not the ceremonial law) which was proclaimed to Israel by Moses. Jesus is the author of the Ten Commandments, and He is no schizophrenic, teaching one morality today and a different one tomorrow, contrary to the claims of the dispensationalist. And it is because the dispensationalist has deprived American society of these guiding moral principles that men now act like lawless animals. And it is because the pietist leaves his faith in the closet that the church provides no solution to a crumbling society. God has not abandoned us; the American church has abandoned God.

Apostasy and Its Leaders

We live in a time where the culture has returned to a pre-Christian stage, in which every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). Things which were considered too shameful for polite company within the lifetimes of man of us living today are now common fare in entertainment or taught to our children in government schools.

While it is true that the American government has been on a crusade to scrub the Christian presence from public society, I don't blame government. And while it is true that there are influencers in government and the media who hate the Gospel and seek to silence it, I don't blame them. Unbelievers must be expected to hate the Gospel (Romans 1:18). That's what makes them unbelievers.

However, when I see the church complacent in its own suppression, then I find cause for blame.

We have public religious figures - I don't call them Christians - such as Joel Osteen, who refuse to talk about sin because they don't want to offend anyone. That is who deserves the blame.

In 586 BC, Judah, the Southern Kingdom, was conquered by Babylon and carried away into exile. Why? Because they had abandoned the faith on which their kingdom was established, and turned to pagan deities and practice.

What did their religious leaders say about that apostasy? Did they denounce the sin of the people, and fight against that apostasy?

"Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading" (Lamentations 2:14). No, no denunciations; no warnings of judgment. Rather, the religious leaders joined in that apostasy, soothing the apostates with assurance that God was happy with their perverted worship and lives. Does that sound like today's religious world? I think so.

But what does God say? Is he bound by the soothing words of apostate preachers? "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). Not in the smallest bit. Rather, He promises that judgment of sin will come, but it will begin with false teachers who failed to preach a warning about the consequences of sin.

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.

The New American Babel: Humanism

I love America. It is my homeland, and the home of my ancestors for three hundred years, not even counting my American Indian ancestors. It is as a patriot and a believer that I recognize that she is currently dominated by secular humanism, the religious view that holds that the intellect of men is the standard of morality. Even most professing Christians are actually humanists, judging all things according to whether those things make them feel good.

However, the Bible gives God's answer to humanism: "The LORD of hosts has purposed it, to defile the pompous pride of all glory, to dishonor all the honored of the earth" (Isaiah 23:9). the more that men lift themselves up, regardless of the Christian terminology they put on it, the more they are setting themselves up to be overthrown. What effect that will have on the nation as a whole, I don't know.

What I do know is that this is not a new problem. it is exactly what happened soon after men started to rebuild after the Flood: "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth'" (Genesis 11:1-4). So soon after godly Noah, his descendants were pursuing their own glory, just as their predecessors had. However, God witnessed their conspiracy: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.' So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Tower of Babel represented the decision of men to glorify themselves as men. However, God saw and confounded their plans. The issue is that men may reject our place as creatures, and thus God's place as Creator. However, God never does either.

Now, my fear is what God will do to America, when He wearies of her tower of humanism. Every prior empire has been cast down violently. I pray they He will bring repentance before He brings judgment.

The Biblical God Has Teeth!

American evangelicalism has become a weak and insipid religion because it teaches a weak and insipid God. He is like an indulgent grandfather who loves everyone, and exists only to make us feel good. We have stripped away His wrath, His sovereignty, even His independence. Evangelicalism has become the religion of happiness, with a God who has been redesigned to provide it.

Things That God Never Said

As part of that process, large parts of Scripture have been discarded, because they are offensive. Some people, such as Andy Stanley, make it explicit, telling us that we should "jettison" the Old Testament, because it will hurt someone's feelings. At least he is consistent: "I don't like what the Bible says, so I'll get rid of it." However, I wonder if he understands that he has demonstrated that he is not a Christian.

The biblical view of God is very different from the candyman of the evangelical: "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies" (Nahum 1:2).

What the modern evangelical has really jettisoned is the sinfulness of sin. Where sin has now become offending some other human being, the reality of it is that sin is whatever offends God! And where offending a human being is merely saying or doing something which exposes him to anything outside his comfort zone, offending God is an act of treason, to rebel against our creator, lawgiver, and proper Monarch. 

And He responds accordingly, as He says through Nahum.

