Cain or Abel?

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.  Hebrews 11:4

Ah, the story of Cain and Abel.  After opening the Bible, one does not have to read very far before coming across it.  It is a story of sibling rivalry, of envy and enmity, and of eventual murder- fratricide to be specific-  it is the record of the first martyrdom, the first case in history in which a man would lose his life because of his faith. The story also provides for us a brief history of the first family, as well as insight into the early stages of sacrifice and offerings as part of divine worship.

Although this story is of great importance due to its historical contribution, it is even of greater value with regard to its spiritual significance, for this record sets forth the contrast between true and false religion, true and false repentance, inward and outward obedience, righteousness and unrighteousness, pride and humility, and light and darkness.  It is a commentary upon the workings of fallen human nature, how that nature is capable of pursuing the favour of God while maintaining deep-rooted rebellion against him, how it may strive to gain the approval of God while harbouring hatred toward those who indeed possess it.

Now the story of Cain and Abel, as it appears in Genesis 4:1-16, may be broken down into five parts: (1) the offerings of Cain and Abel, (2) God’s response to the offerings, (3) God’s admonition to Cain, (4) Cain’s response toward God and Abel, and (5) the final dialogue between God and Cain. 

The offerings of Cain and Abel

The Scripture tells us that in the process of time, or in the Hebrew “at the end of days,” both Cain and Abel brought an offering to the Lord.  Cain, being a farmer or “tiller of the ground,” brought an offering of the fruit of the ground, whereas Abel being a shepherd or “keeper of sheep,” brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.   

Although we are all perhaps familiar with the fact that the offerings of the two brothers met with very different results regarding the Divine response, we may not however be completely sure as to why these results occurred.  The most accepted view is that Abel showed obedience in that he brought a blood sacrifice -for God now required sinful men to bring such an offering when approaching him- and that Cain demonstrated disobedience by neglecting to bring the prescribed sacrifice. Another view argues that this offering was not intended to be a sin offering, but rather was an offering of the fruits of their labours, and that the difficulty resided in the fact that Cain did not give the “first part” of his produce in the way that Abel did.

While I think that the more accepted, traditional viewpoint is the better of the two, it is true that the Scripture does not specify what type of offering this was to be.  The Scripture does however provide a very important distinction regarding the quality of the offerings, for it is said that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof, or of the richest part, while it is said of Cain that he merely brought an offering of the fruit of the ground.   There was nothing special about Cain’s offering; it was convenient and comfortable inasmuch as he had it readily available.  It was the only offering that Cain was willing to make, and an offering that he deemed as acceptable and “good enough”- and if “good enough” for him, then surely “good enough” for God as well. 

Now it is this attitude and mindset which first dwelt in Cain that not only defined his faith, but also has defined the faith of the falsely religious throughout history.  It is the attitude that has resided, and does yet reside in many who have professed to be followers of Christ who in truth are not- for there has always been, and always will be, those professing followers, who in evaluating their conduct, their faith, their spiritual commitment, and their spiritual experience, wrongfully conclude that because it is “good enough” for them it must be “good enough” for God as well.

As for Abel, he was of a different spirit altogether.  For when Abel considered bringing an offering to God, he was willing only to bring that which was dear to him.  He brought of the firstlings of his flock- not just any flock, but his flock.  He brought the firstlings which were the future of his flock, lambs that he had cared for and cared about.  He offered the richest part; he gave his best, yet it was no burden to him, for he loved God and cared about honouring him.  Unlike Cain, Abel would not be satisfied with “good enough”- for he was mindful of his state and considered the greatest of sacrifice to be an insufficient token of his appreciation for the grace and mercy of God.  Thus, Abel became the “father” of the truly religious, for his outward service to God was merely a reflection of his inward submission and conformity to the Spirit of God.

God’s response to the offerings

The Scripture is clear here: And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. God respected, or received Abel’s offering, but rejected Cain’s.  But the most important fact here is that the Scripture states that not only did God reject the offering, but that he rejected the one who offered it as well.  Contrariwise, in the case of Abel, both the offering and the one who offered were respected and received.  This then is the greatest truth communicated in this story: it is not the offering or outward service that makes a man acceptable or unacceptable, but rather it is the man’s true moral character that determines whether the offering is acceptable or not.   Is the man righteous?  So also is his offering.  Is the man contrary to God?  So also is his service.  As it is written, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.”(Proverbs 15:8) 

Now consider Cain’s rejection.  Apparently “good enough” was not, and therefore Cain’s evaluation of himself and his offering was greatly flawed, and not at all in harmony with God’s evaluation concerning him.  And this also is the error of many modern evangelicals as well- they are willing to believe, to follow, to serve, to sacrifice- but only on their own terms, and yet they expect that God should fully receive them, as if they had done God some great favour by believing.   

Almost certainly there is someone who will take offense with this, who will say in essence: “God will accept us on any terms, though we may yet be unyielding and stubborn, unrepentant and unchanged- as long as we believe, it is good enough for God.”  But on the contrary, for who are you, O Cain, that you should dictate to God what is and what is not acceptable?  Shall the backslidden and compromised sit at the bargaining table with God and negotiate a more convenient salvation agreement?  I thank God that this will never be the case, that no matter how many “Cains” of the current church era stand together, justifying themselves and one another, fighting for the right to compromise and to yet be considered righteous, that they will never change the truth: for true faith still “offers to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.”

