In the text above, the apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit issues a solemn prediction regarding the moral climate which will characterize the “last days.” In Scripture, the term “last days” often refers to the period of time commencing with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and concluding with the return of Jesus Christ, but also, as in this text, specifically refers to that time immediately prior to his coming. As to an exact time frame regarding this portion of the “last days,” we cannot infer one from Scripture, but only that there will be a period of time prior to Christ’s return which will be unique, being distinguished by certain conditions peculiar to itself.
Now the condition that Paul addresses here is that of a heightened corruption of human nature—not merely within society, but within the realm of religion as well—within those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. For after he declares the coming of “perilous times”—made so by the unbridled selfishness and depravity which he clearly describes—he further states that this corruption will be accomplished in those having a form of godliness, or as some margins have it, “a form of our religion.” Paul thus foresees a time in which “believers” will hold to a form of the Christian faith while continuing and increasing in moral depravity.
The apostle states as well that those who will hold to this form of godliness will deny the power of true godliness. In other words, they will retain a belief in, and adherence to, certain aspects of the Christian faith—thus having a form of godliness—but will reject the moral transformation which true faith in Christ both begets and demands.
From this passage we may therefore infer the following: The days prior to Christ’s coming will be signified by an apostate form of the Christian faith—a form which is a departure from historical Christianity, and is void of the moral excellence inherent to true faith in Christ.
Inasmuch therefore as these things are so foretold, and in that it is the general consensus among today’s evangelical churches that we are in the “last days,” is it too much of a reach to suggest, when considering the moral climate prevalent in the church today, that our current brand of modern evangelicalism may indeed be that “form of godliness” of which Paul speaks?
Now I do not say definitively that this is the case, but I would say that such a suggestion should not be quickly dismissed as fanatical or extreme—for the direction of modern evangelicalism is indeed increasingly contrary to historical, biblical Christianity. For with each passing year, the evangelical church’s presentation of both the Person of Christ and the Christian faith itself, resembles less and less the image of Christ found in the Gospels and the faith set forth in the New Testament. Indeed, there has been for many years a deliberate and systematic effort within the church to portray Christ in a way foreign to that inspired portrayal found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and to redefine the Christian faith to make it more appealing to the masses. If this is not the “form of godliness which denies the power thereof” spoken of by Paul, it certainly is a form of the same.
But consider some of the attributes of those who have this “form of godliness” as described by Paul, and see how it compares with the expression of the Christian faith which now is. Paul declares that they who hold this form will be:
Sinners have always been “lovers of their own selves,” but Paul suggests that this will be rampant and heightened in the “last days.” According to Paul, those who are “lovers of their own selves” do show by the same to be without true religion. One may embrace a form of godliness and remain a lover of his own self, but one cannot embrace the truth—cannot embrace Christ— and remain so.
I would suggest here that our present generation does excel all previous ones in the realm of “self-love.” By “present generation,” I do not mean only “younger generation,” but rather refer to all currently alive. Indeed, we live in a time where individuals are self-absorbed, self-important, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-promoting, self-serving and preserving—and any other adjective which describes one who does not ultimately live for a purpose greater than his own happiness and gratification.
This “love of self” is not merely prevalent in society, but within the church as well—within those who profess to be the children of God. Sadly, much of the preaching and teaching in evangelical circles does nothing to remedy this, but rather encourages and caters to it. For consider how the Word of God is regularly approached and handled, being treated as a self-help manual and thus used to foster sermons such as “Realizing Your Dreams,” “Establishing Your Vision,” “Believing in Your Vision,” “Finding Your Destiny,” “Reaching Your Destiny,” etc. Then of course there are the countless “three steps,” “five steps,” and even “seven steps” sermons designed for the purpose of self-improvement, cleverly presented in alliterations and acronyms—yet powerless with regard to effecting moral reform.
Does this sound familiar?
Here are four attributes Paul ascribes, though not in this order, to those who have a form of godliness yet deny the power thereof. I have grouped these together because of their obvious connection one to another—pride. “Boasters” are they who in speech magnify and exalt themselves and their own exploits. “Proud” describes the one who over estimates his own importance. “Heady” is the infatuation with one’s own intellectual prowess—whether real or imagined. The “high-minded” are arrogant.
What should stand out here is this: In the mind of Paul, true faith in Christ will deal a death blow to pride in its various forms. Paul cannot and will not harmonize godliness with pride. He therefore relegates the boasters, the proud, the heady, and the high-minded to a faith which exists only in form, not in truth.
Wonderful apostolic, historic, New Testament Christianity! Powerful to effect moral transformation, mighty to deliver the same, and authoritative to denounce those who would resist!
Does this resemble the faith of today?
