Chapter 7
SEPARATION
IN CHRIST,
AND FOR CHRIST
PURITY
AND CHARITY
GODLINESS AND CLARITY
WERE
DO YOU
HAV FELLOWSHIP ?
Places to be and
Not to Be
When it Comes
to What the Bible says
About Churches
(cf. News 43, A Spiritual
Potpourri Chs.10-11
and Biblical Blessings Ch.11,
Endnote 1,
re obedience in general,
eldership questions in particular;
see also
Man in Retrospect, in Prospect and in Bold Relief
Ch. 4
which covers much in this realm)
Introduction from the
word of God in both testaments
There are times when "separation" seems to spell not a word, but a series of horror ideas, as if the worst of the pugnacious thirties, the arrogant exclusivists, the know-all brigade of spiritual storm-troopers were about to set upon the peaceable churchgoer, and using unethical strong-arm tactics, to strain good relations, good sense and good form by actions both unwise and uncivil; and probably unBiblical to boot.
Is this so? Certainly there is some reason for reticence in this area - as in brain surgery. This does not mean it is to be, at all costs, avoided. The most cursory reading of Ezekiel chapters 43-44 will give an awareness of something precious to the mind of God: Purity, separation of holy from commonplace on the one hand, and conjoining on the other, both intense and immense. (Cf. Ezekiel 44:9-15,21,23-24, 43:25-26.)
It is clear:
- that there must be a mighty separation between the holy and the profane,
- that death accompanies presumption,
- that appointments are made for entry to the presence and procedures of the King of Kings,
- that sacrifice is so holy that appointments to this area may be lost, through such transgressions as occurred in the days of too tolerant Eli and later his descendant, Abiathar (I Kings 1:7, 2:26-27);
- that the concept of perfection accompanies this purity,
- and that an entire
attitude of spirit of sanctity and worship allied with reverential awe and
awareness is about as far from this 'holy laughter' and unlaughable
unholiness as the
Hebrews 12
has the same intense awareness of coming to the presence of the glorious
holiness of God, to which - in view of its unapproachable light noted in I Timothy
6 - access is by privilege and pastoral presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus
Hebrews
"Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire."
Now if any book stresses the humanity and reality and accessibility of the sympathetic Saviour, it is this, Hebrews (2:17,4:15, 5:5-8,, 6:20, 7:25, 8:6-12, 9:11-12): but there is the same reality, as John also relates from the lips of Christ, "If anyone love Me, he will keep My words," "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 14:23, 15:14).
To be sure, we are delivered from the straining follies of self-working salvation; but to be 'delivered' from holiness and all the reality and emphasis of spirituality which is there, from the God who IS a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, is no deliverance but simple fraud.
Such sanctity must become a beauty increasingly evident in the personality - a force evoked by Paul in I Thessalonians 5:23. To be sanctified wholly in mind, spirit and body is not some unwieldy thing for the witless, but an aspect of worship in everyday life, which overflows into the very heart and conscience, conduct and quality of life. Christ sanctified Himself for His brethren's sake (John 17:19), and we are not in a place of recumbency, but in a world for which work and witness, sanctity and spirituality are in short supply and great need.
Accordingly, the principle of separation, spiritually speaking, not ecclesiastically in mere tones of some ecclesiastical bombast, is of the utmost importance. It begins in the heart, with worship, with love, adoration, purity and hence redemption. It is seen in Ephesians 5, where the topic is NOT merely fornication and sexual licence, but no less, covetousness, being of far wide and indeed of different scope: both are mentioned, as is ALL UNCLEANNESS.
The scope, then, is from Ephesians
Instruction concerning this ? It is both simple and clear, leaving none with any excuse whatever for lingering in the land of wandering. Having specified ALL in the domain of uncleanness, from spiritual evils to physical, Ephesians tells us one thing to do about it. It is found in Ephesians 5:10-11. Prove what is the acceptable will of the Lord and "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." NOTHING is more unfruitful than departure from His word, as with the various idolatries of mass, pope or Mariolatry, men's minds or cultural compresses (cf. SMR pp. 1032-1088H). The instruction is clear. The result is determinative, as in any other combination or fellowship with vice. LEAVE IT. When ? When you hear the command. When is that ? Now!
