"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Unregenerate Bible Thumpers

By Shane Kastler

As Christians, we believe the Bible to be the very “Word of God.” Rather than simply being a valuable, historical book; or even an example of classical literature, the Bible is divinely-inspired. This means that God led the authors of scripture to write what He wanted written. From a spiritual perspective, this makes the Bible a gold mine for sinners seeking salvation, and for believers seeking to know God's will. But simply believing the Bible to be God's Word is not enough. We should embrace what the Bible teaches, and live our lives accordingly.

In New Testament times, many Jewish leaders revered the scriptures but refused to live by what they said. Jesus confronted them, saying, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40) Notice the nuance in what Jesus is saying. The Jewish leaders believed that eternal life resulted from their “belief in the scriptures.” But simply believing the Bible does not save you, rather salvation comes from the content revealed within the scriptures. Owning a book that tells you how to build a house, will not give you a house. But owning a book that tells you how to build a house, will give you a house if you act upon that which is written. The same is true regarding belief in Jesus.

We are saved “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). The scriptures reveal this to be true. God graciously grants spiritual life to some people in an act known as “regeneration” (also known as being born again). The result of regeneration is that people are freed from their slavery to sin, turn from their life of sin, and submit their life to Christ by faith. This new life is then reflected in a lifetime of loving obedience unto the Lord.

Don't kid yourself into thinking a mere mental affirmation that you “believe in the Bible” is the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ. The Jewish leaders “searched the scriptures” and were the “Bible thumpers” of their day; as they added to God's law, so as to bind their fellow man with extra rules the Bible did not contain. Likewise, many wrongly assumed they would attain eternal life by their deeds, as they adhered to God's law. But the part they missed was the part about Jesus; and indeed this is ultimately what all of the scriptures are about. The Bible culminates in Christ, and rejection of him is eternally fatal.

Don't be an unregenerate Bible thumper. Search the scriptures, then act upon them. Trust in Christ to be saved, and enjoy the benefits of knowing him as you await the day you'll forever be in his presence.

Does the Church Belong to Caesar?

By Shane Kastler

I'm not sure which is more sad. That American pastors are being arrested for having public worship services. Or that most Christians seem to be perfectly fine with that travesty. While I always assumed the American “church” would fold at the first sign of persecution, it turns out that many have folded far easier than that. They didn't have to be beaten, shot, or tortured; they merely had to be commanded by the government to stop meeting; and most squeamishly complied. The First Amendment has been discarded as nothing more than a quaint footnote to a bygone era. To a time when “patriots” valued their freedom to assemble and worship as they pleased. To a time when they would rather die than give up this freedom. And to a time when a nation was formed with the idea of enshrining this freedom as the law of the land. Sadly, today we are told it is our “patriotic duty” to cancel church services for the sake of the greater good. Cable news anchors are exempt from such decrees because they're considered to provide an “essential service.” Yet pastors are deemed “non-essential” and most Christians seem fine with that. And while it is not surprising to see a secular government make such dictatorial decrees, it is astounding to see how quickly the churches have submitted. Things used to be different in Christian circles. They were certainly different in New Testament times.

Some have said it is the church's duty to “render unto Caesar” as Jesus said to do. The passage in question involves a time when Jesus was asked about whether or not it was lawful for a Jew to pay taxes to Caesar. According to scripture the question was posed by a group who was trying to entrap Jesus and get him arrested. Luke records, “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them. So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.” (Luke 20:19-20)

Several things should be noted. First of all, Jesus was in hot water because he PUBLICLY SPOKE AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES. In this case, it was the Jewish “scribes and chief priests” who were not only religious authorities, but also the local governing body for the Jews. All under the authority of Rome. If the “render unto Caesar” argument is followed to it's logical conclusion, then Jesus was blatantly refusing to “submit” to the local “Caesars” (I.e, scribes and chief priests) by continuing to speak publicly against them. Why didn't he submit to the Sanhedrin, since they were the local authorities who governed with Rome's blessing? In fact, Jesus did the opposite.

Secondly, the opponents of Jesus sought to “hand him over the the rule and authority of the governor.” Of course this eventually happened, when he was arrested and stood before Pontius Pilate. But why did they want him arrested? What was his crime? Why did they oppose him so vigorously? Because he spoke out against them. Jesus didn't go silently into the night, as many Christians seem willing to do today. Much of Jesus's ministry involved speaking out against corrupt authorities.

When asked the question about Roman taxation, Jesus used a denarius, with Caesar's inscription, as his object lesson. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.” (Luke 20:25) Technically, Jesus was not answering a question about paying taxes in general, but rather explaining whether or not it was “lawful” for a Jew to do it; since some Jews saw it as an act of idolatry to grant Caesar such payments. Jesus's answer put the question to rest from a Jewish perspective, in telling them to “render unto Caesar” the taxes he demanded. The more telling aspect of Jesus's statement is the second half of the verse, which is often overlooked; and seems to be have been largely forgotten by Christians today. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” (Luke 20:25 emphasis added) This begs an obvious question: Does the church belong to Caesar? Or does it belong to God? And does the church look to Caesar to find out if, when, and how they are allowed to worship God? Does the church in America belong to the government? Do individual Christians belong to the government? Or for that matter, does any person belong to the government? Are we citizens or are we slaves? Christians are indeed “owned.” But they recognize Christ as their rightful Lord and Master. He alone owns the title of possession, because he alone paid the price with his blood.

Churches today are certainly free to cancel their services, or go “online” as many have done. But they are also free to gather together. They should not cancel based on a false notion of “rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.” Because the church doesn't belong to Caesar. Nor any other governing authority. It belongs to God. America's founders understood that all too well, and were willing to die for this “freedom of religion.” They were willing to enshrine it in the Bill of Rights in the very first amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The government can't force you to worship. They also can't STOP you; at least not LEGALLY.

Is it best for church's to cancel, in the face of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic? Some say yes and some say no. But it's not for Caesar to decide; at least not in a “free” country like America. And certainly not in a church which looks to Christ, not Caesar, as its ultimate authority. Are Christians risking their lives by going to church? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. But shouldn't it be their choice to decide? Do we not take a risk every time we leave our house? Do we not take a risk every time we drive a car or get on an airplane? Life is full of risks. That isn't in question. The question is whether or not we have the freedom to take risks as we see fit. Being commanded to not leave your house is draconian. But being commanded to not gather for worship is demonic. Yet Christians today seem perfectly fine with such mandates.