God’s admonition to Cain

Herein lies the true mercy and love of God: it does not consist in accepting that which is unacceptable, but rather in admonishing those which are unacceptable to do that which is right and proper, that they too might be received.  The “love message” of today portrays God as accepting men on any terms, whereas the true message of love found in Scripture reveals God as willing to receive all men, yet only on his terms. This was certainly the case with Cain.  Although God had no respect for Cain or his offering, he was yet willing to correct him and give him another opportunity to repent and do right. 

But Cain was outraged that God had disregarded his offering and that He had not received his compromised service, and the idea that God had preferred his brother- his younger brother- was too much for Cain’s proud, competitive, and jealous spirit to bear. I mentioned earlier that this was a story of sibling rivalry, but the rivalry and jealousy were entirely one-sided, for Abel was indeed righteous and bore the fruits of righteousness within his heart.

But Cain bore the fruits of darkness, and in this section of the story he is warned by God that those fruits will be multiplied if he continues in his present state, for sin lieth at the door, as it is written, and the powers of darkness are already set in motion to incite Cain into even greater transgression. 

Cain’s response toward God and Abel     

Cain’s response was one of impenitence toward God and hatred toward his brother.  He should have been ashamed for offering the way in which he did.  If this was an offering for sin, he should have been terrified- for this was a flat out rejection of the will of God regarding atonement.  But what is his response?  Grace is still being made available to him after his offering has been rejected, but he cannot receive it without repentance.  But repentance is loathsome to him for it involves being abased, it involves accepting that his religion is wanting, it involves acknowledging within himself that his brother is better than he, and possesses the favour of God which he knows himself to be without.  He cannot do it.  He will not do it.  He will not take the low place; he will not humble himself.

And there is Abel continually before his face, serving as a constant reminder of his failed service.  He cannot bear anyone being exalted when he is not, anyone being blessed when he is not, anyone pleasing God when he does not.  The thought that God prefers his brother above him fuels his enmity toward both God and Abel.

Now the falsely religious and impenitent do bear this same attribute of Cain. For when exposed whether by word, providence or pang of conscience as to their true spiritual state, rather than fly into an open clash of arms with God, they masterfully suppress their enmity toward him, deny that any such enmity exists, and turn their resentment toward those saints, who by their consecration to God do always serve as a source of unwanted conviction. And in this the spiritual descendants of Cain are manifest: they are those which oppose, resent, and despise them which are committed to offering a “more excellent sacrifice” or service than they, and are those which cultivate the poisonous roots of envy, pride, and rebellion within their souls.    

Now as the enmity of Cain escalated, a peculiar thing took place- Cain talked with Abel his brother, or as another version states, he, “told Abel his brother.”  It appears that Cain informed Abel of his dialogue with God.  But why would he confide in his brother whom he resented?   It is common for the unrighteous to alternate between a respect for the faith of the just and a resentment for them as well.  Consider some biblical examples of this paradox: Saul and David, Herod Antipas and John the Baptist, Ahab and Micaiah, etc…  

So what did Cain hope to gain from his discourse with Abel?  More than likely, his restless soul sought sympathy and reassurance.  THIS is the universal response of the impenitent.  When they sense within themselves that they have incurred the displeasure of God, and are conscious of his disapproval, they inevitably seek the sympathy, assurance, and approval of another- whether this be a brother, a friend, a fellow impenitent, or most likely an unsuspecting minister, who desirous of being an “encourager” of the downcast, unknowingly falls into the snare set for him, and gives his blessing and approval to him whom God has neither blessed nor approved.

But Cain did not find such sympathy and false assurance with Abel.  For when the Scripture states that he talked with Abel his brother, the word “talked” could be translated as “quarrelled”- for Abel could not give Cain such sympathy as he desired, for Abel, like God, was also offended with Cain’s irreverence and sinful ways.  This is something that the “Cains” of this world do not, and cannot understand: that their compromised religion is an offense to those who do not compromise, their painful treatment of God is painful to those which love him, and their impenitence is a grievous burden to those which know repentance.

Now when the “Cains” of this age are unable to secure sympathy and approval from the just, they resort to murder in whatever form they are comfortable with carrying out.  In the original account it was murder in the literal sense.  Throughout history, the number of “Abels” which have lost their lives in this way is beyond counting.  Yet the spirit of Cain may manifest itself in less violent ways as well- it may be satisfied with the murder of one’s reputation, the assassination of one’s character- a slower yet in some ways equally painful death. 

The final dialogue between God and Cain

After the murder of Abel, God poses the question to Cain: Where is Abel thy brother?  To which Cain responds: I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? Observe the wickedness of his response.  It is a blatant lie to the face of his Creator.  It is filled with defiance and irreverence toward God.  The true nature of Cain is no longer hidden behind his insincere religious service, his wickedness is out in the open and he is revealed for the rebel and devil that he truly is, for who but a rebellious devil would dare answer the audible voice of God in such a manner, especially after the crime he has committed?

It also seems that this response bears some self justification.  It is not improbable that Cain felt that Abel in some way deserved the treatment he received.  After all, in the mind of Cain, Abel had treated him wrongly as well by neither approving of his religious service nor of his moral character.  The impenitent do always justify their malicious treatment of those whose only crime is that they disapprove of the religion of the unjust. 

But this self justification goes even further, for Cain’s statement suggests that he reasoned thus: if Abel is so special, if he is so dear to God, if he is righteous, then why is it that his Divine “Keeper” did not deliver him from such an end?  Even as the chief priests and elders, who also were of the same spirit, likewise reasoned: “If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.  If He be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him,” and again, “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if He will have him: for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

But the fact that the righteous are often allowed to experience great suffering at the hands of the unjust, and that the righteous may at times appear to be without the help of God, in no way indicates that God has forsaken them, and certainly is no vindication of the impenitent and their wicked ways.  If the impenitent justify themselves by concluding that if their righteous opponents were truly just, they would not suffer so, then the impenitent are fully deceived- for the rewards of both the just and the unjust are not fully realized in this life.  