Indeed, as to that, Isaiah 8:20 tells us categorically:
 |
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do
not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. |
|
|
"They
will pass through it hard pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they
are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward. Then they will look to the earth, and see trouble and darkness, gloom of anguish; and they will be driven into darkness." |
How much light is present when there is NO LIGHT! How much a work of darkness is it to depart from that word which is a light to my feet ? How long does a person wait before obeying the strict injunctions of both Testaments, that where the word of God is departed from, you have NO FELLOWSHIP with those concerned. Either they are removed from the church, or if the whole become so rebellious as to fail to do this, there is simply no other option but to leave the church oneself, and go where the word of God is not subverted by darkness, or contaminated by the traditions of man (Mark 7:7ff.). It is thus made of no effect, and to follow such ways is neither serious serviceability to God whose the word is, nor permitted. It is excluded by express and repeated commandments.
HOW then is
purity sought in one major route ? In what shall a young
man cleanse His way ? asks the Psalmist (Psalm 119:9). "By TAKING HEED ACCORDING TO
YOUR WORD!" comes the answer. The word scours, scourges and purifies,
as well as strengthens, inspires, uplifts and consoles; the blood pardons.
Their intimacy is unlimited (I Peter
If anything is 'unclean' as you see from Ezekiel, it is this failure to separate between the fearful wonder of the things of God and unspiritual approaches, which have their OWN wisdom, and sanctity, and flavour and savour and perspective and way: like using secular psychology to select missionaries, an abomination if ever there was one. The people had 'defiled' the ways and requirements and realities of God, and NOW -
"If
they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of
the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design
and all its ordinances, all its forms and its laws. Write it down in their
sight, so that they may keep its whole design and its ordinance and perform
them. This is the law of the temple. The whole area surrounding the mountaintop
is most holy. Behold this is the law of the temple" - Ezekiel 43:11-12 (cf.
earlier, Ezekiel 9:9-10:23, where the glory departs from the
Certainly, the forms of such things are now fulfilled in the substance of Christ, as Hebrews 8-10 is at such enormous pains to stress; but the holy things themselves, these are not deleted, or abrogated as Christ emphasised in Matthew 5:17-20.
On the contrary, what does
He there teach ?
This: that the least commandment taught and done is evidence of eminence in the kingdom: spirituality is like a good epidemic - it flows on and pervades and conquers on all sides. The Lord in the heart, ruling and dominant, spiritual and prominent, realised and worshipped, gives a quality to the least things which bespeaks the condition of the whole. These things are for our instruction in righteousness, not for sallow compromise as if the realities of Christ have separated us not from sin, but from sanctity! Thus Hebrews 12 explicitly brings out just this point with fiery emphasis.
HUMILITY does NOT consist in humbling God till He must accept our ways: it is rather humbling oneself so that one accepts HIM AND HIS WAYS; and does not hold commerce of the soul and the worship and the ways divine, with those who REBEL, are unclean in the things of the Lord. (Cf. What is Poverty of Spirit ? Question 12, in Questions and Answers, the Word that Speaks.)
Separation is well shown in its fuller scope in Numbers 16. Korah, son of Levi, with Dathan and Abihu and some others, were told this (v.9):
"Is it
a small thing to you that the God of
They were intensely provocative to the Lord, by failing to realise the His appointments and holiness, and by profaning the holy: that breaches what is of the essence of holiness.
Such BREACH, it may come to this: either
1) to fail to appreciate holy things in the Lord's service, like the Liberal radicals, who made humanity increasingly the criterion of deity and invented a suitable Christ, garbed with a little history, for the purpose; or
2) to make those holy things so different that you could really ignore them for practical purposes and do what you liked with your life, as in the case of the Barthian movement, where God is so wholly other that actuality for man can become a new and inventive field, spiritual things strangled with a sort of supreme contempt, redefined and reduced in practice - these are branches.
Of what? Of the impurity, the uncleanness which defiles separation
TO,
IN
and FOR the Lord,
and brings in the flesh.
From SUCH things,
separation is always necessary. The congregation of
"So the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the congregation, saying, 'Get away from the tents of Korah...' "
Again, Moses says:
"Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs!"
Notice
"Speak to the congregation, saying 'Get away from the tents of Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram'!"
Their 'strange fire' of unauthorised pretensions was quickly removed from the people, whose 'apostolic' ministrations continued by the Lord's own strict appointment. Moses, like the apostles, was sent. The word of God was sent. The requirements and the authority and the content were sent.
Similarly in Leviticus 10 we read of literal 'strange fire', with Nadab and Abihu playing about with holy things, very much after the style of those Pentecostalists who characteristically breach the commands about what is permissible in the congregation and what is not (as in I Cor.12-14, see A Question of Gifts), so becoming vulnerable to both psychological and even spiritual penetration from other sources than the divine, all too well exhibited in its unabashed liberalities, in rollings on the floor, barking like dogs, unholy mirth, even on occasion while the Bible is being read. But all that is treated in depth in A Question of Gifts, with a key note visible in Psalm 96:1-9, 89:7, I Cor. 14:26, 14:33,37, I Cor. 3:10.
