The Stealth War Against
The Truth of the Gospel
By William Handschumacher
The Battle Over Biblical Context Rages On
Another Common Rebuttal Against
Christ's New Covenant of Grace
Eventually, you will find some Christians lovingly object by saying, "Well, this all sounds very interesting, but you've forgotten what the Bible says in Malachi 3:6, "I am the Lord, I change not" -- and you're also forgetting the verse from Hebrews 13:8 that says, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Based on these Scriptures, they now feel bold enough to say, "You're teaching that the Lord has changed, but the Bible says he doesn't change . . . and for that reason you're wrong about these things."
My response: No, I haven't forgotten anything about the eternal and unchanging nature of Jesus Christ. However, over many years, I've learned that these Scriptures about "Jesus not changing" are found in the "Top Ten" list of the Bible's most abused issues of context. Those who hold to reformed theology commonly misapply these Scriptures and defend their beliefs by "spiritualizing" rather than using a "literal interpretation" in their study of God's Word. Under reformed theology, the words "I am the Lord, I change not" and "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" are used as proof that the Bible only has one message and that nothing has really changed from Old Testament times. Once again, this is one of the central themes of those that hold to reformed theology. They insist that nothing has changed because the Lord said that He doesn't change. However, you will, for the rest of your life, lead people astray in their faith if you insist on teaching the Bible with this kind of theology because it corrupts Christ's new covenant. Spiritualizing Scripture has evolved into a popular, yet dangerous "methodology" in Christian circles because it's difficult to defend against. That's one reason it's so popular. It gives you the ability to make God's Word say anything you want. Spiritualizing Scripture allows you to avoid the painful process of allowing God to change you, by simply violating rules of context and redefining the principles of His Word to match your theology. Believers who are committed "truth seekers" will never resort to this practice. I've learned not to engage in any Bible discussion with those who practice these methods of interpretation, which ultimately decays into a sharp and confusing disagreement over someone's cherished "theory". A "theory" can be anything a person wants it to be.
Does this mean that we disagree with Scripture and now teach "the Lord has somehow changed?" Absolutely not. As we said earlier, the two administrations or covenants of the Bible can be compared to a type of "spiritual government". The Bible calls our Heavenly Father, "the Judge of all the earth". The position of "judge" is found in the judicial branch of government. I've noticed in our worldly society that laws constantly change through the action of bureaucrats. In a court of law, a judge may make a decision based on the current "rule of law" in one case and then make a totally different decision in the same type of case next year because the law changed. A good example in the United States is the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion enacted in January of 1973. In 1972, a judge would rule that it was illegal to have an abortion because it was viewed as the murder of an unborn child. The offender would be sent to jail or face other penalties. However, beginning early in 1973 THE SAME JUDGE would rule that an abortion is now legal regardless of how he personally felt about the law. The offender is now free from any punishment BECAUSE THE LAW CHANGED. Let me ask an important question. Did the judge in these cases change, or did the law on which he based his decision change? The old covenant and the new covenant represent different sets of rules known as "covenant laws." Neither God the Father or Jesus Christ His Son has changed. Yet, following the shedding of Christ's blood, the covenant law on which they now base their interaction with the human race did change. Their interaction with the human race is now ruled by the new covenant established upon Christ's blood. It's RADICALLY DIFFERENT than the written laws of the old covenant. These changes represent tremendous blessing for the believer. Saint Paul called these changes "the unsearchable riches of Christ".
Question #2: Please explain Malachi 3:10, with regards to the practice of paying tithes to the local Church today.
"Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this, Says the LORD of hosts, If I will not open for you the window of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it." (Malachi 3:10).
I spent a great deal of time answering your first question because most of the information also applies to your second one. What we're dealing with on the tithing question (whether the local church members should practice the old covenant tithe--or not) is, once again, an issue of "theology". When you closely examine Malachi 3:10, you can see that the tithe Malachi is speaking about is not "monetary", but "agricultural". You don't store money in a "storehouse"....you store food. In Malachi, God tells us it is for the purpose of having "food in my house". When you go back into the Old Testament Scriptures, you find that the word tithe means "one-tenth" of your AGRICULTURAL increase (Duet. 14:22-23). This one tenth or "tithe" was also referred to as the "first-fruits" (notice that it's not called the "first-money") and was considered the very best portion of the entire crop. It was taken "off the top" and was presented at the temple before the family that produced the crop was allowed to sell or consume the other nine tenths. In old covenant times, the Levites (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) were the "ministers or priests" of the Jewish Temple (God's house under the old covenant)--God required them to devote their entire life to this service and declared that He (God) would be their only inheritance. Because the Levites had God as their inheritance, they were prohibited from owning their own land. For these reasons, God released them from the considerable burden of having to farm the land and grow their own food. However, they needed food like everyone else. God established the institution of the tithe so that the other Jewish tribes would provide the food for "God's House", which included its Levite priests. It is also important to note that the tithe in those days was also given to help feed the stranger, fatherless and the widow in the land of Israel. In the days of Malachi, Israel was neglecting the tithe and that is why he wrote the warnings of a curse and the promise of blessing connected to it. It's important to remember from Malachi's writings that the tithe is specifically associated with "God's house", which in the days of the old covenant was a PHYSICAL BUILDING.