So it was with Cain and Abel.  The just had his life cut short, was robbed of the blessings that this life would have bestowed upon him, and received in this world treatment which he did not deserve.  Cain, on the other hand, lived out his life- though cursed and miserable- and never received in this world that which he truly deserved.  Yet Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, while his brother Abel was ushered into that same Presence.

Thus to conclude the matter, consider this to not only be the story of Cain and Abel, but also a question of Cain or Abel, a question as to what kind of faith do you truly possess.  Are you offering to God a convenient service, a disobedient service, or are you yielding to God from the heart?  Are you determined to defend compromise, or are you promoting a “more excellent” faith.  Do you carry on in an outward faith while silently harbouring envy, competitiveness, and enmity toward those who you find a thorn in your conscience, or do you know what peace of conscience truly is, being free from malice and envy?  Are you unable to rejoice when others are exalted and you are not, or are you content with being lowly?  These are the questions that determine just what type of faith you truly have.

And so bear with my little commentary on Cain and Abel.  Certainly the Cains of this world will not, yet I think that an Abel or two might, for my language is not foreign to them.  But to the rest who read may it be a candle that searches the innermost parts, and a voice that asks whether our religious service be that of, “Cain or Abel?” 

 

How Can You Believe?

How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?  John 5:44

As I read through the Gospels, I often think about what it must have been like to have actually been there, to witness first-hand the life, teachings, and miracles of Christ.  I have often imagined the scene outside the tomb of Lazarus when Christ raised him from the dead, the chaos in the temple when the Lord gave sight to him who was born blind, and the heavenly atmosphere that must have been present during the Sermon on the Mount.  I have wished many times, if such a thing were possible, to transport back to that time to observe a day, or even a moment, in the life of Christ.  What a wonder that would be!

  

On the other hand, I have also often marvelled at the fact that the generation which did indeed see and hear Jesus directly was not as a whole profited by such a privilege.  They were a generation which saw God in the flesh, yet did not recognize him; they listened to him speak, but they did not hear his voice; they followed what they believed to be true, but never embraced the Truth when it was set before them.  All their lives they believed in and waited for the Messiah, only to reject and despise him when He came.

This rejection of Jesus of Nazareth by the Jews of his day is both a marvel and a tragedy.  How did such a thing take place?  How could such a devout people reject the very Messiah whom they had believed in and waited for, and who was the fulfillment of their religious hopes?  How could “they seeing see not; and hearing hear not,” and not understand?  I realize that in the great plan of redemption the Son of God was to be offered for the sins of the world, and that the Jews’ rejection of Christ was the occasion by which this sacrifice was accomplished.  But my question is this: Why did the Jews as individuals not believe in Christ? What was it that rendered them unable to perceive truth and embrace it?   And ultimately, is it possible for those who profess faith in Christ, to be guilty of the same errors as the Jews, and consequently be partakers of the same spiritual darkness? 

     

Now in the above quoted text, Jesus provided insight as to why they would not embrace him.  The Jews, though very religious and dedicated, were guilty of two specific sins, which kept them in spiritual darkness and ultimately defined the nature of their devotion.  Firstly, they received honour one of another, and secondly, they did not seek the honour that cometh from God only.  These two sins were their downfall, and kept them from a true knowledge of God.  Jesus said to them, “How can you believe, how can you perceive and embrace  truth, when within your religious community you receive honour, praise, and glory from one another, and do not ultimately care about receiving the honour and approval that comes from God only?” 

 

I asked earlier if it were possible for believers to be guilty of the same errors of the Jews of Christ’s day, and to thus be partakers of the same spiritual darkness.  When we consider that the errors of the Jews were religious in nature, and that they were committed by those who believed themselves to be the true people of God, we may thus logically conclude that those within the church, which as well profess to be the children of God, might indeed wander down the same destructive path.  As previously stated, their error was twofold.  It consisted in doing that which was wrong, in that they received honour one of another, as well as in not doing that which was right, in that they neglected to seek the honour that cometh from God only. 

   

Now may I suggest, that these errors which Jesus exposed within the Jews’ religious structure, have indeed been prevalent within the church throughout history?  It seems that fallen human nature, whether it be that of the Jews, or that of those within the church, will manifest itself consistently within a religious framework- it will receive honour to itself, and it will not seek the true honour which comes from God.  In other words, fallen man, upon entering into the church, continues to seek for the praise, recognition, position, prestige, and honour that he so longed for prior to his faith, yet was unable to attain, and now uses his religious involvements and exploits as new means to an old end- his own exaltation. 

This religious fallen nature requires some definition.  It is not a nature which objects to the concept of God receiving his due glory.  On the contrary, it will sing of it, preach on it, wax philosophical concerning it, and heartily “Amen” it.  What this nature objects to is being left out of it!  The religious sinner is zealous for the glory of God- provided that he too will also be honoured and glorified.  Take away his accolades and the religious sinner melts.  He cannot believe in or receive a faith that does not stroke his sense of his own spirituality.  Likewise, he is not opposed to receiving honour from God.  Indeed, he spends his lifetime imagining that he possesses this honour, when in truth he is a stranger to such things.   Yes, he welcomes honour and glory from any who will give it-  whether God or man-  but ultimately, if he must choose between the two he will forfeit the honour of God-  for he cannot bear this life without the constant approbation of his peers, his denomination, his fellowship, or his religious movement. 