In most cases, what fuels the Christian's compliance is fear. I get that. People are afraid of getting sick and dying. And they are afraid of getting arrested for non-compliance. But if the pandemic is real, then the church needs to meet. Or at least have the FREEDOM to. Let the people decide if they want to attend services or not, and let the government stay out of it; as they are Constitutionally bound to do. Don't claim that a “national emergency” renders the Constitution moot; because the document was written in the midst of a “national emergency” (or revolution) with the intent of protecting liberty. And liberty is most under fire during “emergencies.” Moreover, if our liberties can be squelched at such a time as this; whose to say that future administrations cannot do likewise over far lesser “emergencies?” Who gets to decide when an emergency is serious enough to take our freedom? And why should anyone be allowed to decide that for someone else?

Pastors are being arrested in America today, for the crime of “unlawful assembly.” And most Christians seem perfectly fine with that disturbing reality. But once upon a time Christians didn't fold their tents so easily. Once upon a time, Christians were willing to be arrested for their beliefs. They were willing to oppose unbiblical mandates against their faith. Indeed they were willing to die for the cause. Not so today. They're too busy “rendering unto Caesar” the things that AREN'T CAESAR'S TO TAKE. While forgetting to render unto GOD.... the things that belong to God.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

A Time to Gather Stones

By Shane Kastler

The book of Ecclesiastes speaks of their being a time for everything and every event under Heaven. In other words, both good and bad; large and small, major and mundane events have a place in our life and are ordained of God. In this list of events it says there is a time to “throw stones and to gather them.” (Ecclesiastes 3:5) This may mean many different things.

This phrase might be a metaphor for production in life. In an agricultural society, throwing stones was a common practice when you wanted to clear a field in order to plant crops. Stones were gathered to be used when building a house for shelter. In this sense, the text could be reminding us that hard work requires both toil and preparation and there is a time for both.

The phrase might also mean a time to investigate matters and a time to punish the guilty. Under the Old Covenant, stoning was one way in which executions were carried out. The Mosaic law carried stiff penalties, but the priests and judges of Israel were not to mete them out haphazardly. Careful investigations were to be done to try and determine if someone was guilty or innocent. And if they were innocent, then they had to investigate if the accuser was purposely trying to frame the person; and if so then the accuser received the penalty they were seeking for the one they wrongly accused. This investigation period might be called a time for “gathering stones.”

We live in a time and in a country, where accusations are often leveled and judgments are made without spending the time to “gather stones.” While our courts may function under the mantra “innocent until proven guilty” the court of public opinion usually does the opposite. But as Christians we should give pause to rushing to judgment and joining the mob. We should be sober minded and consider evidence. We should calmly and rationally seek to determine the truth, and make judgments in life based on that.

There is a time for every event under Heaven. What “time” are you facing right now? Are you in a season of preparation, or have the plans already been made? Are you in a season of toil, whereby it's time for you to finish the plans you made in the past? Are you trying to determine if someone is right or wrong in a matter? Seek the Lord and prayerfully ask Him to show you the way. There is a time for everything. What time is it for you?

Atheism & Evolution Cannot Explain Evil Like The Las Vegas Massacre

By Shane Kastler

After tragedies such as the Las Vegas shooting occur, people often question God. Sincere debates arise in people's minds as to how this unspeakable horror could occur. Is there a God? If so, is he powerful enough to prevent such tragedies? And if so, then why doesn't he? But before any of these questions can be addressed, we should consider the question as to what is “good” and “evil.” And how can these categories exist, if there isn't a God who establishes a righteous standard? Las Vegas shouldn't make us question God. It should make us question atheism.

Since the shooting, I've heard two different atheists make very interesting statements. One of them claimed that he could not believe in God, since such evil exists in the world. The other one explained the shooting by making the statement, “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” I would like to consider both of these statements, and point out how they expose the atheist worldview as a worldview that cannot adequately explain reality. In short, atheism is illogical and these two statements prove it to be so.

First of all, let's examine the idea that God cannot exist if such evil is present in the world. Before we can debate the issue of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility; or God's power over evil; we have to establish how there can be categories such as “good” and “evil” in the first place. Atheism attempts to provide a moral standard for the world by presenting an irrational worldview that cannot adequately define or explain the evil around us. Sometimes, atheists will say that “good” is defined as whatever brings the most amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. But such “majority rules” types of standards hold no water. What if the “majority” of people decide that rape makes them happy? Does this make rape righteous? Of course not. And while some may claim I'm using an absurd example to make a point, my point remains nonetheless. There was a time when the “majority” of Americans believed slavery was acceptable. Did this make it so? The atheist cannot consistently argue against this, especially if they believe in evolution; as most atheists do.

If atheism is true, then the Las Vegas shooter's actions could not be called evil. How can categories of “good” and “evil” exist in a world with no God to establish a righteous standard? Categories of “good” and “evil” make no rational sense in world devoid of God. In all honesty, the very fact that our sense of justice wells up within us in the wake of tragedies like the Vegas shooting is proof that God is there. And that he has given us, in some measure, a sense of right and wrong; flawed though it may be.

Likewise, evolution cannot adequately explain the heinous actions of the Las Vegas shooter. At least not from a moral perspective. After all, if evolution is true, then the Las Vegas shooter could not be held accountable for his actions, as it would simply be an example of “survival of the fittest.” He's nothing more than an evolved monkey who learned to shoot. Evolution itself is based on a chemical chaos that cannot be explained by the world around us. If molecules randomly appeared, exploded, and evolved into self-aware creatures capable of rationalizing what is “good” and “evil”; then how can we blame a human who is as “off-kilter” to the point of mass murder? At best he would be a warped mutation. At worst, he is merely an example of what all “evolved creatures” are capable of. This thought is both scary and irrational.

Atheism cannot adequately define or explain evil. Nor can evolution. But atheistic evolutionists know full well that evil exists. Being created in the “image of God” they have enough of the stamp of the divine on their soul that they can express shock and profound sadness when they experience evil, which explains the second statement I heard an atheist utter: “This is the result of living in a fallen world.” My answer to this atheist, is that he is EXACTLY right! And in making this statement, he is exposing the fact that deep down, even he knows his worldview is hopelessly flawed. Deep down he knows that God is there. That good exists. And that evil is truly evil. By nature, man knows God is there; but because of sin he “suppresses” this truth in unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18) When an atheist speaks of a “fallen” world; what “fall” is he referring to? Regardless of whether or not he would admit it, he is referencing the “fall of man” that occurred in the Garden of Eden, when our first parents disobeyed God and brought a sin curse upon us all. This curse is exemplified daily in countless ways. What happened in Las Vegas is one graphic example and deep down, even the atheist knows this to be true. Indeed sinful man has “fallen” and we all feel the daily effects of this spiritual plunge.