As we move our focus into new covenant (New Testament) times, we notice that many Christian leaders take the extraordinary liberty of redefining and "spiritualizing" Scripture, which is a common practice under reformed theology. Spiritualizing Scripture is nothing more than injecting a "spiritual meaning" into a Bible verse (or doctrine) that already carries a clear "literal" meaning. When a "literal definition" gets in the way of a personal ministry or church initiative (such as a church growth program financed by tithing), the best way to deal with the threat is to redefine it (spiritualize it) by removing and using other Scriptures out of their "covenant context". This is a very effective tactic used by many leaders and individual Christian believers today. You can't discuss an issue when the "literal merits" are constantly changed by "spiritualizing" them into anything the opposing side wants. I have a new rule. I usually don't engage in a rational discussion with any Christian who insists on spiritualizing Scripture. I've found that it's an exercise in total frustration and always ends in bitter disagreement. This area of tithing is only one example of how Scripture is spiritualized. One major point I've been trying to make in this commentary is that God's Word consists of two vastly different "covenants" with two different gospel messages. Our responsibility as believers today is to discern how each of these covenants (and their messages) apply. Yet, a majority of churches "spiritualize" God's Word by merging these two covenants together and turning the "two different messages" into one. Every day I grieve over the eternal consequences that will result from this practice.
Those who support tithing tell us that the modern day version of "God's house" or "God's storehouse" is our "church buildings" and the "new Levites" are those that do the ministry in these churches (meaning the preachers). Since many of us today don't put food on our tables by farming, preachers insist that instead of tithing crops, God's "redefined" requirement is for us to tithe the "equivalent form of labor", which is money. Also, just like the old covenant Israelites, we are to tithe on any "increase" we receive, such as a weekly paycheck or a bonus or unexpected inheritance. God never "literally" said this in His Word; but it sounds reasonable, doesn't it? We are then told that Jesus commanded the Pharisees to tithe in the New Testament (Matt. 23:23), which proves it remains a requirement for Christians today. If all those things fail to impress us, we are reminded that Malachi issued a warning that we are "cursed" and are "stealing from God" if we fail to tithe. By accusing Christians of stealing from God (something that obviously makes Him angry at us), these preachers are now equating the payment of tithes as a type of "righteousness before God" (a blatant form of fear manipulation or bondage). Removing old covenant tithing from its context and making the payment of tithes a requirement for "new covenant righteousness" IS DANGEROUS ERROR. It's wrong because the Scriptures that reveal the principles of the "new covenant" plainly teach that our righteousness is given to us as "a free gift" (Read Rom. 5:15-19). Righteousness is free to us because Jesus paid for it using His own blood as "Divine currency". Jesus already paid the full price and this is why it is given to us "free and at no charge" under "Christ's new covenant in His blood" (Luke 22:20). This toxic teaching of associating tithing with righteousness is very common in fundamentalist churches of all denominations. There are numerous other problems with this popular redefined "interpretation" of tithing in the Scriptures.
New Covenant Fact #1: Under the new covenant, "God's house", or God's Temple is not a physical building like it was under the old covenant. When the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost 50 days after Jesus Christ initiated the new covenant by spilling His blood, He came to "indwell" (live inside) the physical body of the believer, just as Jesus said He would. This made the body of the Christian the new "Temple" (God's house). This means our church buildings can never be considered "God's house" no matter how popular the belief. When a Christian today calls a church building "God's house", it should alert us that they are trying to live for Christ under an Old Testament form of faith (a spiritually dangerous practice).
"And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, AND SHALL BE IN YOU." (Words of Jesus before the Holy Spirit arrived on Pentecost from John 14:16-17)
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, WHICH TEMPLE YE ARE." (Words of Paul after the Holy Spirit arrived on Pentecost from 1 Cor. 3:16-17)
"What? KNOW YE NOT THAT YOUR BODY IS THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY GHOST WHICH IS IN YOU, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (Words of Paul after the Holy Spirit arrived on Pentecost from 1 Cor. 6:19-20)
New Covenant Fact #2: Preachers and ministers in today's churches do not meet the strict qualifications to be old covenant Levitical priests and are, therefore, not qualified to receive tithes as described by Malachi. Actually, the Levitical priesthood "ceased to exist" when the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. According to old covenant law, the tithe was only valid when the Levitical priesthood and the temple existed to receive it. If the temple disappears, the priesthood disappears with it and the "tithe of the Mosaic Law" becomes invalid.
New Covenant Fact #3: In Matthew 23:23 of our New Testament Scriptures, Jesus told the Pharisees that it was proper to tithe mint and anise and cummin (Note: all of these are agricultural products). This Scripture is a favorite among those who preach tithing today. But, notice that Jesus said this BEFORE the new covenant (initiated by his blood at the crucifixion) came into authority. When Jesus made this statement, the old covenant remained in operation and had not yet ended--EVEN THOUGH IT IS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PART OF OUR BIBLE. A lot of false teaching in the church can be exposed if we would only pay attention to Biblical context--such as when the old covenant ended and the new one began. Tithing is not a commandment under the new covenant (mainly found in the epistles of Paul to the Church).