   

So how does this translate to the church today?  In what ways is this receiving honour one of another manifest in our religious circles?  What are some of the practices common within the church today, that if Christ were present in the flesh, would cause him to shake his head and ask, “How can you believe?”

Let us consider those in leadership.  When those which are pastors within the church, desire and in some cases require, to be addressed by the title of pastor, is there not an improper desire for honour?  I am not suggesting that it is wrong to address someone as “pastor,” nor am I suggesting that it is necessarily wrong for a pastor to accept such an address.  As well, I certainly do not condone disrespect toward those in leadership in any form.  But what I am suggesting is this: that many in leadership are more motivated to receive honour than to actually do God service.  For when men (and women) long to be recognized as pastors, when they love to be called “pastor,” when they rejoice at being introduced as “reverend” or “pastor,” when they are quick to let everyone know that they are “Pastor so and so,” have they not gone too far in their thirst for spiritual honours?  In truth they are akin to the Pharisees of old, who according to Jesus loved “the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” 

 

But it does not stop here:  For it is becoming more common to see men (and women) bearing the title apostle and or prophet.  It seems that in certain circles pastor was not a high enough honour to garnish one’s self with.  No, in declaring to all that one has risen within the ranks of spiritual greatness, he must now bear the title Apostle or Prophet.  Question:  Whose idea was it that you should put the title “Apostle,” in front of your name?   Who told you that you were an apostle in the first place?  Are we to believe that Jesus Christ instructed you to bear this title, or are we to rightfully conclude that you have bestowed this honour upon yourself?  Of course, I am certain that others- who also seek the “high places”- indeed both recognize and confirm your lofty state; but ultimately, it is your scheming that has secured this illustrious title for yourself.

What is embarrassing about these modern “apostles” is that many of them would have difficulty spelling the word, let alone have any grasp as to what it means to claim such things for themselves.  Is it not obvious that those which crown themselves with the title of “Apostle” or “Prophet,” are in the business of not only receiving honour, but demanding it as well?

But church leaders receive honour one of another in other ways as well.  For who has not witnessed one minister stand up in a service to introduce another, proclaiming him to be a “true man of God, with a true message from God, a man who is anointed and who is a special servant of the Lord?”  And as this “man of God” ascends to the pulpit, he in turn tells the assembly how blessed they are to have the first minister (a true “man of God” in his own rights) as their leader, saying:  “I have ministered all over the world, and it is rare that I find such a godly man as you have in this your pastor.  He is truly special in the sight of God.”  And the assembly, giddy with joy, receives a triple portion of honour and glory:  For they bask in the honour that the two “men of God” receive one of another, and in some strange way feel that they have been honoured as well.

How can you believe?

And what can be said concerning those who are not pastors and leaders?  Will they be left out of this bestowing of honours?  Absolutely not!  For when they assemble together they are sure to have “words from God” for one another as to how special and gifted each of them is.  For John will tell Jane how “gifted she is, how anointed she is, and what a special ministry the Lord has for her,” all in the hope that Jane will tell him that he also is “wonderful, and powerful, and special.”  And like children on Christmas morning who cannot wait to show to each other the gifts that they have received, each will excitedly announce the spiritual gifts and callings he has claimed for himself, while also proclaiming these gifts to be in the other as well.

Now all this will take place in the name of edification, encouragement and brotherly love, when in truth there is a great deal more inflation than edification, flattery than encouragement, and insincerity than true love.  The outcome of which is a religious community that thinks “more highly of itself than it ought,” and fancies itself to have some special place with God.  And should the people of this community, church, denomination, fellowship or movement actually be contrary to God, or stray from the truth, it is nearly impossible to enlighten them:  For the praise, glory, honour, affirmation, and justification that they receive one of another, is the light by which they walk and interpret both the word and Spirit of God.

How can you believe? 

I mentioned earlier that the error of both the Jews and the church is twofold.  It is not only receiving honour one of another, but it is also seeking not the honour that cometh from God only.  There is an honour which comes from God only, and it is the only honour that we are to seek.  The difficulty in receiving honour from God is this: more often than not, you must forfeit the honour of men in order to attain it.  The man or woman which God honours will never be honoured by a worldly religion, or by those consumed with receiving honour one of another.  Nor will he or she fit in well with them.  As Jesus stated that “no man can serve two masters,” so also is it impossible to receive honour from men and at the same time truly seek the honour which comes from God.

Think about it.  Were the Jews really concerned about receiving honour from God?  According to Christ, they certainly did not seek it.  No, they were content to continue in a religious form, in which they received honour and approval from each other, without ever seriously seeking the approval of God.  This too is the error of many who profess faith in Christ.  They continue in their expression of the Christian faith, and because they have approbation and confirmation from their peers and leaders, assume that they must have the honour of God as well.  But can it be said of these that receive honour one of another that they are seriously seeking the honour which comes from God?

    

Here is a question for all.  From where do you derive your confidence that you have the honour that cometh from God only?  Do you assume that you possess this honour by merely believing Bible truths?  Do you answer questions regarding your state by running to your peers and leaders for affirmation?  What if those to whom you run for approval are also without this honour from God?  Where will this leave you?   Remember the words of Jesus that those which receive honour from men are without the honour of God.

So what profit is there in having the respect and approval of men, and receiving honour one of another?  In the end, I have an appointment with God at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ.  Will it matter then if you respected or disrespected me, if I was honoured or dishonoured in your eyes?  Will I go there bearing titles or to display gifts?  Will any of the honours (or dishonours) that were bestowed upon me have any bearing upon the outcome of that meeting?  No, the only thing that will matter in that day is whether or not in the mind of God I am considered one who has sought his honour.