Even the atheist can see the evil around them, just as they can recognize acts of kindness. But they cannot explain either. Random evolutionary “chance” produces neither good nor evil. Neither kindness nor cruelty. It simply produces chaos that cannot be described in moral terms. To be sure, there is indeed chaos around us. But the chaos is produced by created beings who rebel against their Creator and harm their fellow creatures......sometimes fatally. This moral chaos is Biblically defined as sin; that unrighteous act that is described as “unrighteous” because there is a God who has determined it to be so.

After a tragedy like the one that occurred in Las Vegas, emotions are raw, sorrow is deep, and the questions are many. And in the light of such depravity it is normal to seek explanations for the evil that exists all around us. But atheism cannot explain it. In fact, atheism cannot even define evil as evil. But “theism” - or more specifically, Christian “theism” can. Christianity alone can give you the moral categories to understand the world in which you live. Christianity defines sin, explains evil, and presents a remedy for it in the gospel of Jesus Christ; who came to earth and lived and died so that sinners such as us might be forgiven and know God in a profoundly saving way. Atheism will do nothing but fill your mind with unanswerable questions. Christianity will answer the unanswerable, give life true meaning, and plant deep within you an eternal hope that no bullet can take away.

Why Thabiti Anyabwile Is Wrong about Trump & Immigration

By Shane Kastler

The Great Commission does not tell all the nations of the world to come to America to hear the gospel. The Great Commission tells the church to GO TO all the nations and take the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20). The current immigration crisis in America has blurred the eyes of many American Christians who seem to want the Federal government to do the hard work of missions for them. Rather than wrestling with whether or not they should GO and TELL; many American Christians simply want the government to enact an open borders policy so other nations can COME and HEAR. This is spiritual laziness, disguised as Biblical piety and missionary zeal. Thabiti Anyabwile is one clear example of this type of unbiblical and wrong-headed thinking; and how many Christian leaders will misinterpret the Bible to achieve their political purposes.

In a recent interview for “The Gospel Coalition” Thabiti bemoaned how selfish American Christians were for supporting a restriction of the national border. He smugly commented that “Christians need to go back to their Bibles” to be informed on issues like this. Of course, the obvious question would be, “What exactly does the Bible say about American immigration policy?” And the answer is nothing. Thabiti took the question, “How should Christians respond to refugees?” And answered the question, “How should the United States respond to immigration?” These are two entirely different questions because the United States is not synonymous with Christianity and all immigrants are not refugees.

For those unfamiliar with Thabiti, he serves as a pastor of Anacostia Baptist Church in Washington D.C. - having preciously served as pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands and as a staff member at Mark Dever's Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington. He made a name for himself in evangelical circles because of his association with Dever, and later having ties to John Piper. He was born as “Ron Burns”, but changed his name when he converted to Islam. He later converted to Christianity, but kept his Muslim name. He has a compelling testimony and many conservative Christians respect him as a fresh tonic to the phony reverends like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who give black Christians a bad name. While Thabiti may not be in their ballpark, he is much closer than most of his fans realize. He has spoken glowingly of Bernie Sanders and the Black Lives Matter movement, while criticizing police and elevating “black” causes at the expense of Christian unity. Thabiti is the worst kind of dangerous because he mixes racial politics with conservative Christianity to sound orthodox while leading the undiscerning astray. I don't know his motives. Maybe he means well, but I don't trust him.

Thabiti, and many other Christian leaders like John Piper and Russell Moore continue to confuse the United States government with the Church and draw praise from many confused Christians who KNOW that Christians should be gracious to everyone, and ASSUME Thabiti and others are right when they criticize American immigration policy. The problem here, is that it is the church's job to be gracious and evangelize whoever they come in contact with. It is the Federal government's job to protect us and our liberty as we do this. And immigration standards fall well within the government's role in this area. The Bible says the “governing authorities” are to “wield the sword” and keep the peace. They are to punish evil and protect the innocent. (see Romans 13) But they are not to step in and do the work of missions for an increasingly lazy (and liberal) church. Many Christian leaders are nothing more than pawns for whatever political group they belong to. Thabiti complains about this reality, even though he himself seems to be just as guilty of it. In citing Old Covenant Israel as an example of those who were called to be gracious to “sojourners among you” he states, “The American church has been cozy with power for a long time; and it doesn't remember slavery in Egypt.” The problem with this statement is that American Christians never were slaves in Egypt. They were slaves to sin. And to take the typological picture of Old Covenant Israel and pagan Egypt; and then try to see the fulfillment in America and it's immigration policy is to distort scripture, mix and match covenants, and force a physical fulfillment on a spiritual reality. We are not Old Covenant Israel and we were never slaves in Egypt. The true church is the “New” Israel and were freed from our bondage to sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with America's policy on immigration. Should the church be gracious to “the sojourner among you?” Of course. But this doesn't mean the Federal government should disregard all security measures and promote an open borders policy. Not even Old Covenant Israel did that. They had walled cities, with armies, and guards, and laws which had to be obeyed.

Thabiti's words sound very pious, but they seem to be more rooted in his personal hatred of Donald Trump than in anything the Bible actually teaches. For months, Thabiti has railed against Trump with every fiber of his being. He's accused him of being a racist, as he openly endorsed Hillary Clinton. In so doing, Thabiti tipped his hand as being more concerned with his personal preferences than with protecting life itself. If Thabiti had supported a third party candidate, or no one at all....more power to him. But Thabiti, openly announced his intention to vote for the infanticidal, feminist Clinton. And that is shameful. And in so doing he lost all credibility on cultural issues.  And strangely enough, he uttered not a word against Barack Obama's immigration policy which also included temporary bans and deportation.  Of course, he still has a large platform because he has “The Gospel Coalition” seal of approval. This means that many conservative, and even theologically “reformed” Christians will swallow whatever rhetoric he puts forth and assume he is trustworthy. Even if he has a clear ax to grind and is twisting scripture to defend his political positions. Unfortunately, The Gospel Coalition seems to be morphing more and more into a Christianized version of the Huffington Post; and Thabiti is becoming the new Arianna Huffington.