Human Pride versus the God-Centeredness of God

"He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does." 
- Job 23:13

Among American evangelicals, there is an unstated belief that God is a giant Santa Claus in the sky, who exists to take care of us, to make us happy, and to satisfy our whims. We see this most plainly in the Prosperity Gospel teachers, who suggest that anyone who is poor or has a physical ailment is, somehow, unfaithful. God has been turned into an indulgent but toothless grandfather, no longer the Creator and Lord. 

The problem with that is that it bears no similarity to the God of the Bible. It is a violation of both the First and Second Commandments. That God, the true living God, is pursuing, not our glory, but His own; not our desires, but His own; not our gratification, but His own. We see it in the verse at the top of this article. 

I think that atheism is preferable. The atheist honestly admits that He hates God, and, therefore, rejects Him. In contrast, the average evangelical will gush about how much he loves God, but with that one unstated proviso: I will love God as long as He makes me happy. Such a Christian is proud that he keeps God on perpetual probation.

What is God's answer? "For My own sake, for My own sake, do I act, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11). God always acts to promote His own glory. If He were to do otherwise, at any time for any mere creature, then He would be transferring His glory to that person, and that is something that He will never do.

And that attitude drives the professing, but false, believer absolutely crazy. Try telling it to people, and watch the moral umbrage come steaming out of their nostrils and flashing from their eyes. "Who does God think He is? GOD or something?" And the answer, of course, is yes, He does think that. 

The Bible and Sacrifice by Abortion

I recently heard about the person described in this news story. He claims to be a Christian abortionist who is doing God's work. However, according to the words of that God, the man is an apostate under judgment for pagan sacrifice. I am sad to say that the reason that the Bible addresses his remarks is that he is not the first to do so. His particular form of apostasy is an ancient one.

"They [i. e., Israel] served their idols,
     which became a snare to them.
They sacrificed their sons
     and their daughters to the demons;
they poured out innocent blood,
     the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
     and the land was polluted with blood.
Thus they became unclean by their acts, 
     and played the whore in their deeds." 
- Psalm 106:36-39

In times of low spiritual condition, the ancient Israelites adopted the practice of their pagan neighbors of sacrificing their own children to pagan gods in order to gain prosperity for themselves. Instead of having children who would be a financial burden, they turned them into a supposed resource for purchasing economic advancement. is that not essentially what most supporters of abortion claim now?

Is the Church Teaching the Lie of Satan?

We often talk about Europe as a "post-Christian culture." Then the conversation often moves to America, which is already "post-modern," and moving in the same direction as Europe. The so-called "nones," those who say they have no religion, are increasing as a proportion of the American population. The church has less and less influence in social issues.

Why is that?

In Europe, we see portions that have never known the biblical Gospel, because they were controlled by the Catholic Church. As that organization, not truly a church, lost political power, people were freed from its power, but had no spiritual reality to take its place. In the areas that had known the Gospel because of the Reformation, its influence had been undermined by the influence of higher criticism, and the failure of the

churches to exercise discipline in the face of  bald unbelief. As state churches, they were expected to include the entire population in their membership, and depended on state subsidies for their finances. They simply surrendered to the spirit of unbelief.

Here in America, evangelicalism has always been stronger than in Europe. The separation from the state and a voluntary membership has enabled the churches to exercise discipline - when they chose. While some church organizations have given in to the same higher criticism that conquered Europe, others have maintained their faithfulness to the Gospel and our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

However, now that evangelical remnant is decaying from the inside out. Prominent place has been given to mysticism, mainly through the Pentecostal movement, so that faith has become subjective rather than a faith in objective historical truths and events. A pietistic mentality has taken over, in which one's private spiritual experience takes precedence over the objective facts of the historic Christian faith. And a growing Prosperity movement has come to equate faith with personal success.

In other words, we witness with our eyes the professing evangelical movement's giving itself over to the very promise with which Satan brought down Adam and Eve: "God knows that when you eat of it [i. e., the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The deception of Satan was his promise to Adam and Even that betraying the God who made them would make them autonomous, with the authority to decide good and evil for themselves, rather than receiving their definitions from God.

And this is what has deprived the American evangelical movement of influence and effect. If personal prosperity and sovereignty are valid, then the truth of God is just an optional alternative. There can be no grounds for calling to account either individuals or officials who stand for wickedness. Wickedness and righteousness become equally valid. The salt has lost its savor: "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet" (Matthew 5:13).