Just as those men penetrated
into the area of worship according to their own sweet will, as if God were not
to interfere with the worship of God, or because liberty in grace meant liberty
from grace, so were they were removed by death, for falsity in the things of
God, in their formal enactment as in prophecy, could bring death to the
presumptuous (cf. Deuteronomy 13). Does not David seek to be kept back from
presumptuous sins (Psalm
While it is of course true that we are no longer ruled in a particular theocracy, the Lord does not change, as He Himself swears (Malachi 3:6), and His moral tenor, principles, truth is not subject to human revisionism. Even what is fulfilled and so no longer binding, does not lack teaching in righteousness (cf. II Timothy 3:16); and the way to be taught in righteousness is to follow the thrust, not to discount it. Accordingly, the very bodies of these men were promptly removed. The fear of the Lord is clean; and though perfect love casts out fear, such as mere terror might dictate, it by no means casts out the healthy reverence and awe towards His name which is apt and appropriate; so that Jesus Himself declared, You are my friends if you do whatever I command you (John 15).
Our present point however is simply this: that separation in principle and with promptitude is here taught. If the issue be deep, difficult of comprehension, then is it not a time for teaching and ministry and understanding; but when it is a matter of doing contrary to what is taught, either BY principles, or IN the word clearly, so that it is no matter of opining but of seeing what is there, then the consequences are not different from Titus 3:10. Questions of pastoral delicacy, where explicit teaching is not involved, may be contemplated in SMR pp. 568ff., and also in a later section of this current presentation.
Separation is getting on with it without playing about, polluting, combining, synthesising... or rebellion, of which the action of Korah, Nathan and Abihu, like that of Saul in his zenith of presumption, was a prime case (I Samuel 15:22-23):
"Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness is an iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king."
Now as we pass from the Old to the New Testament, let us realise this. In both Testaments, the prohibition on plus and minus, adding to and subtracting from the word of God, is intense, beyond all prevarication (Deuteronomy 12:32, 4:2-9, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-22 being some of the indexes to this fact).
In the last case, Revelation, it is the "things" given in the book, to which no man may add: the topics, doctrines - all. So is I Corinthians 14:37 in the same vein: If any man wants to vary specifications form the mouth of God, plus or minus, then
a) what is his Master
Builder’s Licence
Registration No. ( I Corinthians 3:10) ? and
b) since when has be
been an apostle/prophet of the first century - Ephesians
Future Gospel "building" varying from that ALREADY GIVEN (Galatians 1:6-9), and whether by rescinding, befouling or invading the word of God, simply meant that you became an ignoramus or rebel (I Corinthians 14:37, Titus 3:10), ready for demotion or damnation (Matthew 5:17-20, I Peter 2:8-9), as the case might be. In this case of I Peter, it is indeed the focus, that CHRIST is their problem … but in the process, it is at the "word of God" which they stumble, for they are "disobedient to the word".
c)
Indeed, let us repeat with emphasis, so intense (cf. SMR Appendix D, pp. 1175ff.) is the stress on the word of God written
and directive, that it humbles the greatest who break it and teach so, and
raises the least who do it and teach it, to a quite extraordinary degree
(Matthew 5:17-20). Indeed, to break ONE commandment and teach men so is
exceedingly lowering in the judgment and counsel of Christ (Matthew
Deuteronomy and
Revelation, Christ and Moses, speak the same language covenantal purity. Room
for rebellion and plus-minus innovation is zero, precisely.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
We have, to be sure, concerned ourselves with the New Testament not a little, but this is not the major thrust so far. Let us now come to see its completion of the Old Testament testimony concerning separation, always most emphatic in the Old, with more detail and further focus.
Holiness, then, is not a
strained and artificial thing; but integumental to
the Christian body, practice and procedure. Separation is not an abnormal
artificiality - though some make it so, as others deny it with equal carnality
- but essentially a spiritual requisite that depends on the commands, the clean
fear of God and need to get on with His work, His business acceptably, honourably, honestly and without argument (I Peter 2:17,
5:5-10, Psalm 19:9, II Corinthians 12:20-13:7).
1) The Simple Case
of Being Contrary to the Apostolic Teaching
WHICH the Lord Authorised (John
Titus
There is here, in Titus, no protracted nonsense as if we did not know the Lord, or His ways. This is for the liberal and the super-orthodox, who KNOW so much, that it is not enough to know the word of God to determine what is right. There is 'face' and 'place' or even imagined 'special grace'; so that polemics or pussy-footing, fever of the psyche, fear of the results before such people can undoubtedly enter in. The church can be in thrall to concepts and considerations of people and committees, past performance and the like.