New Covenant Fact #4: It is impossible for a new covenant believer to steal from God. However, it was possible under the old covenant. Without revealing the details, Jesus gave His disciples a glimpse of the new covenant shortly before the cross. He told them that His sacrifice was going to cause the Father, the Son and "the believer" to become ONE (read John 17:20). If anyone wants to know some primary differences between old covenant and new covenant believers, here are just a few:
1) The new covenant believer enjoys oneness with God (John 17:20)--old covenant believers don't.
2) God reckons the new covenant believer crucified (put to death) with Christ (Gal. 2:20, Col. 3:3)--his/her sins (past, present and future) are eternally removed at the sacrifice of the "lamb of God"(John 1:29)--the old covenant believer does not have this kind of security.
3) The new covenant believer enjoys eternal life as the gift of God (Rom. 6:23)--the old covenant believer achieves eternal life by keeping the Law's commandments (Matt. 19:16-17).
The new covenant, established upon God's unmerited favor (Grace), joined Christ and the believer together in a way that was never possible under the old covenant religious system. This blessed state of existence is called living "in Christ". Paul called the principles that describe this union "the mystery of Christ". Few Christians know about this mystery (the revelation of the new covenant) today. Reformed theology cheats a vast majority of Christians out of this knowledge. Under the new covenant, the believer and Christ share all things in common. The Bible refers to this relationship as being "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). Being a "joint-heir" with Christ is like having a joint checking account with a friend. Everything Christ owns also belongs to you and vice-versa. You don't deserve this incredible blessing. Christ's blood bought it for you as part of His great salvation. It comes to you as a result of being "one" with Him. This is called "Amazing Grace". It also means that the new covenant makes it impossible to "steal from God", since you "jointly" own everything He does. This is almost never taught in church services, yet it remains as one of the many "unsearchable riches of Christ".
Abraham's Tithe
We can't end this discussion without covering Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek. I won't go into great detail about this mysterious visitor who the Bible calls "the king of Salem" and the "priest of God Most High". There's not much information about him. Some Bible scholars believe Melchizedek (also mentioned in the book of Hebrews) is Jesus before the incarnation (before He became human in Mary's womb). All we know is that Abraham was impressed with him--and "gave him "a tithe of all" (Read Gen. 14:17-10). It's important to remember something. At this point in Scripture, there was no "old covenant" (or Mosaic Law). It didn't officially start until the scene in Exodus with Moses (the giver of the Law and commandments) and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai hundreds of years later. Therefore, the old covenant "law of tithing" that Malachi spoke of didn't exist when Abraham met Melchizadek. As we said earlier, the word "tithe" means one-tenth or ten percent. In this case, Genesis is not referring to the Mosaic Law form of tithing, which didn't exist--but is simply saying that Abraham gave Melchizadek "one-tenth" of all he had.
Notice two important things in this section of Scripture. First, there was no commandment that coerced Abraham to give this tithe--he did it as a "voluntary act of worship" directed at Melchizedek, who represented God. Secondly, Abraham only gave this tithe ONCE. He didn't continually give a tenth of his "increase" as demanded by old covenant law.
If any believer today wants to voluntarily give a ten percent offering of everything they have (like Abraham) as a one time "tithe of worship" to Jesus--I don't see a problem. However, I do have a problem if they view this "act of worship" as a requirement that God is placing on them....or, if they attempt to redefine their "act of worship" into a binding law that is placed on all believers. If someone makes you feel obligated to pay this tithe, it's not voluntary and it's probably not true worship. God, who sees the heart, will be the final judge.
New Covenant Giving
Where does this leave us? Do we ignore all the needs of our church organization along with the poor and needy because it's wrong to impose the old covenant tithe on new covenant believers? Absolutely not.
God's solution under the new covenant is "freewill giving". Under the new covenant, Paul teaches that we are "freely justified" by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24). Eternal life is given to us as "the gift of God". Romans chapter 5 tells us that in Christ we have received the "free gift of righteousness". Earlier we read where Paul opposed "false believers" from coming in and putting new covenant believers living in Christ's liberty--under bondage (Gal. 2:4). Do you see a pattern here? Freedom and liberty in Christ is the pattern. Under the new covenant, there is no law that commands a believer to tithe or condemns him for "stealing from God". However, the believer is encouraged to give. How much do we give? God doesn't specify. He leaves the decision strictly up to you..."as you purpose in your heart". God only reminds us in 2 Cor. 9:6-7...
"But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver."