In The Gospel Coalition clip, Thabiti goes on to make the ludicrous and breath-taking comparison of Paul in Athens in Acts 17 as an example to defend his immigration position. He cites that God has determined the “boundaries and habitations of people that they may be brought to the gospel.” Thabiti apparently sees this as a justification for open borders. But doesn't the text itself say that citizens of other countries “boundaries and habitations” have been determined by God? And was Paul making any reference at all to immigration, or even more absurd, to AMERICAN immigration? Of course not. Has the sovereign God who determined a Syrian live in Syria, also decreed that they can't hear the gospel unless they come to America? Or did God tell Christians of all nationalities to GO and TELL, rather than expect them to COME and HEAR?

Does this mean Christians who support secure borders are being “un-Christian” and hateful, as Thabiti suggests? Not at all. In fact, Christians can and should support helping refugees and others in need. But it shouldn't be through government policy, it should be through private charity in both practice and in financial support. The knee-jerk reaction of most Americans is to look to government in general to solve all their problems. And to use the United States government in particular to solve all the world's problems. But this is not America's job as a country. And it is not the government's role as the “governing authorities.” If you feel led to support Syrian refugees for example, then YOU should give from your own pocket to support them rather than trying to force the government to take from everyone's pocket to support them. If you feel a burning desire to share gospel with Syrians then you should give to missions causes in that region, or consider going there as a missionary yourself rather than trying to force the entire country to welcome all (even potential terrorists) to enter through open borders. America is not the church. Immigration is not missions. And national defense is not “hateful ideology” as Thabiti suggests.

Thabiti uses a lot of liberal buzzwords that will probably go unnoticed by many Christians who have been hypnotized by such words. He speaks of “injustice, empathy, sojourners, and the voiceless” to criticize Christians who expect the government to do it's God-ordained role of keeping the peace through immigration policy. And to promote his own “anti-all things Trump” position of open borders, etc. For a man to have the audacity to browbeat Christians for not defending the “voiceless” when he himself openly supported Hillary Clinton is both staggering and nauseating. In this clip, Thabiti comes across as pious, pompous, and condescending. He waxes eloquent about his own perceived Biblical knowledge, while distorting the scriptures to achieve his own political ends. And then accuses anyone who opposes him of doing the same things he does. He has taken a page from the playbook of the Democrats and duped many conservative Christians in the process. While he may be right on some theological issues, I encourage Christians to just avoid him. He's too blinded by his hatred of Trump to speak rationally on matters of culture.

 

Moses the Christian

By Shane Kastler

No one is saved apart from Jesus Christ.  Even Old Testament believers, who lived before Jesus was born, are ultimately saved by the work of Christ.  Take Moses for example.  Although he is typically equated with the giving of the law on Mt Sinai, he was not saved by law-keeping.  No one is.  Moses was saved by grace through faith in the coming Christ.  The book of Hebrews records: “By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.” (Hebrews 11:24-26 NASB) Moses not only chose suffering over sinful pleasure.  He also chose “the reproach of Christ” over acceptance and prestige from pagan Egypt.  Though he was raised in Pharaoh’s household, he identified with God’s people and thus identified with the coming Christ. 

                From the beginning, God’s plan was to save those who are found “in Christ.”  Jesus didn’t originate at birth, nor nine months prior.  Jesus has always existed as the Divine, Son of God.  There was a point in history where he “became flesh and dwelt among us.”  (John 1:14) But Jesus existed before Moses did.  And even though Moses was born before Jesus, Moses had faith in the Christ who had not yet come.  When Jesus came and lived a life of sinless perfection it was judicially credited to the account of every believer, including Moses.  And when Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for sin it was judicially accepted by God on behalf of every believer, including Moses.

                At the “transfiguration” when Jesus’s glory was manifested to some of his disciples, the Bible says that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus.  Being the human representative of the “law and the prophets”, they appeared in subordinate roles to the Son of God.  Peter suggested building three altars for them; but God the Father spoke saying, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him!”  (Mark 9:2-8) This wasn’t an insult against Moses or Elijah, it was merely a statement of authoritative fact about who was Lord.

                Do you have faith in Jesus Christ?  Is this evidenced by your life of holiness and your daily commitment to him?  Moses believed in Christ, even though Christ had not come yet.  Moses’s belief proved to be well founded.  Jesus came once.  The Bible says he is coming again and he will receive unto himself all those who have faith in him.  Ultimately, Moses was saved because he was a Christian.  Hopefully the same can be said of you.

The Case for Confrontation: Why Jesus Insulted & Offended People

By Shane Kastler

Jesus was the most complex man who ever lived; and he was FAR MORE confrontational than most people realize.  At times he was very tender, like when he forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8). At other times he was very combative, like when he turned over the tables in the temple (Matt. 21; John 2). He spoke with perfect grace, and he spoke with perfect judgment. None of us could ever live in the perfect way that Jesus did. Of course, during his earthly life, he was nothing less than “God in the flesh.” His divine nature obviously set him apart from the rest of humanity. He was not a “created” man, but rather “all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) Jesus is eternal. He has always been. We are created. We are mortal. Which is why we need a relationship with him to be forgiven and saved. And it is why we examine his earthly life and character to see how we should live.

In one regard, we are called to imitate Christ. In another regard, we should never try. We SHOULD imitate his character. We CANNOT imitate his divine authority. Yet we do try to live under his divine authority and emulate his love, mercy, grace, and truth to the world around us.

Perhaps the most neglected, ignored, and unknown aspect of Jesus's character was his confrontational style. While he was very tender and gracious to some, he was also very critical of others. Modern people love the “gentle as a lamb” Jesus. But most don't even know the “fierce as a lion” Jesus. Yet both analogies aptly describe him. Jesus was not afraid to speak the truth. And to do so, “to your face.” This is most clearly seen in his numerous confrontations with the Jewish Pharisees.

The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that was widely considered to be the most “holy” of all Jews. Fiercely legalistic, they openly paraded their so-called righteousness in front of crowds, so as to be bragged upon. They legitimately thought themselves to be better than others, and their arrogance was breath-taking at times. You might think that the “average” Jews would be able to see through this hypocrisy; but most could not. They revered the Pharisees and they were intimidated by them. Jesus was not.