Here again the mind of Paul is manifest: Those who are unholy do not possess true religion. Theirs is an empty form. In denying the power of godliness, in making light of godliness, they are left to an unholy way, and thereby do show themselves to be impostors and frauds.
But consider the disconnect between holiness and salvation in the Christianity promoted today. In the modern gospel, is holiness a condition of entering the eternal kingdom of God? It is not. Is it a condition in Scripture? Indeed it is, for it is written:
Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, and:
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Etcetera, etcetera.
I have stated in previous articles that “holiness” has become a bad word among evangelicals. So strong is the opposition to it that the mere mention of the word brings down choruses of “Legalism, Legalism!” The ranks of the unstable and ignorant ignite their torches, take up their pitchforks, and ready themselves to run through any who would suggest that holiness was, is, and evermore shall be intrinsic to true faith.
Ironically, many believers today are more averse to holiness than they are to sin. Concerning holiness, they will have none of it, yet sin they will abide. With regard to holiness, they have no experience; with regard to sin, “both hands do it well.”
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.
I have paired incontinency and blasphemy together, for they are twins begotten by the denial of godliness. Those who make light of holiness and true godliness inevitably are incontinent—they cannot and do not control themselves. It would be unlikely, if not impossible, for one who minimizes the essentiality of godliness to true faith to at the same time be a champion of self-control!
With this in mind, Christian, beware of those who magnify their rendition of the grace of God while downplaying or dismissing holiness, who use the love of God to allow for continuance in sin. For this we may certainly know concerning those who are so inclined: They are strangers to holiness themselves—else they would extol its virtues; they are without moral restraint—else they would proclaim its necessity.
Accordingly, these “deniers of godliness” make an easy transition into blasphemy, for they eagerly seek perversions of truth which accommodate their incontinency, and thus are ready to embrace heresy. But heresies grow together like grapes, each one connected to another, so that he who is willing to embrace the “salvation without holiness” heresy, must also embrace “another Jesus” as well—for the true Jesus Christ offers no such thing.
And he who embraces “another Jesus” does undermine and insult Christ, and he who proclaims this “other Jesus” does blaspheme the Son of God. Thus, the ungodly add to their incontinency, heresy; and to their heresy, blasphemy; and to their blasphemy, the despising of those and that which is good.
Remember that the moral corruptions which Paul names in our text, which shall characterize the “last days,” thus making them “perilous times,” will be manifest in those who profess godliness. Therefore, according to Paul, those who will “despise those (or that) which is good,” will also themselves continue to carry out a religious devotion. As I have stated in other writings, the word “despise,” in New Testament usage, mainly means “to esteem less, to consider of little value or consequence.” Thus, the “last days” shall bring forth a faith which places little or no value on that which is truly good, and will consider the same to be inconsequential to spirituality. As well “those that are good,” who manifest and do stand for godliness, will be despised and disdained.
This is alarming, for even now the evangelical church is guilty of this very thing. For consider how little value is placed upon repentance, holiness, self-denial, love for and submission to God, etc.—all things which the Bible sets forth as good—and how much value is placed upon individual comfort and happiness irrespective of moral character.
And concerning those who would preach repentance, holiness, the denying of self and the taking up of the cross, love for and sympathy with God, etc.—where are they? They are gone. They are not found. If any would yet preach these things, he does so only sporadically, by way of suggestion, moving off the issues quickly lest conflict arise and the church’s business be disturbed.
Now we come full circle. Paul begins his list of moral corruptions pertaining to the supposed pious of the “last days” with lovers of their own selves, and closes it with lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. From this we see the great flaw of those whose religion is merely in form and not in truth— misplaced affections. In them, the heart is wrong—for they give it to the wrong things—and in so doing, they love what they should not, and have little love left for those things which they should love most.
I will assume here that it is manifest to the reader that the North American church has no shortage of “lovers of pleasure,” so that I will not need to expound much further. Indeed, how much effort has been expended to make church “fun,” and to convince those outside the church that we have more fun than they do!
Yet in Paul’s faith, the truly religious are known by this: They are lovers of God; they love God above all else—above pleasure and above their own selves. If any lack in love for God, if any abound in love of pleasure, if any loves his own self above Christ, his Christianity is a powerless form.
Now the end of the matter is this: What expression of the Christian faith do you espouse? Is it self-centered or Christ centered? Does it have for its motivation love for Jesus Christ and the glory of God, or is its motivation self-gratification through religious means? Do you embrace the present day “Jesus” who takes no issue with sin, or the real Jesus who died on a cross to deliver men from the power of sin?
With Paul things are clear: True faith in Christ brings about moral change—a transformation from self-love to self denial, from love of pleasure to love for God, from pride to meekness, from ungodliness to holiness.