In fact, WHAT is written, is the criterion, and if even a SOLOMON is to be made a sort of criterion in discussion, what would have been the case with the ACTUAL Solomon when he flirted with folly after a GREAT CAREER (I Kings 11:30-36).
How is the separation carried out, then, in the case of Titus 3:10? The dissident from the word of the LORD is no more acceptable. He no more continues his aggressive revolt, probably clad in sheepskin clothing over the wolfish reality, than did the sons of Korah: after the first and second admonition. There is a cleavage, not this time of the earth; but between those who will follow the Lord in His word, and those who will not. In Biblical terms, it should be no less sure, no more ambiguous than was the 'separation' imposed on the sons of Korah.
IF people will be helped,
well; if they will mislead, like false soldiers who turn from their commander
and seek to turn others away, there is a monumental ineptitude in harbouring them. As Christ put it to the Pharisees: "IF you were
blind, you would have not sin; but now you say,' We see.' Therefore your sin
remains" - John 9:41.
2) BUT WHAT OF
PASTORAL CONCERN
Pastorally ?
Pastoral sympathy and reasonableness is the mode: this is clear. However the acceptance of scripture over the reasonable run of time, for a reasonable understanding - that is the standard in Christ. To Him, it all returns; His speech, His mouth as of the One `altogether lovely' (Song of Solomon 5:16, cf. Ezekiel 3:3), it speaks truth; and its words will be a steel-sharp divider of things, say what we will: and His words, they are not variable (Revelation 19:11-16, Hebrews 4:12, John 7:17, 12:48, Hebrews 13:8, Matthew 24:35, 7:21-27, I Thessalonians 2:13). Much is sweet, as a gift; yet bitter to earn if earned it could be. Much that is not received, cannot be induced; and the words of Christ, they are such.
Indeed, for One called the Word,
who was with God and was God (John 1:1-3), the `part' that does not speak is
decidedly hard to find... You don't have, by itemisation,
to focus belief on every scripture, as in a muscle flexing program, to be
saved: your understanding alone may have gained only so much. Salvation indeed
is not by scholarship! However if you are (as a matter of fact - II Timothy
2:15-19) saved by Christ Jesus the Lord, the Lord's Christ and not man's, then
you might reasonably be expected to embrace and receive the scripture and not -
the crucial point - to reject it. It is the Lord who opens eyes (Matthew
But let no one change his ground. If it be claimed,
'Oh but I am ignorant!'
Well, yet does a man set himself up as knowledgeable and enter into direct conflict with the word of God, because he knows himself to be ignorant ! Will a person, by nihilistic `faith', rampant irrationality and mesmeric magic, flute existential musics that sack mathematics, purge experience and put a donkey's head on scientific method, or worse, assault the integrity both of the character and of the word of God? ... and so believe organic evolution? Let it be so. It is only one more cultural blasphemy of the mind and spirit, like the abuse of the body. It is no better and has no place.
To enter then into an
adversative relationship bordering on, or at the very brink of war, this is not
the mark of a disciple of a Lord who is - and we revert to Colossians - Lord of
all. Even temporarily, to elect to disbelieve His word is a matter for concern
and then, if need be, correction. Indeed, rejection of His word, as Christ
Himself indicated in terms of criteria, as a practice is not consonant with
continuance. (See John 8:31, 6:66-70, 7:17, 8:44-45; and cf.
SMR pp. 568ff..) Note
however that in the case of chronic rebellion, it is not the Christian who
'dies', as manifest in such words as John 10:27-28,10:9,
Romans 5:1 ff.,
Rebuke ? (Titus 1:9 is in the same letter as
Titus
Those not corrected go
their way; for
"can two walk together except they be agreed" ... ? "If anyone love me,"
says Christ, "he will keep my words" (John
"If any
man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (accursed), says
the apostle. "Maranatha!" (
May the Lord come ), he adds... (
Pastorally however, there
is this distinction: it is one thing to seek to understand, quite another
authoritatively to teach amiss. There is the criterion ( cf.
John
However, with this must go that humility of which Paul spoke: NOTHING which is the SLIGHTEST part in question must be so enforced. NOTHING which is not actually written, or with a certainty unchallengeable, unquestionable entailed by what is written, and in particular nothing which is merely a traditional INTERPRETATION should be so enforced. For all that, while many try to MAKE the word of God teach what they want, what it actually says is not in essence too hard to find. When the question is not this: CAN I MAKE IT TEACH MY WILL? Or the will of my pet tradition? But WHAT DOES THE WORD OF GOD, AT THE VERY LEAST, CERTAINLY TEACH? There is nothing too hard.