  

The same is true for you as well.  May it not be said to any of us in that day, that we have in this life already received our reward in full.  And may Jesus– after considering how we behaved with regard to earthly honours- never look upon us and ask:

How can you believe?

Sins Forgiven: Past, Present, and Future?

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

In recent years, a particular doctrine has increased in popularity within certain circles.  It has been, however, around for a lot longer than just a few years.  I have heard it, and renditions of it, for thirty years, and there are similar ideas that have existed since the dark ages.  The doctrine of which I speak is essentially this:  All of the believer’s sins - past, present, and future – have already been forgiven in Christ.  In other words (as some have confidently preached) the believer, at the time of the new birth, is forgiven of every sin that he has committed, is yet committing, and will commit in the future.  Some proponents of this view would also declare that God has granted this forgiveness “before the foundation of the world,” while others extend the idea to include all men, suggesting that every sinner is already forgiven through Christ and needs only to accept it personally.

Now before I express my opposition to this doctrine, I would like to acknowledge the fact that some who appear to hold to this view, in truth do not- they are merely mistaken with regard to the usage of terms.  Although they say that all of our sins- past, present, and future – are already forgiven in Christ, they actually mean that provision for the forgiveness of  these sins has already been made in Christ.  I have no contention with those who would convey the right idea, yet through a lack of knowledge are unable to do so properly.

Nevertheless, there are many who do indeed support this view and are zealous to defend it, who do understand what they are saying and are committed to it.  It is this deliberate promotion of this doctrine that calls for opposition- for the doctrine is erroneous and should be exposed as such.

I will now set forth three reasons as to why this teaching should be rejected:  (1) It is bad theology (2) It is contrary to Scripture (3) It is ridiculous

It is bad theology  

Theology is the study of God and of the things pertaining to God.  This study is vital to our faith and spiritual development.  Although good theology does not guarantee a true faith and proper spirituality, a bad theology almost certainly prevents it.  It is therefore important to develop a good theology, a theology that is useful to our spiritual growth.

For theology to be useful, it must meet certain criteria.  It must be systematic, consistent, objective, reasonable, and above all, based upon the clear statements of Scripture.  It cannot be haphazard, ambiguous, subjective, unreasonable, and supported only by vague portions of Scripture. 

Now the teaching that all of our past, present, and future sins, are already forgiven in Christ is bad theology for this simple reason: there are no verses in Scripture that clearly state this to be so!  It is clear from Scripture that our past sins are forgiven in Christ, but nowhere is it stated that our present sins- the ones that we are currently committing- and the ones that we are yet to commit are already forgiven.  Thus, this doctrine does not originate in the clear statements of Scripture, but rather in the subjective reasoning of certain teachers who claim that it does.

But this doctrine is bad theology in that it is unreasonable.  By unreasonable I mean that which is contrary to our sense of reason, and to our consciousness of that which we know to be true.  We are conscious of the fact that forgiveness of wrongdoing, within any system of justice, can only be granted- if granted at all- after certain conditions are met.  We cannot comprehend a system of government that grants forgiveness without a change of behaviour, let alone a government that grants pardons before crimes have been committed!  To declare that God has already forgiven us for sins that we are yet committing, and thus have not repented of, as well as for sins that we have not yet committed, but will commit, is certainly an unreasonable position to hold- it is bad theology.

It is contrary to Scripture

Not only is this doctrine unsupported by the clear statements of Scripture, it is actually in direct contradiction to them!  I will refer to a few of those statements.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  1 John 1:9

In the Bible, the word “if” is used extensively to set forth conditional statements and promises.  If a certain action is taken, then a certain result will follow.  In this verse, the word “if” establishes a specific condition regarding the forgiveness of sins.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive…etc.  Notice that the forgiveness of the believer’s sin is predicated upon his confession of that sin.  The clear meaning of this verse is that forgiveness of sin in the life of the believer occurs at the time of confession- not prior to this confession, and not at the new birth.  Likewise, the statement “God is faithful and just to forgive” is in the present tense, and thus the infinitive “to forgive” also indicates an action in the present.  Therefore, according to this verse, current and future sins are not yet forgiven, and whoever asserts that they are, is contrary to the Word of God.  Although this teaching may seem to some a great revelation, it is obviously one that the apostle John was lacking

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  James 5:15

This verse, which refers to physical healing, contains three promises:  (1) The prayer of faith shall save the sick, (2) the Lord shall raise him up, (3) if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  Promises are identifiable by their verbs, which are always in the future tense.  The verbs, “shall save,” “shall raise,” and “shall be forgiven,” are all in the future tense, and thus denote an action that has not yet occurred.  Notice the third promise which is concerned with the forgiveness of sins.  When does this forgiveness take place?  Has it already happened?  Clearly the sins that James refers to here are not yet forgiven, but rather shall be.  This is a second example of how this doctrine is contrary to Scripture.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

The Lord’s Prayer, from which this verse comes, was given to Christ’s followers as a guide for their prayer lives.  It was not to be a one-time prayer.  Each aspect of this prayer was to be a perpetual petition.  If therefore Christ himself instructed us to include in our prayers a continual request for forgiveness, would it not then be reasonable to assume a continual need for forgiveness, as well as a continual granting of forgiveness?  And if a continual granting of forgiveness exists, then a one-time forgiveness for current and future sins does not.