Jesus taught in parables for many different reasons. Sometimes he specifically taught in mysterious parables so that people WOULD NOT understand. Jesus told the disciples this himself, saying that his cryptic teachings were only understood by those to whom understanding has been “given to.” When he gives the interpretation to the parable of the sower, he tells the disciples that they are “blessed” in being told this mystery. In other words, it's not that they are more intelligent than others; but that God has chosen to “reveal” truth to them that he doesn't give to others. (Matt. 13:10-16)

Jesus sometimes taught in parables to teach his disciples a spiritual truth. In Matthew 22, he gives the parable of the wedding feast and opens the story by saying, “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to...” He is teaching the disciples a spiritual truth through the analogous story. Yet sometimes when Jesus spoke in parables, his enemies knew full well what he was saying. The gospel of Matthew records: “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:45-46)

In his parables against the Pharisees, Jesus compared them to wicked workers who killed their boss's son (Matt. 21:33-44). He compared them to arrogant wedding invitees, who refused to come to the King's banquet (Matt. 22:1-14). And he repeatedly compared them to disobedient sons who treated their father with contempt (Matt. 21:28-32; Luke 15:11-32). When he spoke against the Jews, he also spoke in favor of gentiles who possessed faith. Jesus made it abundantly clear, that all were sinners by nature; that no one deserved salvation, regardless of their bloodline; and that only believers would enter the kingdom. Sinners are saved by grace, through faith; and legalistic, self-righteousness was a broad road that led to Hell. And Jesus did not shy away from telling the Pharisees this in very descriptive ways.

Jesus not only confronted the Jews with parables, he also confronted them with direct arguments. When we read through the gospels, we find Jesus calling them “hypocrites, blind guides, white-washed tombs, Sons of the Devil, evil, stumbling blocks, brood of vipers, and wicked.” Many today would accuse him of being too confrontational, combative, and insulting. Some would say he was engaging in petulant “name-calling.” Yet the Bible presents Jesus as the sinless Son of God. He wasn't petulant, he was brutally honest. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a person is to take off the “kid gloves” and tell them the plain truth. Jesus did this to perfection. But even in his own day, he was accused of being too harsh. After giving some of his famous “Woe unto you Pharisees” statements, the gospel of Luke records:“One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, 'Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too.' But He said, 'Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them.'” (Luke 11:45-47)

Amazingly, rather than recant and apologize, Jesus speaks even MORE forcefully and pointedly. When the “lawyer” (an expert in the Mosaic Law), tries to get Jesus to “tone it down” – Jesus moves from a general criticism of “Pharisees” to a specific criticism of the very lawyer who is confronting him. In other words, he points out the man's faults, to his face. Say what you will about Jesus, he was certainly not a coward.

On yet another occasion, Jesus's disciples tell him that he is insulting the Pharisees. They seem to think that Jesus is oblivious to how harsh his language is. And they say to him: “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matt. 15:12-14) Jesus knew full well that he offended the Pharisees. In fact, that was his intent. And when his opponents, or the crowds, or even his own disciples were aghast at his words, Jesus merely spoke more loudly and more direct. He didn't water down the confrontation, he fanned the flames of confrontation. Truth doesn't need to apologize. And Jesus never apologized for speaking the truth. Yet truth, often offends people in a world where they are accustomed to dishonest “niceties.” Those who speak the truth and are shouted down usually cower and submit. Even when people know they're right, they often resort to “group-think” and allow themselves to be intimidated and silenced by the ignorant and evil masses. But sometimes rare individuals come along who refuse to be silenced. This is true in a Biblical sense (e.g., Jesus). It is true in a historical sense (e.g., Martin Luther). And it is even true in a political sense (e.g., Donald Trump). Luther was correct far less than Jesus; and Trump is correct far less than both. But the common thread in such people is that they refuse to shut up, when they believe they are in the right. Though mortals like Luther and Trump may at times be wrong; their courage in the midst of opposition is both rare and commendable. When Luther refused to recant of his Biblical beliefs at the Diet of Worms, Christians should have taken notice. Likewise when Trump confronted Hillary Clinton in a debate over the evils of partial-birth abortion. Instead, such brave acts are often decried, even by Christians, as being too brash and confrontational. Still, someone must stand up to the bullies of the world; and often times the one who does this will be accused of being a bully himself. But bullying a bully is righteous. Jesus and the Pharisees teach us this quite clearly. When someone refuses to back down and actually speaks LOUDER rather than shutting up --- many will despise him, and seek his destruction. The world hates the truth, in all forms. And relishes dishonesty, and sometimes Christians get sucked into this thinking as well. But we should not encourage the world's lying tongues or be brow-beaten by their threats. Jesus certainly wasn't.

Which leads me to one final thought. Though we should seek to emulate Jesus's character, we must also realize that we never will perfectly be able to do this. Jesus had the ability to know exactly when to speak, what to say, and how to say it. But we are prone to sin with our words. We should not shy away from “calling a spade, a spade” but we must also seek to “speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15) Admittedly, this is not easy to do at times; so we must daily rely upon the Lord and try to be discerning in what we say. We must not let our emotions govern us; and we must not lose control. Yet, at the same time; we must not be muzzled and shy away from honesty. Hypocrites should be called hypocrites. Blind guides should be called blind guides. Jesus once called King Herod a fox (Luke 13:32). There's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise when our “governing authorizes” warrant it. Speaking the truth is not a sin. Jesus did it better than anyone. Let us therefore, “go and do likewise.”

 

When To Be Meek & When To Get Mad: Lessons from Jesus on Temple Cleansing & Cheek Turning

By Shane Kastler

How is a Christian to understand teaching from the Bible that seem to present a contradiction? Let me say at the outset that I don't think the Bible has any contradictions. And I don't say this from a naive, “bury my head in the sand” type of hermeneutic. To the contrary, the Bible presents many Old Testament passages and prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament scriptures. And there is a big difference between a contradiction and a fulfillment. But what about two passages from the New Testament that seem to conflict? Take for example Jesus's call for us to be meek; compared to Jesus's cleansing of the Temple when he turned over tables and ran out he money changers. How do we reconcile these two seeming contractions? And which one of these examples is the Christian to follow? Or does our response depend on circumstances? These are some of the questions I will attempt to wrestle with in this article.

To begin with, I would point out that Jesus, as the Son of God, has a divine status that no person has. In other words, there are ways in which we should seek to imitate Jesus; and there are ways in which we never could. We imitate His humility. But we dare not imitate His authority. We imitate His holiness. But we dare not try to imitate His sovereignty. Jesus has the right to say, “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (John 15:14) We, on the other hand, have no right nor reason to say such a thing.