With
meat, that is hard and challenging concepts needing much scriptural background
and understanding, there is room for chewing. That is why the Westminster
Confession says so well, on the topic of predestination, that care and
circumspection should be exercised. It is easy to blunder into philosophic
pitfalls while 'carrying on' about deep things. It is better to take what is
written, assuming nothing, on the basis of philosophic assumptions; and then to
discuss for the purposes of understanding, in another category.
3) General case of cleanness
Pastoral Care is important,
yet love not merely hopes all things,
but rejoices in the truth
We have already noted the case in Ephesians 4-5. "Uncleanness" is in Leviticus and Ezekiel so strong a charge, has so many ramifications from leprosy to arrogance, that it is inexcusable to pretend that "ALL" uncleanness (Ephesians 5:3), where covetousness and fornication figure, means "NOT ALL" uncleanness. (Cf. The Biblical Workman, Ch.4 on this.)
Similarly in
Ezekiel 44:23-27,6-13, it is transparently clear that scarifying concepts and
rules of 'clean' and 'unclean' signify the canons of
purity, truth and as a criterion, with the word of God Himself, not merely cognised, but applied; not only recognised,
but appropriated. Here is the acme and criterion for all judgment (Ezekiel
44:23-24, Isaiah 6:5, Deuteronomy
ALL "uncleanness". That is what it says. Miriam became leprous and was thus
put out of the camp in view of her failure to realise
where authority lay - not in Moses per se, but in what the LORD had seen fit to
appoint. The leprosy symbolised it as the Lord
proclaimed: "If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be
ashamed seven days!" (Numbers
Hence in Ephesians 4:30 we
find that
"no corrupt word" is to be spoken, but what gives grace to the hearers; that the Holy
Spirit must not be "grieved", so that "all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour,
and evil speaking"
is to be "put
away" (in itself,
a form of separation both TO the Lord and FROM what grieves Him), while kind
and forgiving hearts are needed. He then proceeds to contrast.
Then we come to Ephesians 5:1, where Paul adds the crucial word: "THEREFORE". THIS FOLLOWS; so that the preceding, just examined, has explicit contextual force. What then does he say now? This: "Be therefore imitators of GOD, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also has loved us and has given Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling aroma." BUT, on the other hand, what is to be avoided is paralleled and distinguished: "FORNICATION AND ALL UNCLEANNESS OR COVETOUSNESS" - not even to be named. He proceeds with more, contrasting it all with "giving of thanks". The next THEREFORE follows in 5:7: "BE NOT THEREFORE PARTAKERS WITH THEM." It succeeds further analysis of the position.
Do not SEIZE people, or things, money or power for yourself: that way there is that of the "idolater", with no kingdom inheritance. The contrast continues in 5:8-10 between what is darkness, which they formerly inhabited, and "light" - with the fruit of the Spirit in "all goodness, righteousness, and truth", and this while one is "finding out what is acceptable to the Lord."
In the midst of this clean and unclean, holy and unholy, good and bad series of contrasts, starting with avoiding grieving the spirit and continuing to the fruit of the spirit, we find two injunctions on separation.
1) 5:7 - "THEREFORE DO NOT BE PARTAKERS WITH THEM".
2) 5:11 - "HAVE NO FELLOWSHIP WITH THE UNFRUITFUL WORKS OF DARKNESS".
If this is not clear, it is difficult to know what would be. ALL UNCLEANNESS
v means just what it says and
v in context, has the broadest parameters, just as it
v
always
did in the Old Testament base on which Paul builds, in Christ.
v What does this mean ? In practice, it requires that persistent, chronic pursuit of what is Biblically defined as unclean be a base of separation. It could be by disciplinary measures, or if the church itself is sold to it, it means leaving the church. It does not mean leaving it before the due process is done to investigate; but there is zero room for making a long story out of clear scriptures. It does not mean abandoning some poor soul who is in the grip of vice; but it does mean separating where the godly principles themselves are changed, or the steps of remedy are not followed. Actual rebellion and free flouting must not be acceptable in principle or in practice; and any extenuations are for pastoral support, not moral example, far less exhibition.
Is this practised ?
Or do we find people acting as pundits, spiritual pundits, pronouncing 'judgments', assessments which have only their judgmental 'experience' as base, unclean with arrogance or unseemliness in the midst of the Lord's people; while other things, clearly contrary to divine mandate are allowed to suffer, to slide, to slip into a meaningful oblivion, man being in precedence and the word of God in ... separation. If this be the case, what do we then have?
THIS is also separation: but it is FROM and not TO the Lord!