It is ridiculous

This teaching should be seen for what it is: it is ridiculous.  It is ridiculous for the same reason it is bad theology.  I showed earlier how this doctrine is bad theology in that it is contrary to reason.  The fact that we would be unable to accept any earthly system of justice that would pardon crimes while they were yet being committed, as well as crimes which had not yet occurred, but will occur, proves the doctrine in question to be unreasonable.  Thus, to ascribe such a system of justice to God is ridiculous.  This idea of forgiveness of sins being granted before the commission of sins is not very far off from the medieval system of indulgences, in which men were guaranteed forgiveness for sins that they had not yet committed, but were intending to.  

Again, this teaching is ridiculous, for if taken to its logical conclusion the believer would never need to deal with God regarding his sin.  Think.  If I am already forgiven of my current and future sins, I do not need to confess them or ask for forgiveness.  What need would I have to confess sins that I have already been forgiven of?  My confession of sin, or lack of confession, would have no bearing upon the act of forgiveness which would have already taken place apart from any action on my end.  If I am already forgiven, then I am forgiven regardless of what I do.  

Likewise, I have no need for the Lord’s Prayer, for every debt that I have, or will incur, has already been forgiven without my asking.  Why ask for that which I already possess?  Furthermore, if I am already forgiven of current and future sins, then I certainly do not need to repent of them.  Repentance is for those in need of forgiveness.  But I have no need for forgiveness inasmuch as I am already forgiven.  Consequently, I have no need for repentance either, for I have already been forgiven without it.  I may repent if I like, but it has no bearing upon my condition- I am already forgiven.  In fact, if in the future I deny Christ and become an apostate, I yet have cause for rejoicing- I have already been forgiven of those sins too!  Hallelujah! 

RIDICULOUS!

Now some may argue that I just do not understand this revelation.  They may argue that because God is beyond time and exists in the eternal past, present, and future, that all of our sins past, present, and future are in his mind already forgiven.  In his mind, they say, we are already perfect.  To this I say that although there may be truth with regard to God existing beyond time, what profit is there for us to attempt to relate to that which is beyond our understanding?  I might just as easily say that in the mind of God, you are already in hell!  In the mind of God, you are already reprobate!  Or on the contrary, in the mind of God, you are already in heaven, on the sea of glass, with a glorified body!  But this type of theology is useless, and to attempt to interpret Scripture from the perspective of the eternal future, of which you can only fantasize, is foolish.  This only reaffirms that the doctrine under scrutiny is ridiculous.

In conclusion, why would any believer hold to this view?  Does it offer some special comfort to think that our future sins are already forgiven?  Could you not derive the same sense of comfort from believing that provision for the forgiveness of these sins has already been made in Christ?  I think that the real problem here is this:  People tend to treat sin lightly, and gravitate to doctrines which allow them to avoid any personal dealings with God regarding sin.  It is more pleasant to believe that sin is already forgiven, thereby eliminating any uncomfortable introspection, or any possible unpleasant conviction of the Holy Spirit that may accompany true cleansing.  In any event, the doctrine of sins forgiven –past, present and future- is bad theology, contrary to Scripture, and ridiculous. 

Let’s reject it.  

Perfecting Holiness

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.  2Corinthians 7:1

Whenever I hear certain music by Vivaldi, I cannot help but to think of the high level of expertise of the performing violinist, not to mention that of Vivaldi himself.  The same happens when I hear someone perform certain Beethoven piano sonatas.  Such talent is impressive.  This is also true of great athletes, craftsmen, and artists, who have risen above mediocrity and become masters in their respective fields.  Yet no matter how great the talent, there must also be a commitment to practice if the talent is to ever reach its full potential.  Talents must be perfected.

In the above text, Paul speaks about perfecting holiness.  As a musician strives to perfect his abilities, or an inventor labors to perfect his invention, so also is the believer exhorted to perfect holiness.  The Greek word “to perfect” implies completeness, or “to fully complete,” or “bring through to the end.”  Perfecting holiness, therefore, suggests becoming fully developed, consistent, and complete with regard to moral purity.  The apostle admonishes the Corinthians to actively pursue holiness of life, and to make certain that this attribute is indeed developed within them.

The occasion which prompts Paul’s exhortation to perfect holiness is found at the beginning of the verse:  Having therefore these promises etc… This is significant.  Because certain sacred promises have been made to us by God himself, we should be careful to conduct ourselves in such a way so as to realize those promises.  Many Christians who are zealous for the promises of God concentrate entirely on the aspect of faith when attempting to appropriate Bible promises.  However, in this case it is clear that holiness is the condition that must be met if we desire to be partakers in the divine promises.

Let’s consider which promises Paul is specifically referring to.  In the final verses of the preceding chapter, Paul quotes certain Old Testament promises that were intended for the church.  They are as follows.

1.       “I will dwell in them, and walk in them.”  (2Cor. 6:16)

2.       “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”  (2Cor. 6:16)

3.       “I will receive you.”  (2Cor. 6:17)

4.       “I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.”  (2Cor.6:18)

These are magnificent promises.  Notice how they all relate to an intimate relationship with God.  Think of it:  God dwelling in us, and walking in and amongst us, declaring us to be his very own, receiving us, and sustaining a Father to children relationship with us.  Yet these promises ARE conditional.  In 2Cor. 6:17, God states three conditions:  (1) “Come out from amongst them, and (2) be ye separate, and (3) touch not the unclean thing.”  Come out from amongst them is a command to become distinct from the world, to come out from the spiritual darkness that controls the unregenerate.  Be ye separate is an exhortation to maintain this distinction, to live in such a way as to set forth the contrast between the children of God and the children of this age.  Touch not the unclean thing ultimately refers to idolatry.  Idolatry has always been a religious system that allows for and caters to fleshly indulgences. Do not therefore, let your faith become contaminated by, and mixed with, worldly religion and philosophies that allow for uncleanness, and are therefore an unclean thing.