God's Word to the new covenant believer is that they should voluntarily (without guilt or coercion) give "as they purpose in their heart". This could be 1%, 3%, 5%, 10%, 90%, 100%--or anything in between. Yet, if you decide your giving should be 10% (the definition of "a tithe"), understand that this is a personal decision of the heart and is not binding on anyone else but you. More importantly, God does not "love you more" or assign a "higher righteousness" to you because of your decision. I've listened to various "successful Christian living" message series from popular ministries where the tithe of Malachi (ten percent) is said to be God's minimum standard of giving for believers today. This common and popular belief is a total distortion of new covenant principles--and it's not what God said. We are warned that "giving or sowing sparingly" will cause us to "reap sparingly". But, God does not condemn anyone for sowing sparingly, nor does he accuse the person who gives sparingly of "stealing from Him". There is no condemnation to believers under the new covenant "Law of the Spirit of life in Christ" (Rom. 8:1)--and this includes our giving. Our Heavenly Father never accuses a new covenant believer of the crime of "stealing" from Him. God wants a totally free and cheerful giver.
We Must Respect Bible Context
To Walk in God's Grace
On December 20, 2009, I will be celebrating my 40th spiritual birthday in Christ. During those years I've always tried to interpret the Bible literally, and sometimes this means allowing the Bible to interpret itself through multiple "witnesses" (various Scirptures that say the same thing) throughout its writings. The worst way to approach truth is to build your beliefs on one Scripture verse. I've resisted the temptation to establish my own "private theology" where I "spiritualize Scripture" to make it fit my personal wants and desires. I've also resisted those who sought to impose a "theology" on me that the new covenant doesn't support. Many times leaders attempt to use "ecclesiastical authority" that they claim is from God to persuade you to abandon your beliefs and unconditionally accept theirs. I've lost Christian friends because I refused to compromise my beliefs. Looking over my spiritual life, I see myself walking across a minefield in a war zone where I was wounded but successfully made it to the other side with everything still attached. God has been gracious.
In my various encounters with the institutional church, I've painfully learned some valuable, yet unpopular, truths. I discovered that God's Word has two elements that must always be respected. These elements are: The actual Scripture being quoted or read and the "covenant context" where God placed it. Many spiritual leaders take full advantage of our ignorance of this simple truth. Anyone who claims to be preaching God's Word, yet strips Scripture out of its context to support a particular doctrine, IS NOT PREACHING GOD'S WORD--even though they are generously quoting verses from the Bible that seem to support their teaching. This is the sad legacy of Church history. It is spiritually replete with "human carnage" (and, yes many unnecessarily died) as a direct result of violating the simple principle of "covenant context". When Jesus returns at the end of this age and we look into His eyes, many of us will be surprised that the freely given "gift of eternal life" purchased for us by Christ's blood was squandered by those who are now in hell because they believed an "out of context" gospel message from their church.
It is for this reason that what we generally call "reformed theology" (in all its many different denominational expressions) represents a very dangerous distortion of the Holy Scriptures as it attempts to take the two major covenants of the Bible (and their unique messages) and merge them into one. I made my final exit from this group several years ago when I took the time to carefully read about the first "Jerusalem council" decision in Acts chapter 15. It is here that the original apostles of Christ, the apostle Paul and all the elders, were gathered together in one place--every leader that Jesus Christ had personally called. They gathered for one purpose: To decide whether Paul's gospel to the gentiles (the word "gentiles" includes those of us today) should include the old covenant Mosaic Law in its message. We heard their firm and resolute decision that, except for four things that carried over, the demands of the Mosaic Law with all its various commandments, principles and ordinances were not to be binding upon gentile believers. (Important note: The Law's tithing requirement was NOT on the list of exceptions). All these Godly men affirmed that Paul's gospel was to be a message OF GRACE (the unmerited favor of God). When you stop and consider that the Law of Moses dominates most of our Old Testament Scriptures, this is an astonishing decision with huge spiritual repercussions. It unmasks the preaching of the popular "God's Word is one message" theology--It makes it not only nonsensical but also dangerously misleading. The fact that more than 9 out of 10 Christian congregations today follow this theology in one form or another greatly concerns me.
I commented earlier that James' teaching about being "justified by works" was not written to the mostly gentile church (those of us today) under the apostle Paul but to the circumcised Jews (the twelve tribes of Israel) still practicing the Law. Justification by works is a "Mosaic Law principle". James was not entrusted with nor did he preach Paul's gospel. That is why his epistle carries a different message than Paul's. I already know the angry responses I will get over these comments. However, I'm only repeating what James said in his own epistle. His words are there for everyone to see. It is unfortunate that we are taught from the first day we believe on Christ to read God's Word (and especially the New Testament) as if it were only "one message to one people". It is not one message--it's two messages--and this is why Paul commanded Timothy to "rightly" (or correctly) DIVIDE God's Word. When the first Jerusalem council decided that Paul's gospel was not to include the Mosaic Law, God's Word was forever divided into two separate messages directed at two unique groups of people. This "Divine division" forces the reader to discern which message applies to them. I only wish I had discovered this truth 40 years ago as a new believer.