There WILL BE separation: it is only a question of
a) to, and
b) for, and
c) within
WHAT!
Let it be then to the Lord, while Christians practise humility and circumspection to one another, within the Lord, not grieving the Spirit of the Lord; and holy separation TO the Lord, not departing at all from His clear commandments, either by ADDING unprovable ideas to what God saw fit clearly to convey, nor by SUBTRACTING demonstrable reality from what is written.
LOVE, HUMILITY and HOLINESS in the life of CHRIST within, constrained, contained and yet unbelievably FREE because the Creator has this remarkable construction: it is like driving on the correct side of the road - Keep to what is given, and your freedom of art and wonder is amazing.
Depart,
and you are separated in the end, from your very life.
4) THE SPECIAL CASE OF APPARENT GODLINESS
Let us adapt here an
excerpt from SMR (pp.
923ff.), in the context of a 'united
enshrining what the Council of
the Pope also having spoken of the 'one' religion it ...
Is the Reformation
and the anti-Reformation a common heritage ? Is the despatch
of corpses by burning, and the experience of being burnt, a common heritage ?
Is it so when the very Canons of Trent remain unchanged, and 'infallible' ex
cathedra popes have called to the heavens to sanctify their desire to
exterminate... extirpate...
any who dare diverge from
their pontifical, dynamic dogmatism in
doctrine ?
Ever new, this dogma reaches to the very heavens, where last century they installed Mary complete with a sinless life, having loaded her with blasphemous titles such as redemptrix (i. e. female redeemer, versus Acts 4:12, Hebrews 9:12-28, 10:26-29, Luke 2:23-24 with Leviticus 12:8 and Hebrews 9:15; Psalm 49:6-7,15, Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8-9, Hosea 13:14, Isaiah 42:8, 43:11, 44:6,23-24, 49:7, 45:18-22, 53:10-12, Psalm 89:6, Philippians 2:1-11), queen of heaven and sundry pagan insults to the very name of God and indeed to Mary (Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:15-30) who did nothing to earn this abuse of her name.
Indeed, taking
the name of the Lord is vain is not commended (Exodus 20:7, Acts 4:11-12) and
inserting another into its wonder, splendour and
prerogatives is desolation and disaster (Isaiah 26:13, 1 Timothy 2:5-6,
Ephesians 1:10, Hebrews 10:20,29, Matthew 12:46-50, 7:21-27, 23:8-12, I Peter
1:18-23, II Corinthians 11:1-4,13-15). The category of redeemer of the soul of
man is in these places, by the word of God, shown to be exclusive to God, to a
non-sinner, and once again
It is untruth so profound that greater error is not thinkable. It is INFINITELY astray in confusing creature and Creator in the very face of divine condemnation of just such things, reiterated many times. God's name is God's; God's word is God's; God's redemption is God's; Christ's blood is Christ's, not something ecclesiastically manufacturable. He shed it in history, not in inner rooms (Matthew 24:24-26). We are in fact WARNED of this precise error by Christ Himself, in the context of false Christs. What IS a false Christ but someone who acts as if he were Christ, or uses His nomenclature - such as "God Almighty on earth" (Roman Catholic New York Catechism), when he is sinful man in need of redemption.
Is then political
pragmatism and religious innovation (versus Galatians 1:6-9 which damns it) in
Do we cast the beauty of freedom from the threefold papal crown with all its political assertions and worldly, carnal pretensions (versus Philippians 2:8; 2:20-22; Matthew 5:5; 18:1-5, 20:24,27-28, 23:11 Ezekiel 31:10-18, II Corinthians 10:5, Isaiah 2:10-11, 1 John 2:27, Luke 22:26, John 13:14-15!) into one common pot with rule of the this pseudo-`spiritual' pomp OVER the temporal, of Pope over prince (verses John 18:36): as the accepted tradition of ALL!
This rugged, and all but comic craze, sent Europe almost reeling for centuries as Emperor and Pope pursued their unseemly quest for dominance, with grandiose papal bulls scouring the heavens for further means of higher exaltation of that name which is not "above every name": since it was never that of Jesus (Acts 4:11-12, Philippians 2:9); and has not been so elevated, since no pope did ever, leaving the form of God, take the form of a man, a servant, to the point of becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:5-9), the cited Biblical preliminary for such exaltation of Him who alone will be exalted in that day (Isaiah 2:10-11).