Now the condition that Paul addresses here is that of a heightened corruption of human nature—not merely within society, but within the realm of religion as well—within those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. For after he declares the coming of “perilous times”—made so by the unbridled selfishness and depravity which he clearly describes—he further states that this corruption will be accomplished in those having a form of godliness, or as some margins have it, “a form of our religion.” Paul thus foresees a time in which “believers” will hold to a form of the Christian faith while continuing and increasing in moral depravity.
The apostle states as well that those who will hold to this form of godliness will deny the power of true godliness. In other words, they will retain a belief in, and adherence to, certain aspects of the Christian faith—thus having a form of godliness—but will reject the moral transformation which true faith in Christ both begets and demands.
From this passage we may therefore infer the following: The days prior to Christ’s coming will be signified by an apostate form of the Christian faith—a form which is a departure from historical Christianity, and is void of the moral excellence inherent to true faith in Christ.
Inasmuch therefore as these things are so foretold, and in that it is the general consensus among today’s evangelical churches that we are in the “last days,” is it too much of a reach to suggest, when considering the moral climate prevalent in the church today, that our current brand of modern evangelicalism may indeed be that “form of godliness” of which Paul speaks?
Now I do not say definitively that this is the case, but I would say that such a suggestion should not be quickly dismissed as fanatical or extreme—for the direction of modern evangelicalism is indeed increasingly contrary to historical, biblical Christianity. For with each passing year, the evangelical church’s presentation of both the Person of Christ and the Christian faith itself, resembles less and less the image of Christ found in the Gospels and the faith set forth in the New Testament. Indeed, there has been for many years a deliberate and systematic effort within the church to portray Christ in a way foreign to that inspired portrayal found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and to redefine the Christian faith to make it more appealing to the masses. If this is not the “form of godliness which denies the power thereof” spoken of by Paul, it certainly is a form of the same.
But consider some of the attributes of those who have this “form of godliness” as described by Paul, and see how it compares with the expression of the Christian faith which now is. Paul declares that they who hold this form will be:
Lovers of their own selves
Sinners have always been “lovers of their own selves,” but Paul suggests that this will be rampant and heightened in the “last days.” According to Paul, those who are “lovers of their own selves” do show by the same to be without true religion. One may embrace a form of godliness and remain a lover of his own self, but one cannot embrace the truth—cannot embrace Christ— and remain so.
I would suggest here that our present generation does excel all previous ones in the realm of “self-love.” By “present generation,” I do not mean only “younger generation,” but rather refer to all currently alive. Indeed, we live in a time where individuals are self-absorbed, self-important, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-promoting, self-serving and preserving—and any other adjective which describes one who does not ultimately live for a purpose greater than his own happiness and gratification.
This “love of self” is not merely prevalent in society, but within the church as well—within those who profess to be the children of God. Sadly, much of the preaching and teaching in evangelical circles does nothing to remedy this, but rather encourages and caters to it. For consider how the Word of God is regularly approached and handled, being treated as a self-help manual and thus used to foster sermons such as “Realizing Your Dreams,” “Establishing Your Vision,” “Believing in Your Vision,” “Finding Your Destiny,” “Reaching Your Destiny,” etc. Then of course there are the countless “three steps,” “five steps,” and even “seven steps” sermons designed for the purpose of self-improvement, cleverly presented in alliterations and acronyms—yet powerless with regard to effecting moral reform.
Does this sound familiar?
Boasters, Proud, Heady, Highminded
Here are four attributes Paul ascribes, though not in this order, to those who have a form of godliness yet deny the power thereof. I have grouped these together because of their obvious connection one to another—pride. “Boasters” are they who in speech magnify and exalt themselves and their own exploits. “Proud” describes the one who over estimates his own importance. “Heady” is the infatuation with one’s own intellectual prowess—whether real or imagined. The “high-minded” are arrogant.
What should stand out here is this: In the mind of Paul, true faith in Christ will deal a death blow to pride in its various forms. Paul cannot and will not harmonize godliness with pride. He therefore relegates the boasters, the proud, the heady, and the high-minded to a faith which exists only in form, not in truth.
Wonderful apostolic, historic, New Testament Christianity! Powerful to effect moral transformation, mighty to deliver the same, and authoritative to denounce those who would resist!
Does this resemble the faith of today?
Unholy
Here again the mind of Paul is manifest: Those who are unholy do not possess true religion. Theirs is an empty form. In denying the power of godliness, in making light of godliness, they are left to an unholy way, and thereby do show themselves to be impostors and frauds.