Inasmuch then that we have these promises available to us, and in that holiness is the condition upon which, these promises are predicated, we should therefore gain a more perfect understanding of what the term perfecting holiness means.  I have in the previous post defined holiness as an inward conformity to a divine principle- the moral law.  Again, the moral law can be summed up as supreme love for God, and love for our fellow man.  This moral law is not an arbitrary decree from God, or even a creation of God.  It is a reflection of his moral character, which is love, and therefore proceeds naturally from his person in the same way that light naturally proceeds from the sun.  God is love, and thus love is, of necessity, the principle whereby all moral agents are to be governed.  Is it not one in the same to define holiness as either conformity to the moral law, which is summed up in the word love, or as conformity to the nature of God, which is love?  So, perfecting holiness would imply a bringing of this principle of love toward God and man to completeness, consistency, and fullness.

And how is it that we are to bring this principle of love, this holiness, to completeness or perfection?  Paul is clear as to our duty in this:  Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.  True holiness involves being cleansed of all filthiness, both that which is of the flesh, and also of the spirit.  Filthiness of the flesh speaks of those sins which involve the indulgence of the physical body: immorality, adultery, lasciviousness, sexual uncleanness, drunkenness, and in general, the lusts of the flesh.  Filthiness of the spirit suggests those sins which are hidden: envy, malice, bitterness, pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, competitiveness, selfish ambition, deceit, and evil motivations.  It should be understood, however, that all sin, in that it originates within the inner man, is defiling to our inner person, and considered therefore to be filthiness of the spirit.

Now notice the admonition let us cleanse ourselves.  The emphasis is on the word ourselves.  In perfecting holiness, the believer is not passive, but active.  Paul does not admonish the Corinthians to leave their sanctification to a future time and place, nor to passively wait for God to deliver them from sinful practices.  On the contrary, the admonition is a call to action, a call to cleanse ourselves. 

But doesn’t the Bible teach that God is the One that cleanses us from sin? There is no doubt that it is the power of the Spirit, the grace of God, and the blood of Jesus Christ through which we are cleansed and delivered.  However, the Spirit of God does not work in us contrary to the power of our own will.  If the believer is yet living under the power of sin, it can only be the result of his own consent.  Now he may think that he is not consenting, he may even be conscious of his own resolutions not to sin, but ultimately, where sin is present, there is of necessity consent.  Therefore, the filthiness of the flesh and spirit that dominates and ruins the lives, testimonies, and souls of so many believers, must be put away by the believer himself.  It is foolish to ask God to remove your idol while you are still bowing before it.  But rather, you rise up from your knees, you smash your idol, you grind it to pieces, and then see what precious things the power of the Spirit, the grace of God, and the blood of Christ perform within your own soul.

Again, let us cleanse ourselves is a call to repentance from unclean practices, and repentance toward God.  If filthiness of flesh and spirit are yet present, there should be an alarm to take action.  It is dangerous to continue in sin.  It is dangerous to treat sin lightly. It is even more dangerous to think that God does so as well. It is death and the height of deception to settle into a mindset that considers sin to have no serious consequence upon our relationship with God.  “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” (1John 1:6)

The final phrase in the text instructs us as to how we are to go about perfecting holiness.   We are instructed to approach this task in the fear of God.  Holiness, or the lack thereof, is no trivial matter.  We know, or should know, that without it, “no man shall see the Lord.”  There is certainly reason to fear God if we are deficient with regard to moral purity.  I have observed throughout life an interesting paradox:  Those believers who make light of the fear of God, who are quick to proclaim that the love of God has freed them from any fear of God, are also the loosest with regard to moral purity; while on the other hand, those believers who retain a fear of the Lord within their faith, are more careful as to what they allow and approve of.   It is the fear of the Lord that keeps our perspective clear with regard to eternal matters.  Thus, it is in the fear of God that we are to consider our sinful ways, cleanse ourselves from them, and thereby bring holiness to completion.

In conclusion, the wonderful promises of intimacy with God are available to us.  Are we willing therefore to meet the conditions of these promises?  It is one thing to speak about our intimacy with God; it is quite another thing to actually possess it.  If we continue in sinful practices, our profession of fellowship with God is a lie. Let us not be so arrogant as to think of ourselves as “one of God’s favorites” while at the same time allowing filthiness of the flesh and spirit to remain in our lives. But rather, let us cleanse ourselves - perfecting holiness- in the fear of God.

 

      

Without Holiness

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.  Hebrews 12:14

I am not sure exactly when it happened.  I think I may know how it happened.  I am sure it should never have happened.  And now that it has happened, I wonder what will happen to the generation of believers that allowed it to happen.  You are asking, "What is he talking about?  What has happened?"  I am talking about when Christianity began to be offered without holiness.

Let's face it.  The Christianity of today has undergone a major disconnect from the Bible's teaching concerning holiness.  Not only have we lost sight of the importance of true holiness, we actually in many ways disdain it.  Holiness has become a bad word amongst modern evangelicals.  We bristle at the words "holy" and "holiness" in the same that we used to bristle at profanity.

Where did this disdain come from?  It is possible that the word holiness stirs up images of women dressed like pilgrims, and men on oatmeal containers, of women who have deliberately "uglified" themselves standing by their morose, austere, pitchfork-wielding husbands.  Or possibly the word holiness brings up the ideas of rigid regulations and countless practices of   "don't do this," and "don't do that."  And probably, "holiness" reminds us of those who in the name of Christ have attempted to legislate their own peculiar convictions and or cultures as the moral law of God.