My comments on this subject should not be understood as a "private interpretation". Other people down through church history held similar concerns about the epistle of James. For example, Martin Luther, an important figure in the Protestant Reformation, rediscovered what many of us in evangelical circles take for granted. Luther discovered (from the Scriptures) the apostle Paul's gospel of "free justification by faith in Christ--without works". Luther did extensive research on what Bible scholars refer to today as "The Pauline Revelation". As a result of his discovery (which radically changed his Christian-world view) he began to expose the popular doctrine of "justification by works" of the Roman church at that time. Luther (a Roman Catholic priest) made a lot of powerful religious leaders very angry. Luther spread his teachings everywhere. Riots broke out in some places as people began to realize they were being taught wrong things by the church. His "protest" culminated with his famous act of "nailing his 95 theses" on the cathedral door in Wittenburg, Germany. I always chuckle when I try to imagine that scene. Luther was an outrageously daring man who constantly "rocked the spiritual boat". Yet, in those days, these practices could get you burned at the stake. I found Luther's comments about James very interesting. As a result of his intense study of Paul's gospel, he referred to the epistle of James as "An epistle of straw". This meant that he thought it was totally "out of harmony" with the new covenant. While I do not seek to discredit James in any way, I do agree with Luther's view concerning the "disharmony" of this epistle. Yet, unlike Luther, I don't believe James' epistle is wrong when you properly assign it to the group he addressed it to in the salutation. Even though it appears in the New Testament part of our Bible, the epistle of James is not addressed to the mostly gentile Church under Paul's grace gospel message.
In order to dampen the controversy, reformed theology teaches that when James preached a "justification by works" he was only saying that true "saving faith" would always be accompanied with good works to confirm it. I believed this explanation for many years until I, like Luther, started digging into Paul's "gospel to the uncircumcision". In a general sense, it's true that the fruit of a Christian believer is a life full of good works. Our good works honor Christ who redeemed us. But, that's not what James is saying here. James is saying that "works provide justification because it validates faith" while Paul is saying that under the new covenant Gospel of Christ justification is freely given without works (remember how God corrected Peter in his vision over this same issue). James and Paul are talking about two different kinds of faith that are connected to two different gospels. In the gospel James preaches, justification is related to works--and any person who claims to have "saving faith in Christ" with no works to back it up--then their faith is dead (and so is their claim of being saved). Paul goes into his gospel at length in Romans chapter 4. He calls Abraham the "father of our faith" (the correct context would be "the father of new covenant faith"). Why is this important? Because God imputed righteousness to Abraham based solely on his "believing"--without works of any kind. Later in Romans chapter 10, Paul makes these assertions even clearer by calling the gospel he preached "the word of faith" (Don't confuse this with the "Word of Faith" movement). Why did Paul use this term? In verses 9 & 10, Paul tells us that "our confession that Jesus is Lord" (backed by faith in the heart that He was raised from the dead) is THE ONLY THING REQUIRED FOR NEW COVENANT SALVATION.
"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. 10:9-10)
Note that we are told to confess Jesus as Lord, while believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead. There is no mention of any works, other than our confession, required for salvation. Paul then makes it even more simple....
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)
When the new covenant part of God's Word teaches eternal life is given as "the gift of God", it means what it says. However, the word "gift" becomes nonsensical when we add works into a gospel message to instruct us on how to obtain eternal life--when works are clearly not a requirement. Paul called this practice of adding works to his gospel "perverting the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6-9), and it was a practice of the "believing Pharisees" of his time. This is why Paul's message is called "the gospel of grace"--where grace is defined as "God's unmerited favor". The word "unmerited" in this instance means that God is giving you something without the works and behavior required to earn it. If someone wants to give you a gift but then requires work or some kind of "performance" in exchange, it immediately loses its definition as "a gift"--which also means it can never be considered "grace". Paul re-enforces this new covenant principle by saying:
"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." (Romans 11:6)
Since these new covenant principles are hard to refute, reformed theology (to maintain the validity of their "one message" doctrine) must subtly redefine Paul's gospel by misapplying the epistle of James and by stripping other Scripture from their context. Through these efforts, they can subtly intimidate those of us who love and respect God's Word to add "works" back into Paul's "word of faith" salvation message. Reformed theology uses Scripture from the Bible to defend its belief and, if the Bible is "all one message" as they claim, the context regarding which covenant a particular Scripture is associated with doesn't really matter to them. Scripture is freely quoted to defend their "one message" doctrine with little or no effort to preserve its God-given context. Most believers never stop to think that when anyone removes a Scripture from the context where God placed it--that Scripture becomes corrupted by man's tradition and ceases to be God's Word. Hear what Jesus our Lord said about this practice:
"Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" (Matt. 15:7-9)
These clever religious maneuvers go unnoticed by most Christians. Paul's command to "rightly divide" the Word is another way of saying, "observe covenant context" when preaching from the Bible. Yet, nearly every Christian I know misuses God's Word in this manner by failing to "rightly divide" the Scriptures as Paul instructed. This is why the war over the truth of the gospel still rages today. Some Christians who have an intense love for truth get weary of the distortions and finally say--THAT'S ENOUGH! When this "tipping point" occurs, sharp disagreements breakout, churches split, and believers head for the exits. However, it needs to be understood that "the truth of the gospel" is designed by God to be divisive. Both Jesus and Paul caused riots and unrest when they traveled and taught. At one point, a religiously minded crowd tried to kill Jesus by pushing Him off a cliff! Another crowd stoned Paul and nearly killed him. Martin Luther had some public unrest break out around his evangelistic efforts. Sometimes our Heavenly Father approves of the division that truth brings because it separates those who sincerely seek truth from those who distort it for personal gain. Sometimes those who distort Scripture get very angry when they are exposed.