But consider the disconnect between holiness and salvation in the Christianity promoted today. In the modern gospel, is holiness a condition of entering the eternal kingdom of God? It is not. Is it a condition in Scripture? Indeed it is, for it is written:
Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, and:
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Etcetera, etcetera.
I have stated in previous articles that “holiness” has become a bad word among evangelicals. So strong is the opposition to it that the mere mention of the word brings down choruses of “Legalism, Legalism!” The ranks of the unstable and ignorant ignite their torches, take up their pitchforks, and ready themselves to run through any who would suggest that holiness was, is, and evermore shall be intrinsic to true faith.
Ironically, many believers today are more averse to holiness than they are to sin. Concerning holiness, they will have none of it, yet sin they will abide. With regard to holiness, they have no experience; with regard to sin, “both hands do it well.”
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.
Incontinent, Blasphemers
I have paired incontinency and blasphemy together, for they are twins begotten by the denial of godliness. Those who make light of holiness and true godliness inevitably are incontinent—they cannot and do not control themselves. It would be unlikely, if not impossible, for one who minimizes the essentiality of godliness to true faith to at the same time be a champion of self-control!
With this in mind, Christian, beware of those who magnify their rendition of the grace of God while downplaying or dismissing holiness, who use the love of God to allow for continuance in sin. For this we may certainly know concerning those who are so inclined: They are strangers to holiness themselves—else they would extol its virtues; they are without moral restraint—else they would proclaim its necessity.
Accordingly, these “deniers of godliness” make an easy transition into blasphemy, for they eagerly seek perversions of truth which accommodate their incontinency, and thus are ready to embrace heresy. But heresies grow together like grapes, each one connected to another, so that he who is willing to embrace the “salvation without holiness” heresy, must also embrace “another Jesus” as well—for the true Jesus Christ offers no such thing.
And he who embraces “another Jesus” does undermine and insult Christ, and he who proclaims this “other Jesus” does blaspheme the Son of God. Thus, the ungodly add to their incontinency, heresy; and to their heresy, blasphemy; and to their blasphemy, the despising of those and that which is good.
Despisers of those that are good
Remember that the moral corruptions which Paul names in our text, which shall characterize the “last days,” thus making them “perilous times,” will be manifest in those who profess godliness. Therefore, according to Paul, those who will “despise those (or that) which is good,” will also themselves continue to carry out a religious devotion. As I have stated in other writings, the word “despise,” in New Testament usage, mainly means “to esteem less, to consider of little value or consequence.” Thus, the “last days” shall bring forth a faith which places little or no value on that which is truly good, and will consider the same to be inconsequential to spirituality. As well “those that are good,” who manifest and do stand for godliness, will be despised and disdained.
This is alarming, for even now the evangelical church is guilty of this very thing. For consider how little value is placed upon repentance, holiness, self-denial, love for and submission to God, etc.—all things which the Bible sets forth as good—and how much value is placed upon individual comfort and happiness irrespective of moral character.
And concerning those who would preach repentance, holiness, the denying of self and the taking up of the cross, love for and sympathy with God, etc.—where are they? They are gone. They are not found. If any would yet preach these things, he does so only sporadically, by way of suggestion, moving off the issues quickly lest conflict arise and the church’s business be disturbed.
Lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God
Now we come full circle. Paul begins his list of moral corruptions pertaining to the supposed pious of the “last days” with lovers of their own selves, and closes it with lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. From this we see the great flaw of those whose religion is merely in form and not in truth— misplaced affections. In them, the heart is wrong—for they give it to the wrong things—and in so doing, they love what they should not, and have little love left for those things which they should love most.
I will assume here that it is manifest to the reader that the North American church has no shortage of “lovers of pleasure,” so that I will not need to expound much further. Indeed, how much effort has been expended to make church “fun,” and to convince those outside the church that we have more fun than they do!
Yet in Paul’s faith, the truly religious are known by this: They are lovers of God; they love God above all else—above pleasure and above their own selves. If any lack in love for God, if any abound in love of pleasure, if any loves his own self above Christ, his Christianity is a powerless form.
Conclusion
Now the end of the matter is this: What expression of the Christian faith do you espouse? Is it self-centered or Christ centered? Does it have for its motivation love for Jesus Christ and the glory of God, or is its motivation self-gratification through religious means? Do you embrace the present day “Jesus” who takes no issue with sin, or the real Jesus who died on a cross to deliver men from the power of sin?
With Paul things are clear: True faith in Christ brings about moral change—a transformation from self-love to self denial, from love of pleasure to love for God, from pride to meekness, from ungodliness to holiness.
This then is the the faith of the apostles. This is New Testament faith. This is Christianity.
Anything less is a mere form—a form of godliness which denies the power.