My message of warning is less to the apostates in American society than it is to the remnants of the church: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:15-19).

Perseverance, Apostates, and the Church

In arguing against the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, Arminians point to people who used to profess the Christian faith, but who have now fallen into gross sin, or who have even repudiated the faith they once professed. And there certainly are such people.

However, the Bible addresses that issue: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (I John 2:19). In the previous verse, John had warned his audience of antichrists, apostates who now denied the basic doctrines of Christ. He addresses the obvious hypothetical question, How could Christians become such enemies of the faith? And his answer is that such people were never true Christians in the first place.

This verse teaches the doctrine of the visible church. That is, the church as an organization of people who profess the Christian faith, without addressing the true condition of their hearts. This is contrasted with the invisible church, which is all of those throughout history who have truly been born again, without regard to their membership in any particular organization. The two overlap, but they are not identical, as John explains. 

Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell explained the distinction this way: "[I] restrict the 'church,' in its proper sense, to the congregation of the faithful. None can be truly members of it but those who are members of Christ. [I] accordingly maintain with Calvin, with Luther, [and] with Melancthon, that hypocrites and unbelievers, though in it, are not of it. They are insolent intruders, whom it is the office of discipline to expel" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church"). The Westminster divines also addressed the subject in the Larger Catechism, questions 62 through 65.

"The Man of Sin" in Preterist Perspective

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
- II Thessalonians 2:1-4

Let me say up front that this is a difficult passage to interpret. I immediately grant that sincere brethren will disagree with the interpretation that I will give it here. And I am OK with that. I merely present some thoughts as possible, in the hope that it will provoke thought, not conflict.

The passage above is popular among dispensationalists, who equate "the man of lawlessness" (or "man of sin," KJV) with the so-called anti-Christ. I think that equation is unjustified, even apart from my denial of a personal anti-Christ. They do so simply on the presuppositions of their hermeneutic, not because of solid exegesis.

Let's go point by point. "The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is not the second coming. Rather, it is the next historical element in the salvation of God's people, His coming in judgment against their enemies, the apostate Jews, by means of the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the sacrificial system in 70AD. "Our being gathered to Him," not in any supposed "Rapture," but in death or at His Second Advent. Paul is addressing an error here, in which some people were claiming that the resurrection and return of Jesus had already occurred, and the people to whom Paul wrote were left behind (pun intended). In other words, they had their own version of the full-preterist heresy, and Paul felt compelled to refute it. "For that will not come," Paul assures them (and us), "unless the rebellion comes first." What rebellion? While this is often explained as a general apostasy among professing Christians, there is no biblical support for such a thing. Can Jesus fail to keep His people (see Jude 1:24-25)? Rather, this is a rebellion, an apostasy, of the general population of Jews, which began with their rejection and murder of Jesus, and continued in their persecution, and even murder, of the Christians among them. God would judge them for that apostasy, removing their legal protections in the Empire, and bringing down the wrath of Rome upon their heads.

Therefore, it was Judaism that would be removed, allowing the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Under Roman law, the Jews had had certain legal privileges, privileges that extended to Christians, as long as they were considered a sect within Judaism. However, with the reversal of those privileges, the Christians no longer had that protective covering, and were thus exposed to the persecuting power of the Roman emperors, who were, successively, the Man of Lawlessness.

The False Fantasy of Moral Autonomy

There is a time in the Bible, where the Scripture repeats this mantra: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6, 21:25). The Bible says that is a bad thing, an indication of moral anarchy. However, in our own day it has become a fashionable lifestyle: "Do your own thing. Just follow your heart."

However, underlying that concept is an assumption of autonomy, the assertion that man rules himself and his destiny, and need not acknowledge any standard of judgment over his life other than his own pleasure. Even Christians fail to connect that mentality to the words of Satan in the Garden (Genesis 3:5): "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." In this case, "knowing" means "deciding." Our popular hedonism has come full circle, to demonstrate its satanic origin, yet that doesn't check the promotion of it.

However, God is neither impressed with our moral sophistication nor our alliance with Satan. "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, 'How have we wearied Him?' By saying, 'Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.' Or by asking, 'Where is the God of justice?'" (Malachi 2:17). He finds it tedious to listen to us declare our autonomy and right to decide our own morality. After all, He is God, our creator, and we are merely His creatures. Therefore, such a claim of autonomy is an act of rebellion and treason, the exact sin for which Adam was judged, and he and eve were cast out of the garden.