Our Position on Martin Luther
(1483-1546), German Theologian
We do not quote from Martin Luther because we "idolize" his ministry. We do not necessarily agree with all his beliefs, especially his dislike for the Jewish people found in some of his teachings and quotations. We have to remember that things were vastly different in Luther’s time. Information and facts were hard to find. We didn’t have the Bible in print as we do today. If you owned a copy of the Scriptures, they were hand-written in an ancient language and very expensive. There was no Internet. As with any religious leader, both negative and positive things can be found in their lives. Regardless of what the critics say, the important question to ask is: Did God use Martin Luther and why did He use him?
We quote from Luther because God used him in a powerful way to correct a distorted gospel message taught by the church of his time. His ministry spearheaded what's known as the Protestant Reformation period of church history. This was a powerful “protest movement” that began in Germany against the corrupt teachings of the organized church. The “protest” gained popularity when common people began to understand the new covenant teaching from the Scriptures about Grace (God’s free justification without works) available to all people through faith in Christ alone. In various forms, Luther’s ministry and message continues today in the Evangelical movement. In the 1500’s, the Catholic Church was teaching a justification (or salvation) by works. Like Christians today, they ignored context and misapplied the epistle of James as the Scriptural authority for their works-based gospel.
Within a few years, Luther became an enemy of the religion he once supported. You might think of him as a general that fought in “the stealth war against the truth of the gospel” in the 1500’s. His battle plan completely changed the spiritual direction of the church. Many of his critics wanted him executed as a heretic because his teaching interfered with their political power and ministry ambitions. Luther was also accused of betraying the Catholic Church—commonly viewed as the only source of salvation in that day. At one point, he was sentenced to death for crimes against the church and state. With the help of some believers, he managed to escape and lived in exile. His ministry and message was so influential that modern day critics continue to attack his beliefs for the same misguided reasons. In the 1500’s, the church leaders who opposed Luther were in error because they ignored the Divine context of keeping the old covenant and the new covenant separate. They insisted on mixing them together to create a disastrously misleading doctrine that appeared to carry the authority of God’s Word—but didn’t. Many ministries do this exact same thing today....and that is what this commentary is all about. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest and intimately understood the Scriptures. The Catholic Church held unimaginable political power in the 1500’s and was teaching a corrupted gospel message that Luther aggressively opposed in private and in public. Part of this corrupted message involved the practice of paying indulgences to the Church, which was thought to either shorten someone’s time in purgatory or ransom a loved one from hell. As a priest, Luther was both frustrated and angered by these false teachings because it effectively allowed the church to practice a form of “spiritual fraud” by preying on someone’s grief in order to enrich itself. This false practice eventually led to the nailing of Luther’s 95 Theses to the cathedral door of Castle Church in Wittenburg, Germany, on October 31, 1517. This radical act was essentially a declaration of war against the corrupt teachings of the church and was not well received. Remember that it was a "truth seeking" Roman Catholic priest that started this “protest” or Protestant movement. There were no Protestant denominations at that time.
Today, the church has once again assaulted the gospel message of God’s Grace through Christ. As stated earlier, this effort to corrupt the gospel is not insignificant. It’s mainstream and it’s pandemic in size and scope. This time it’s not just the Catholic Church at fault but the Protestants as well. Many of these denominations and church groups can trace their historical roots to Luther’s protest movement. Yet, they chose to redefine his teachings into something more agreeable to their religious agenda. Since all these “changes” that subtly mix good works back into the “freely justified” message of the Grace gospel appear to be based on God’s Word, nobody challenges the teaching. Again, God’s Word is not the issue—distorting the “covenant context” of God’s Word is the problem that everyone ignores. That’s why so many modern-day believers remain indifferent. Some evangelists have expressed concern over a teaching that is now moving through Protestant congregations. It is called “Protestant Purgatory”. It’s the Protestant version of the Catholic teaching and represents the most reckless disregard for Biblical context that I’ve seen so far. If it’s not stopped, it’s going to destroy the spiritual lives of many of God’s people. I’ve seen this teaching myself and I can tell you that it is well documented with Scripture. Again, the Scriptures are not the issue but how the context of Scripture is manipulated and misapplied to validate the teaching. Over the last 500 years, corruption caused by money, political influence, and ministry ambition has once again changed God’s original intention found in the Gospel of Christ. Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and a whole list of other groups have perverted the message of the cross of Christ for various different reasons, none of which are good. This is why our comments will not provide a solution to this ongoing spiritual war. We’re going over a cliff and only the return of Christ can stop it. Once again, history repeats and the church world has corrupted itself. We are in need of another evangelist with like passions as Martin Luther (maybe without his weaknesses) who will risk everything including their life to defend the message of Christ’s new blood covenant.