As it pertains to meekness, we will find no better example in all of history than that of Jesus. While being divine by nature, He condescended to such an extent that He allowed Himself to be beaten, persecuted, and crucified. He had the authority to stop it; but He had the meekness to see it through. It was the Father's perfect plan to pay for the sins of His sheep. And as such, it was also in accordance with Jesus's desires; which always submit and agree with those of the Father. (“Thy will be done.”)

So let us consider the words, “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matt. 5:5) Here we see a clear summons from the Lord that His followers should be “meek” or “gentle” or “humble.” And we are told that when this meekness occurs in genuine, Spirit-inspired humility; reward will follow. Christians are not called to be arrogant but rather selfless. We are not called to seek our own interests first; but rather that of others – all under the glory of God. We are to live our lives in such a way that the world marvels at our gentle spirits and even wonders for a reasons for the hope that is within us. (1 Peter 3:15) In general, we are to live our lives in humble submission to God's sovereignty over what comes to pass in our lives. We are to live in peace and submit to authority; as long as it is in our power to keep peace (Rom. 12:18) and does not contradict God's Word. We are to live in a spirit of meekness. Yet within that spirit of meekness there is a time to get mad as well. Not a “blow your top” out of control rage; but rather a righteous indignation that knows full well why it is upset. This was what we saw in Jesus when He cleansed the Temple.

Can the meek ever exhibit anger? Apparently so, as evidenced by Jesus's Temple activity. But a deeper question we should seek to answer is: What motivated Jesus to cleanse the Temple? Was it a personal insult, or was it His Father's glory? Here's the account from Mark: “And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’? But you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.” (Mark 11:15-17 NASB) The motivation here is His Father's glory. The Temple was intended to be used as a “house of prayer” but instead they had turned it into a “robber's den.” Corruption and greed marked the Temple rather than God's glory and prayer.

Another aspect of the Temple cleansing that should be considered is the symbolic act of the Messiah destroying the Jews false hope in the Temple and the Law. The Jews had placed their faith in the Temple and their "special" relationship with God as a people.  Jesus was showing that the Temple had actually been turned into a place of corruption.  He had also expressed that he would leave the Temple with no stone that wasn't thrown over (Matt. 24:2).  The physical Temple was coming down; because something far greater than the Temple had come.

But how does this apply to us? Does it mean we should trash every church building that's made up of charlatan phonies? No, because we don't have the authority of Christ to do so. But it does mean we have a right to be indignant when we see God's glory besmirched in such a way. We have a right and even a responsibility to speak out against the evils of our day. Not evils that involve personal slights; but evils that involve harming and killing innocent people (abortion for example). We have a right to speak out against false preachers who preach a false gospel. We have a right to warn others with strong words and, if given the opportunity, warn the false preachers themselves with strong words as well. Our motivation is not anger or harm, but rather God's glory and the possible repentance of the evil doer. We speak in love. But we speak firmly and boldly. It might not appear meek. But in all honesty it is, for we are not calling sinners to be like us; we are jointly confessing our worthlessness and pointing all to Christ. Sometimes the most loving and meek thing you can do is confront the sin of a loved one and tell them of the grace found in Christ alone.

Another common question that arises is whether or not a Christian is allowed to defend themselves, or is Jesus's admonition to “turn the other each” a universal commandment for every situation? Here's the text: “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” (Matt. 5:37-42)

It should first be noted that Jesus is contrasting his commandment with the “Lex Talionis” (law of retribution) from the Old Covenant. Clearly Jesus is giving a “new law” for the “new covenant” that He has instituted. Mosaic Law called for retribution to be doled out in proportion to the crime committed. Of course this could easily get out of hand with every perceived slight causing a person to cry for justice. Jesus teaches that being a born-again, New Covenant Christian creates a different mindset than the Old Covenant idea of perpetual vengeance. Christians should be selfless and accommodating. They should be focused on eternity rather than this world (Col. 3:1). And they should be willing to suffer for the sake of another person's welfare. But is there ever a time when this maxim is not mandated? What about Christians serving in law enforcement, the military, or defending their home and family? Must Christians “turn the other cheek” in such situations? I say no.

The Bible gives guidelines for those who serve in such vocations. When soldiers came to be baptized by John they asked what they should do in “keeping with repentance.” The Bible says, “Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14) He didn't tell them to resign. Nor did he even tell them they could not use lethal force in the line of duty. He told them to be honest and content with their wages. Romans 13 gives a clear mandate for governmental use of force in some cases; and there is no prohibition against Christians serving in this capacity. Obviously, if a police officer comes upon the scene of a mass murderer wreaking havoc on a community, it is not only allowed, but expected that he will use force to end the massacre. It is righteous of him to do so. Jesus's admonition applied to such a situation would be to lift Jesus's words out of the context in which he expressed them. In a Christian's daily walk, as members of the New Covenant, we are to have an attitude of grace and submission and even sacrifice for the sake of others. But within the context of upholding justice, Christians might play a role as well.

One other area I would address would be the topic of self-defense. Is a Christian entitled to defend themselves when attacked? Or is this a case for “turning the other cheek?” I have written on this more in depth in another article. So I will simply sum up that argument here. In 1 Timothy, Paul writes: “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8) What is it that a person is supposed to “provide” for his own? Food, shelter, protection, love? Certainly all of these. Why do we build houses for our families to live in, rather than simply live out in the openness of nature? One reason is to protect our families from the elements. Why do we build houses with doors that can lock? One reason is to protect our families from evil people who would seek to harm them. Locked doors may not be active resistance to evil. It may be merely passive resistance by “heading off robbers at the pass.” The same could be said of carrying a gun. I'm not actively pulling a gun and threatening anyone I see as a potential danger. Nor am I to pull a gun every time I'm insulted, in “John Wayne” fashion. Rather, I carry the gun passively and only draw it when it becomes necessary. Can I do it in self-defense? Jesus's words from Luke 22:36 (“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”) seem to say I can. Can I draw a gun in defense of my family? Paul's words in 1 Tim. 5:8 about providing for my family seem to indicate that I can. In fact to neglect to protect my family might be construed as an act of infidelity.