It is this same Jesus, who sinless, unlike every pope (1 Peter 2:22-25) or invention of the pope, or of his dogmas, did not need to first pay for His own sins (Hebrews 7:27), as do all sinners, who must be redeemed, men and women (Romans 3:23), all other members of the human race whatsoever: but by the body of His flesh through death redeemed all sinners who are His, those wholly dependent on His unblemished act (Colossians 1:22-23, Romans 5:1-10, 8:32, John 10:26, 8:24). That act depends, as Colossians there shows, on His unique post as co-Creator of all that was created, and His having all the fulness of the Godhead dwell in Him (Colossians 1:19-23, 2:9).
Indeed, He "in all things has
the pre-eminence" (Philippians
Why THE
PRE-EMINENCE? The reason is here scripturally stated in Colossians 1:
Because it so pleased the Father that this Person, with His plenary place
before and with God, should so humble Himself and so act, in life and in death
on earth. His is no meretricious exaltation: He was God, and HE humbled Himself
to become a servant. He did not exalt Himself to become a Lord, from the status
of a creature; but, quite the reverse. As God, He assumed the status of man, so
that He might bring us back to God, from whom He came (John 6:62,
This in its magnificence of uncreated humility, a common heritage with pope and emperor challenging and humiliating each other, in the way so famous from the medieval era, so `infallibly' enshrined within the Roman church's structure of power and concept and Trent itself: is this `common' to all! Is this wonder of poverty of spirit to be enmeshed with unquenchable self-exaltation! Is black white, is yes, no; is infinite, finitude!
Will unity then come
because
Where there is room for
such an example of illusory European `unity', there is room for a further, a
more developed illustration of the unity resolution. Any makeshift mischief may
be `found' to be mandatory and obvious, to bring
Where `ideals' for this
Common Market are formulated in high-sounding words, where in fact there is such
a morass of contrariety and divergence, from a history of such still unresolved
terror and evil,
not formally repented of... what would the REPARATIONS BE, for the countless
slain of the INQUISITION ?... such ideals can still be
`interpreted' as may seem best for the great objectives. (See SMR pp. 950-959, 1033-1041.) Interpretation will increasingly be
updated, till even
If scripture is now almost routinely, rankly interpreted by contradiction, how much more are mere historical facts alone and vulnerable, without Him! Where God is not in explicit rule, then man, with such dominion as the Common Market countries envisage (and with first increasing, but then decreasing resistance from Britain as 1992 approached), can invent any form of control, as if it were the very criterion of freedom.
Indeed, such activity has long since ceased to be merely comic and tragic in Russia, where religious freedom `of course' had to abide by the `required'... criteria of the glory of the State and the necessity of Communism. For a time such corruption can seem to prevail, before God countervails; but the lesson on temporary obliteration of truth in the interests of convenience, suppression and distortion remains. This propaganda may now be aided by misplaced quasi-morals about `ancient hatreds', so that repentance of those who have misused Christ can be made in effect, near to illegal to call for!
Miscalling unchanged facts is no substitute for repentance, nor political fantasy an obliteration of historical reality. Solidarity with sin of any kind may indeed be forgiven - if repented of; but refusal to face such things, backed by law, written or unwritten, this challenges all weakness to one thing: SUBMIT and BE SILENT! Such `guidance' of official corruption, however, must never be accepted, lest the muscle of its temporary might should grow into the moral void it would leave, and find no apparent bounds! (Cf. Revelation 12:11, Isaiah 56:10, Exodus 20:5-6.)
The
Its delusive force is even
more shown in its failure to stand, its turning elsewhere in
A comic caricaturist of its pretensions either of liberty or purity, granted its impurity even in theory, where individuals decree that individuals do not matter, and tell others what they OUGHT to do, while morals are pilloried: it is mere work of imagination, itself made slave of witless conformity. It is one more machined version of power-seeking, man-domineering, Christ-betraying delusion. (See SMR Index - Communism.) Its "messiah" is a "christ" now called the people, whose sufferings are real enough, but whose purity is not; its redemption is their deliverance to tyrants freakish in absolutism even in the raging torments to be found in earlier history, and its liberty is that of being ruled by a "lord" with special privileges by sea-side, in food and in power to do what it will. With Romanism, it is one more perversion of the teaching of Christ, using this and changing that, till novelty bursts like a slum from better hopes.
As religion, all these
things are power-deluded, from
Let us hear
"God has made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
That last word, "inventions", could be and has been rendered: "SCHEMES", or "DEVICES". Adverse to creation, averse to the command and post and gift of the Creator is the thrust of it; just as in the verse, the term appears as the adversative, flaring up as contrary to the "upright". UPRIGHT ... BUT!