Faith and Works
Some may think that we're teaching against good works. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every believer in Christ should have a life full of good works. Why? We represent Christ, our redeemer. Jesus went everywhere doing good works. Our life should be like His. When we get to heaven (part of God's gift of eternal life), we will receive (or fail to receive) rewards based on how we lived on earth (our works). Some Christians will enter heaven with no rewards. Why? They didn't commit their lives to good works as the Bible commands. The apostle Paul calls these people "carnal Christians". Their lack of works can never take away heaven as God's gift, but it can take away their "riches in heaven".
James correctly tells us an important characteristic about the nature of faith:
"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18)
If we claim to have faith in Christ then good works should be the result. This characteristic of faith holds true in both the old and the new covenants. However, there is something James is saying that is completely "out of alignment" with the new covenant. It's the same thing that raised a "red flag" with Martin Luther and many other Bible scholars who understand the Pauline Revelation. James concludes that these works that result from faith justify us. If we take the popular position that James is speaking to us under the new covenant--then we face a serious problem. How many good works does it take for us to reach the level of being "justified". Is it one good work, three, ten, fifty....or 2000? Who will decide when we've "arrived" at being justified: our pastor, the board of deacons, the eldership, or the Bishop of our denomination? How can we have the assurance that we've achieved this performance level that allows us to be justified? The answer to all these questions: You can't really know. If you diligently study the old covenant, you discover that it was a religious system that could never give you a 100% assurance of eternal life or justification because it was based on your performance in keeping the commandments, producing "fruit", and obeying certain laws. That is one reason it's referred to in the book of Hebrews as a "covenant with faults" or imperfections (Hebrews 8:7). Under this system, you could never know when you had met enough of the requirements to satisfy God. It is this characteristic of "not being able to know" that alerts us that the epistle of James is "out of alignment" with the new covenant. Also, remember that the specific truths of the new covenant were not understood by anyone until Jesus called the apostle Paul on the scene. Keep in mind that other "writings" that were not under the authority of the new covenant exist in the New Testament canon. How can we say this? Because these writings cover a period of time before the new covenant began at Christ's crucifixion. Dwight Pentecost, a distinguished theologian on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, addresses this problem in his book, "Thy Kingdom Come". Pentecost writes:
"Chronologically speaking, there is a 400-year gap between Malachi and Matthew. Logically and thematically, however, there is no gap at all (meaning that the Law still continued from Malachi to Matthew despite this gap of time). The New Testament immediately takes up where the Old Testament prophets left off. In fact, "technically" the New Testament does not begin with Matthew, but with the book of Acts."
When we agree with Martin Luther that the epistle of James is "out of alignment" with the new covenant, we are not suggesting that his writings don't belong in the Bible. It means (like other New Testament authors) that James continues to teach the old covenant religious system that existed during the "transition" rather than the new covenant. The fact that James was one of the strongest advocates of old covenant law among the apostles in Jerusalem (Read Acts chapter 21) should warn us about this confusing dispute over context. We do not know the exact date that James wrote his epistle. Remember that Jesus gave the apostle Paul the full revelation of the changes to occur under the new covenant. After receiving this revelation from Jesus, Paul then taught the Jewish apostles (this included James) about these changes. Until Paul arrived on the scene, old covenant law was included in the gospel message taught by all the Jewish apostles. James was clearly following this old format when he wrote his epistle. Remember that the New Testament covers the TRANSITION between the old covenant religious system of "justification through works" and the new covenant system of "free justification by Grace through Christ".
Under the new covenant, Jesus himself eternally settles the "lack of assurance" problem. The spilling of Christ’s blood at the crucifixion DISCONNECTS the benefits of eternal life, justification, and righteousness from its old covenant dependence on our religious works, performance, and devotion. CHRIST THEN RECONNECTS these blessings to His perfect life of holiness and righteousness. We are secure and can know 100% that these benefits belong to us because they are based on Christ's perfection. Under the new covenant (Hebrews 7:22 calls it the "better covenant”), our merit (based on our obedience to the written law and religious performance) is completely removed from the requirements and replaced with the "merit of Christ" (His perfect obedience). This allows God to freely give us these benefits as gifts, since they are now "paid in full" by the all-sufficient blood of Christ. Somebody had to do the works to earn these provisions and pay the price for sin. Under the old covenant, the responsibility rested on our works of obedience, while our sins were only “covered” (the Bible calls it atonement) by the imperfect blood of sacrificial animals. This is why, when you see anyone connect works of any kind to the obtaining or the keeping of justification, eternal life or righteousness, you are hearing principles of the old covenant. Under the new covenant, Christ’s blood completely finished the work of eternally destroying our sin and His "one act" freely gave us these eternal rewards. This is why it's called "Amazing Grace".