So to conclude. Jesus's admonition to “turn the other cheek” is a teaching He gave in contrast and in fulfillment to the heavy-handed retribution of Mosaic Law. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and thus we look to Christ as our Lawgiver. So He gives us His Law. While governmental law still plays a role in punishing criminals (Rom. 13); the Christian is to live their life as members of the New Covenant. And as such we seek not our own good primarily; but rather we seek God's glory while thinking of others ahead of ourselves. With that said, there is a time and place for righteous indignation and for defense of self, family, neighbor, and country. It requires great discernment and a knowledge of God's Word to know when one verse applies and another doesn't. But God provides this wisdom for us through the Word and the Spirit. There is a time to be meek; and there is a time to get mad. Yet we must be careful not to let our righteous indignation devolve into sinful wrath. Jesus was able to be both meek and mad in perfect harmony. But then again, he was perfect. We must seek to imitate Him. And by His grace we can grow in understanding and in Christ-likeness.

 

Why Paul Refused to Divide the Law

By Shane Kastler

A common trait of Covenant Theology is to divide the Mosaic Law into three parts: civil, ceremonial, and moral.  They say the “moral law” (aka: the Ten Commandments) is still binding upon New Covenant believers.  While the other two aspects of the law have been fulfilled in Christ.

"New Covenant Theology" on the other hand, refuses to divide the Law in three-fold, or any other fashion; since the Bible itself never divides the Law in this way.  Rather, the Law is treated as a unit.  It is either completely fulfilled, or completely enforced.  Chopping it up simply will not work.  It might surprise some to know that the Apostle Paul refused to divide the Law in this way.  Paul was insistent (contra Covenant Theology) that the Law must be kept together.  To the Galatians he wrote, “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Galatians 5:2-3 NASB)

The primary issue Paul is addressing is the false belief that circumcision was required for salvation.  But Paul’s final statement addresses another topic that was pertinent to his first century readers and to us as well.  Can we divide the Law?  Can we simply take one commandment in the Law (in this case circumcision) and declare it binding while we declare the rest of the Law fulfilled?  Paul’s adamant answer is, “No!”  Paul is emphatic that if circumcision is enforced as a requirement then the entire Law must be required and enforced as well.  But why would Paul say this?  Why can’t the Galatians enforce one commandment and declare the others fulfilled?  Paul’s answer is that the Law is indivisible.  It is ALL fulfilled in Christ and is thus illegitimate to cling to one commandment as binding; OR it is ALL binding including what Covenant Theology would call the civil and ceremonial aspects.  Simply put, Paul is teaching that you must be completely under the ENTIRE LAW; or you must be COMPLETELY FREE from the ENTIRE LAW.  There is simply no middle ground on this issue; at least according to Paul.  Though perhaps you disagree with him.

Of course, today the issue is not circumcision.  A much more prominent issue is the Ten Commandments (Decalogue), that Covenant Theology has sliced off from the rest of the Law and declared to be eternally binding on everyone.  Yet this is just as illegitimate as the circumcision issue was for Paul.  In fact it might even be ten times as illegitimate because it seeks to take ten commandments and bind them on the believer instead of only one.  So what is wrong with binding the Ten Commandments on believers anyway?  Why would Paul oppose the division of the Law when the commandments seem so righteous and good?

Isn’t it good to forbid idolatry and theft and murder and adultery?  Indeed, it is; and such commandments are affirmed in the New Covenant scriptures.  But Jesus, as the living Word of God; as the King of Kings and Lord of Lawgivers has the right to abolish, enshrine, or alter the Law in any way he pleases.  And this he does.  Injunctions against murder are elevated to injunctions against hatred.  Injunctions against adultery are elevated to injunctions against lust.  So, in ironic fashion, many Covenant Theologians who cling to the Decalogue out of zeal for holiness, prove that they have a zeal without knowledge for they are pointing Christians to a LESSER degree of holiness than the Lord Himself puts forth.

I am of the belief that most Covenant Theologians are of good intent.  They fear that New Covenant Theology butchers the Bible by giving primacy to Jesus and the New Testament.  Of course Jesus Himself gave primacy to Himself and the New Testament.  In fact, He rebuked the Jews for elevating Moses ahead of Him:  "Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.” (John 5:45) It’s not that Moses was a “bad guy” mind you.  But rather, his role as Old Covenant Lawgiver was not a role of savior.  It was a role of accuser.  The Law didn’t redeem, it condemned.  It displayed sin and led to futility with the result that it should have driven a Jew to cry out for the Lord’s mercy.  Instead, it made many of them prideful and arrogant.  They kept the Law (at least in their own minds) and were thus justified by their legalism (or so they thought).  Jesus came and taught otherwise.  The Law could not save.  Not one single aspect of the Law could.  Not circumcision, nor the Decalogue.  Only faith in Him could.

The argument from Covenant Theology is that they are not claiming salvation is earned from keeping the Ten Commandments, but rather the Commandments are our perfect rule of conduct.  But, yet again, this is not what the New Testament teaches.  Paul wrote: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21)   Christians are not without law, but they are certainly not under the Mosaic Code.  Not the 613 commandments of the Law, nor the specific ten of the Decalogue.  We have a higher standard because we live under a “better” covenant which has based on “better” promises (Hebrews 8:6).  We look to Christ as our Lord, Savior, King, and Lawgiver.  And we look to Moses as a servant of Christ’s.  We also look to Moses as the purveyor of a temporary code to a typological people (Israel) for a temporary amount of time (until the coming of Christ – Galatians 3:25).

Paul won’t let us divide the Law.  Neither will Jesus, nor the Scriptures as a whole.  Not in the Old Testament scriptures will you see the Law divided.  Not in the New Testament scriptures will you see the Law divided.  Paul taught the Galatians that if you are bound to ONE, then you are bound to ALL OF THEM.  But Paul taught that we are bound to NONE of them.  Christ has fulfilled what no man ever could.  Christ has redeemed us from the “curse” of the Law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).  Jews must look to Him for salvation.  Gentiles must look to Him for salvation.  Not circumcision.  Not the Decalogue.  But Christ and Christ alone.  “This is my beloved Son, listen to Him!” (Mark 9:7)

Theological Humility & The Law: Are You Willing to Admit You're Wrong?

By Shane Kastler

The gospel of Christ is much more important than your pride.  While all Christians would no doubt agree with this statement in principle, it is not always the condition of their life in practice.  By nature, we hate admitting when we are wrong, especially when it pertains to the most important things in life.  And yet none of us, at this present time, “know it all” when it comes to the knowledge of the Lord.  We are all “growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord” (2 Peter 3:18); or at least we should be.