But regardless of the many errors that may have occurred in the name of holiness, one thing remains certain: without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.  Did you get that?  Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, will actually enter the kingdom of heaven apart from holiness.  You can claim promises, rejoice in imputed righteousness, jump up and down over justification by faith, glory over who you may think you are in Christ, but if the attribute of holiness or moral purity is lacking in you, you will not see God in the next life.

This is where today's evangelicals are disconnected from truth.  This is the area of greatest deception.  If you listen to the majority of professing Christians, it is evident that they do not really believe that holiness is essential to eternal life.  The prevailing theology (I use the term loosely) is this:  If you believe in Jesus, you're saved- period.

And here is the great deception.  We really do not think that any sinful practice can affect our eternity with God.  Some are even bold (dumb) enough to actually say it.  Consider for a moment:  Have we not become accepting of immoral conduct in our churches, youth groups, and even in our ministers?  We may not entirely condone these practices, but we have accepted them.  We do not think for a moment that those who profess Christ yet practice these things are in any real eternal danger.  Likewise, drunkenness, partying, loose living, corruption in the ministry, and overall worldliness- none of these things really trouble us.  And if by chance any would dare suggest that those Christians who continue in these things will not inherit the kingdom of God, he will be scoffed at, branded a legalist, considered judgmental, and ultimately will be ostracized.  Thus Christianity, which was always understood to be a faith which begat moral excellence and holiness in its adherents, has now become a religion where these attributes are despised- it has become a faith without holiness.

Now having mentioned various errors associated with holiness, it is fitting to give some clarity as to what holiness is, and what it is not.  I will begin with what holiness is not.

Holiness is not an outward conformity to a set of rules or an imposed set of convictions, or to a certain code of conduct regarding dress, diet, religious observances, etc..  It cannot consist in any mere outward observance of any principle- even a right and noble principle.  It does not consist in any religious work or effort.  It should be the motive in every religious work, but it does not consist in the work itself.  In other words, there are no outward acts that a man can perform that will in themselves make him holy.

On the other hand, holiness does consist in, and is an inward conformity to a divine principle- the moral law of God.  As sin is defined in Scripture as a "transgression of the law" (1John3:4), the opposite of sin, holiness, may be defined as a conformity to, or harmony with the moral law.

But what is the moral law of God?  Jesus defined the moral law as consisting in two parts: supreme love for God, and love for one's neighbor.  The Jews had received the law from Moses, the glory of which was the Ten Commandments.  But when Jesus was asked as to what the greatest commandment in the law was, He did not refer to any of these ten commandments.  Instead, He said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Do you see this?  All of the law and the prophets hang upon these two commands.  These two commandments are the foundation upon which the Levitical law was established.  They both precede and supersede the Old Covenant.  These two commandments are the moral law.  The law of Moses could be abolished in Christ, but the moral law of God can never be abolished, for the duty and moral obligation of every creature in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, is summed up in these commandments.  We are to love God supremely and we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.  Thus, holiness may be defined as whole-hearted love for God, and that love for our neighbor, which considers his happiness and welfare as of equal value to our own.

It should be evident that wherever this love for God and neighbor exists, there will of necessity be a purity of conduct as well.  If a man loves God supremely, he will not be an idolater, nor take the name of God in vain, nor have any other gods in his place, etc..  Likewise, he who loves his neighbor as himself will not steal from him, commit adultery with his wife, lie to him or against him, covet and lust after his belongings, and certainly not kill him.  He who is guided by this principle will be careful to keep himself from all that is unclean and offensive to God, as well as that which is harmful to his fellow man.  Thus it is written that "love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom. 13:10)

According to Paul, this love that is the fulfillment of the moral law must bear this attribute: it must "seek not its own." (1Cor. 13:5)  In other words, we are to love God- not for what we can get from him- but because it is in itself right to love him.  Our love for God must ultimately be concerned with his feelings, his happiness, and his welfare.  Likewise, we are to love our neighbor in truth, being mindful that his well-being is as important as our own.

Now without this holiness, this love that seeks not its own, no man shall see the Lord.  Therefore, those professing believers who yet manifest an overall selfish nature are deficient, and consequently are on dangerous ground.  To suggest then, that the gospel of Jesus Christ promises eternal life without requiring a conformity to the moral law is absurd.  It flies in the face of our consciousness of what justice is.  A gospel without holiness amounts to this:  God, on the one hand, honors the moral law by sending his Son as an offering on behalf of that broken law, while on the other hand, He dishonors that same law by granting forgiveness of sins and eternal life to believers who are yet in rebellion to it!  Absurd?  It is worse than absurd, it is wicked- for it makes God a transgressor of his own law- and thus by definition, a sinner!

We can therefore be confident that any rendition of the gospel that does not have for its aim the moral purity of its hearers is fundamentally flawed.  If our gospel is without holiness, it is no gospel at all.  It is no "good news" if in the end we do not see the Lord.  The true gospel is good news in that it begets a love for God and our neighbor, which brings about a purity of life that prepares us for the world to come.

Take heed therefore, that you do not embrace a form of Christianity that makes light of holiness, lest the words of the apostle be fulfilled in you:  "In the last days perilous times shall come.  FOR men shall be lovers of their own selves... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." (2Tim. 3:1-5)  In other words, in the last days, men shall hold to the Christian faith, yet reject and deny the need for personal godliness- they shall be without holiness.

Will the same be true of us?