The Deception of Autonomy in Liberal Theology

The theological left makes its reputation by tearing down traditional theology, the traditional view of Scripture, traditional morality, etc. Liberal theologians make their academic reputations through novelty, and the more vigorously they speak against traditional Christianity, the more "modern" they are considered to be. No matter how academically rigorous, a conservative theologian is not going to get the recognition of prestigious universities (such as Yale or Harvard) or mainstream media.

What is it for which such theologians are the social heroes that they are portrayed to be?

Take your mind back to the earliest stories in the Bible, in particular to the temptation of Adam. There was find Satan making this offer to Eve, if she would be eat the forbidden fruit: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The temptation of Satan to which Even (and then Adam) capitulated was this offer of autonomy. No longer would their spiritual world center on God and His word, but instead they would determine for themselves their standards of good and evil.

Remember, also, the words of Paul: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-22). Paul is describing the lie hidden in Satan's temptation. Though Adam and Even did eat the forbidden fruit, they did not receive the autonomy that they had been promised. Rather, they found that they were still conscious of God and His Law and their accountability to Him. What had changed is that they were now sinners, and hated that knowledge. Their posterity, which is all of mankind (Jesus excluded), would find this same thorn in our consciences. And, apart from regeneration, it is our nature to hate that knowledge and to suppress it from our awareness.

This is where the liberal theologian comes in. He talks about a god, and maybe a Jesus, something which is recognized by even the hardened unbeliever. But the liberal god has no bible, no Law, no righteousness, no Hell, but only touchy-feely concern for our self-esteem. The natural, fallen man can handle that god. He can get on that theological train because it keeps his conscience quiet, and leaves him with what Satan promised, the ability to decide for himself how to live, how to determine truth, and to be satisfied with a life without God. Or so he imagines.

The problem is that the offer of the liberal theologian is just as much a deception as it was from the mouth of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. And, just as was discovered by Adam and Eve, that deception gives no reward of autonomy, but rather only the judgment of death: "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).

Yes, It Is Black or White: Belief and Unbelief

 In today's society, it has become unpopular to state things in absolutes: truth or falsehood, right or wrong. It seems as if nearly everyone wants the world in shades of gray. Any person who declares certainty about anything is labeled intolerant. However, have you noticed that defining intolerance as evil is the one absolute that is still acceptable? "I can't tolerate intolerance" may be nonsensical, but it is the popular theme of our age.

The funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of those same people profess to be Christians, about 90% of Americans. How does their intolerant tolerance line up with His attitude? Did Jesus not say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)? Of course, He did say exactly that, and it is far from a tolerant statement.

He said some other intolerant things, too. We see Him, saying (John 3:18), "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." He also says of unbelievers (John 8:43-44), "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires." Apart from commitment to Him, a person is under judgment. That is, now, not just in the hereafter. Why does a person not believe? Because he is acting consistently with his nature as the seed of Satan (Genesis 3:15). These are black and white categories. Either/or. Jesus is an absolutist!

Another categorical statement that Jesus made is, "Whoever is not with Me is against Me" (Matthew 12:30). That is a shocking statement, even to supposed Christians! I know that it is hip to be neutral. To be for or against anything is fanaticism. Except for certitude. One must absolutely be against that. Don't forget, "I can't tolerate intolerance." However, Jesus doesn't make any effort to be hip, or tolerant, or flexible. Nor does He allow His followers to be any such thing. Rather, if you aren't for Him, then He considers you to be against Him.

"Tolerance" has become the catchword for everyone who wants to be an "individual," just like everyone else. However, the biblical Christian is the real counter-cultural radical. The culture says, "Don't conform!" But it only means "don't conform to Christ." Conformity to culture is the modern standard of nonconformity, and it cannot be an option for the Christian.

The Bible commands us to a form of nonconformity (Romans 12:2): "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." When God says, "Don't conform," He means to the very worldview that is demanding our conformity. At the same time, He also commands a certain conformity (Romans 8:29): "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers." Therefore, in a very black and white contrast, to conform as the world demands is rejected by God. The conformity that the world condemns is the exact conformity that God commands. There is no gray, no neutral territory, no safe zone. It's a matter of faithfulness, and to deny it is an act of idolatry.