Of course there are various levels of error within the world of “professing” Christianity.  Some professing Christians fail to understand the basic tenets of the gospel.  These errors are often manifested by extreme and unbiblical views in both directions.  On one hand there is a legalistic “works salvation” that links an assumed salvation to the so-called righteous deeds of a “Christian.”  Yet the Bible teaches that none are “righteous” (Romans 3:10) and that salvation can only be attained by grace through faith in Christ.  (see Eph. 2:8-9) Sadly, there are some who would profess Christ, yet are looking to their own delusional self-righteousness as the road to Heaven.  But this “way” is no road to Heaven at all, rather it is a “wide road” that leads to destruction. (Matt. 7:13)

The other extreme is a soft pedaled “easy believism” that equates salvation with some sort of intellectual assent or a “magical” sinner’s prayer repeated as though it were a salvific mantra.  Perhaps you were genuinely born again when you prayed some such prayer.  Perhaps you were not.  The point is, the Bible doesn’t offer a “sinner’s prayer” as the means to salvation.  Jesus said you must be “born again.” (John 3:3) Evangelicalism is eaten up with such a “gospel” today.  So much so, that many church rolls are filled with members who scarcely ever attend worship services and whose lives bear no fruit to the Christian claims that they espouse.  These errors are enormous and eternally consequential.  Do you hold to such views?  And if so, do you have the humility to admit you might be wrong?  Would you repent of this and turn to Christ?  Would you be saved?

Such errors of misunderstanding the gospel are of vital and eternal importance.  But lesser theological errors also exist.  There are many in the church today who are born again and seem to love the Lord.  They are committed to holiness and understand the “grace of God in truth.”  Yet are still in error on some issues.  Could you be one of them?  And are you willing to admit you might be wrong and thus change your views accordingly?  Would you be willing to submit your theology to the test of Scripture and declare God’s Word to be true even if it contradicts what you believe?

The fact is, ALL of us might be wrong about some things.  And ALL of us as Christians should seek to grow in our knowledge and be willing to change our views when proven wrong.  You might be surprised to know that the Apostle Paul was willing to admit he might be wrong; and was willing to change his views if it were proven so.  And I am not just referring to his conversion from Jewish Pharisaism to Christianity.  The Apostle Paul, TWENTY-PLUS YEARS AFTER his conversion was still willing to change his theology if it was found to be in error.  To the Galatians he wrote: “After an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” (Galatians 2:1-2 NASB) This was after the 3 years Paul mentions in Galatians 1, plus some additional time he spent traveling and preaching.  The point is this:  Paul’s theology was more important than Paul’s pride.  Paul was willing to submit his views to scrutiny and change them, rather than doggedly cling to that which was false.  Did Paul think he had the gospel wrong? Not at all.  But he went to the other Apostles to make sure he had not “run in vain.” Are you willing to submit your theology to the writings of the Apostles’ to make sure you aren’t teaching something in vain? 

Of course, we know both the general and specific issues which Paul was addressing.  We know who was attacking him and we know why.  The general issue was the Mosaic Law, which Paul refused to put himself back under bondage to.  And the specific issue was circumcision, which the Judaizers insisted was necessary for salvation.  But Paul continues in Galatians 2: “But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.” (Galatians 2:3-5)

Paul refused to waffle on the purity and simplicity of the gospel.  Though Peter and even Barnabas were intimidated and led astray by the Jews (see Galatians 2:11-14); Paul would not budge.  (As a side note, I would point out that if PETER and BARNABAS could be led astray, perhaps you and I are in danger of this as well).  Salvation was by grace through faith in Christ alone and the Law added nothing to this.  Neither as it pertained to salvation, nor sanctification (i.e., spiritual growth).  This was the unequivocal conclusion of the Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15.  Not only was the Law incapable of saving, the council concluded that the Gentiles who were coming to Christ were not to be bothered with the Law.  In the council, Peter declared: “Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10) And they concluded that they should not “trouble” the Gentiles with such things. (v. 19)

The Apostles believed and taught that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled in Christ and that it neither saved nor sanctified the believer.  Rather, the believer should look to Christ in all ways.  The Apostles did not teach that the Old Testament was worthless and should be discarded.  In fact, in the council they quoted from the prophet Amos in defending their position! (v. 16-17) But they understood the Old Covenant had been replaced by a “new” and “better” covenant through Christ (see Heb. 8:6).

Could you possibly be wrong in your views about the Mosaic Law?  Is it possible that you have elevated Moses higher than the Apostles themselves did?  Is it possible that, though you see salvation as coming through Christ alone, you nevertheless see the Law of Moses as a necessity for sanctification?  Or do you perhaps see the “terrors of the Law” as a necessary precursor for gospel preaching?  If so, I would encourage you to humbly and prayerfully consider whether or not you might be wrong.  The Bereans were described as being “noble minded” (Acts 17:11) because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught was true.  You and I should do likewise.  It’s hard to admit you might be wrong.  And it goes without saying that each one of us will undoubtedly take a certain amount of theological error to our graves.  We are “works in progress” after all and shall remain as such in this life.  But is your pride worth clinging to something that isn't  true?  Does your pride mean more to you than the gospel?  Does your pride refuse to let you concede that, though you understand salvation fully and have experienced it in your life, you were in fact wrong about the Law?  Come let us reason together.  Let us search the Scriptures in Berean fashion and strive to understand them in context.  Let us hold fast to what is true and graciously reject that which is not.  Let us imitate Paul, and in so doing, let us look to Jesus Christ.  He is our salvation.  He is our Lord and Master.  He is our King and Lawgiver.  He is our all in all.  He is more important than me.  He is more important than you.  And He is more important than your theological system, and your pride.  Kill the pride, kneel to the King, and seek the truth.

There may be other theological issues that you are wrong about.  Submit all your theology to the test of Scripture.  Not a test that merely “cherry picks” a Bible verse out of context to “prove” your position.  But rather, submit your theology to a true, contextual examination by the word of God and see if your belief’s hold up.  Or better still, jettison your theological systems and come to the Scriptures with a clean slate.  Let THEM be your judge, rather than YOU being their judge!

Martin Luther declared, “My mind is captive to the word of God.”  Luther wasn’t perfect, nor was his theology.  But his mindset was right on!  Let the word of God rule us and inform us.  Let us truly seek to know the Lord and know what He teaches us in His word.  And let us show grace and exhibit true humility.  You don’t know it all.  Neither do I.  But God does.  Let Him be the Judge.  Let Him “lay down the Law.”  And let you and I submit as the grateful, forgiven creatures that we are.  Let God be true, though every man a liar! (Rom. 3:4) Then let us “cast our lots” with the God of truth and submit to His word.  He knows all.  We know nothing. End of story.