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when HE HAD BY HIMSELF PURGED OUR SINS, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." (Hebrews 1:1-3)
"But this Man, AFTER HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. FOR BY ONE OFFERING HE HAS PERFECTED FOREVER THOSE WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED." (Hebrews 10:12-14)
"....being JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith...." (Romans 3:24-25)
It's important for all students of the Bible to understand that God follows some important personal rules, whether we agree with them or not. First, the Bible tells us "the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 Amplified Bible). The King James Version of the Bible uses the phrase "without repentance", which is the "Old English" way of saying "irrevocable". This means that God doesn't take back the gifts and callings that He gives to us. Second, eternal life under the new covenant is given as "the gift of God" (Rom. 6:23 & Eph. 2:8). If you'll meditate on these three Scriptures, it will expose one of the most popular false teachings in the modern Christian church--a doctrine that the apostle Paul condemned using offensive and insulting words. Many types of reformed theology take our good works (and our efforts to achieve a "sinless life") and teaches them as "additional requirements" to obtain and keep eternal life. It's also accompanied by an attempt to discredit Paul's gospel of Grace by calling it "a license to sin", which is a total distortion of his Grace Gospel message. When God changed the requirements that existed under the old covenant for eternal life, justification and righteousness and made these things "gifts" under the new covenant, His action had to be challenged (either redefined or somehow discredited) by organized religion. Entire religious organizations and institutions that are hundreds of years old are at risk if the challenge isn't made. The complaint that Paul's grace gospel is a "license to sin" is actually a direct accusation against our Heavenly Father. It suggests that He didn't know what He was doing. The real reason they're upset is that the "literal" interpretation of Paul's gospel destroys the validity of their misleading doctrine. The correct interpretation of Paul's Grace gospel harms the reputation and authority structure of popular ministries (or a pastor's career) built upon these traditions of reformed theology. This is another reason the doctrinal war against the truth of the gospel will never end until Jesus returns--there's too many "special interests" with too much at stake. Once again, the blessings are only free to us under the new covenant because Jesus paid for them with His blood, which allowed God to extend them to us as gifts. They were not free under the old covenant that operated before Christ's crucifixion. Payment under that system was made through religious performance (works, temple rituals, keeping the commandments and "bearing fruit"). Mixing these two covenants together creates a disastrous false theology that nobody seems to question today because of the implications. For more insight go to my article entitled, "The Assault On The Eternal Nature of Christ's Redemption" at: http://www.rockofoffence.com/eternal.html
It's difficult to refute the Scriptural evidence that supports the Grace Gospel. However, reformed theology strongly fights many of these principles (to preserve their cherished traditions and authority structures) by subtly redefining Paul's gospel of liberty and freedom in Christ. They continually cause you to doubt your belief about God's Grace by suggesting it is false teaching (sometimes called "easy believism” or “greasy grace”) or an incorrect interpretation of the Bible or a failure to understand that God's Word is all "one message". I heard one “Holiness” pastor attempt to discredit Paul's gospel by calling it "the grace cult". I recently heard another fundamentalist preacher refer to Paul's teachings as "dangerous Christianity". One of his ideas of the "danger" was teaching people that God always forgives. I'm not joking. This kind of skewed teaching is everywhere in the church. When you stop and analyze their words, what they’re really saying is--Jesus may have initially paid for these benefits (like God's forgiveness and eternal life) with His blood, but His blood is insufficient, and God demands that YOU PAY TO KEEP THESE BLESSINGS BY PERFORMING GOOD WORKS--and if you don't do things our way (a way that Paul said was "bondage"), you aren't truly saved.
Can you see why Paul made the statement that he wouldn't tolerate those that taught this doctrine, "...NO, NOT FOR AN HOUR; THAT THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL MIGHT CONTINUE WITH YOU"? (Gal. 2:4-5) A believer's salvation or eternal life is 100% secure under Christ’s new covenant. Why? The blood of Jesus Christ is totally sufficient to provide redemption without our help. Yet, fear of losing salvation because of the false theology that Christ failed to provide an "eternal solution for sin" drives this entire spiritual war. It's a direct frontal attack on the sufficiency of Christ's blood to finish the work necessary to secure our salvation--and IT'S POPULAR AND MAINSTREAM. It leads believers into the horrible trap (a false religion) of starting out with eternal life, sinning and losing eternal life--grieving over your sin and repenting for hours, days or weeks to get eternal life back--only to start the whole thing over again--for the rest of your life. Imagine the torment of this kind of existence that contains NO SECURITY, with the threat of hell hanging over your head. This is one of the toxic beliefs (associated with the Mosaic Law) that angered the apostle Paul. You can never have the assurance that you're living in a way that brings God's acceptance--because you can never be sure that you've repented enough, performed enough good works or possibly missed some minor sin in your life that causes God to reject you. This is the common "squirrel-cage religion" that you find in most reformed theology churches all over the world--and there are many different "variants" of this practice. It's some of the worst religious bondage imaginable. Scripture is misapplied, like the epistle of James, to defend their doctrine of a "works-based justification", when God offers it freely in Christ.
Return To Stealth War--Part 1
Return To Stealth War--Part 2
Return To Stealth War--Part 3
Return To Stealth War--Part 4
Return To Stealth War--Index
|