Without the return to the Lord, this is the way of the world. It is not however the way of His Church, and those who are His belong in this grand structure of Spirit, faith and salvation in Jesus Christ, not in some alien body, adapting for survival, strength or lust (II Corinthians 11:1-13, Ephesians 2:20-22, 5:1-7, Galatians 1:6-9, Revelation 18:4, Romans 16:17). From such they are instructed - Turn away!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the details on Roman
religion, these appear in Chapter 10, pp. 1032-1088H, 911 ff., and elsewhere as shown in SMR
Index on
B)
MORE BROADLY IN THIS DIMENSION
We find here II Timothy 3:1-5 which includes:
"This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves... having a form of godliness, but denying its power: from such turn away."
Hollow godlessness masquerading as substantial godliness is excluded. You leave it. You separate. "From such, turn away!" (II Timothy 3:5), is not a suggestion but a command.
I Timothy 6:3, dealing with one topic, announces a principle which is of broader application:
"IF ANYONE TEACHES OTHERWISE, AND DOES NOT CONSENT TO WHOLESOME WORDS, EVEN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH ACCORDS WITH GODLINESS - he is proud, knowing nothing" - and indeed in a class of those "depraved, and deprived of the truth".
The standard of reference is the point here, and the application in this case may have certain particulars, but the base of the negation of fellowship is the aspect crucial to our task.
Ø
WHAT DO
YOU DO ?
Ø
From such turn away.
II Timothy 3:5 declares for the Christian what is to be done: "From such withdraw yourself."
What would you expect? The principle is clear: the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, these are the criterion. What do you do when men teach otherwise ? Withdraw yourself. Do you do this by taking communion with them ? Nothing could be further from the truth, nor a more comic caricature of it.
Again,
do
sheep need to be told to turn away from wolves: and such in sheep's clothing
being forecast, it takes no great astuteness to make one's spiritual abode
in... other arms, or paws (Matthew
Of immediate confirmation
is II
John 9-10,
which excludes those who "do not abide in the doctrine of Christ".
This is a simple case of not ABIDING in and not HAVING the doctrine of Christ.
This includes the word of God (I John
As to him who does NOT love, this person "does not know God": I John 4:8. Similarly, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." This then is the doctrine of Christ. Departure from it spells departure of His people from those who depart, in whichever way it is enacted - through discipline within the church, or departure from what was one, or lapses into rebellion as a body.
Our God is real, sovereign, plans, programs, does; dies, has risen bodily in human form; will return; has spoken for thousands of years in a book now complete (Revelation 22); and needs no-one to re-define, re-enact or do anything for Him. He needs you to capitulate and to come to Him in repentance, ready to obey. Not in mindless oblivion, but on the contrary with a deep conviction and comprehension which comes only when your Creator and you are at peace, and His word is your guide voluntarily, as His word is the programming direction that makes your body even able to live.
Again, II Thessalonians 2:15 tells the church to stand fast in all the apostle and his peers have given; but in the next chapter, verse 6, we are told what to do about those of different persuasion: "But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw form every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." Again, we are in a practical situation in which a particular variety of the disease, departure form the commanded ways, is in view. This time it goes to those walking in a sort of hyped up supersensitive expectation of Christ's return, which does not take account of the fact that there is much to occur first, and that responsibility and presumption are quite different things.
The point however is this: they are COMMANDED to keep to the teaching, and TOLD what to do when it is contravened; and indeed the case in view is slight, so that it is MERE withdrawal of fellowship in hope, rather than a higher severance. Yet it is BASED on this: departure from what has been commanded. In such a case, the word used is "withdraw"! It may in some other particular instance be covered by other and more severe sanctions found elsewhere in the Bible, but EVEN in this relatively mild one of confusion and failure to heed wisely a personal discipline in life, there is this, withdraw - in love, but IN FACT! It has therapeutic intentions; but the therapy is AS PRESCRIBED. Truth is not dispensable and love does not toy, but seeks return.
What would you, again,
expect when Isaiah
v "To the law and the prophets. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them."
Or this:
v
"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the
companion of fools will be destroyed"
- Proverbs 13:20.
Even more
stringent is this principle:
v "GO FROM the presence of a foolish man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge" … Proverbs 14:7.
As for wisdom, "the fear of the
Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom" (Proverbs
- "The commandment is a lamp;
and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of
life" (
(or those who are given to change, 24:21).
Don't meddle with
them ? Therefore don't worship and walk and have fellowship with them, for
theirs is the wrong way and to be no subject for commingling. Can two walk together
except they be agreed! comes the divine expostulation (Amos 3:3, cf. 3:7).
Indeed, more: we are to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3, Thayer's Greek Dictionary), dealing with dividers, acting to confute and separate as the context shows in its reference to the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11, cf. Titus 1:9, 3:10, ); and to strive together for the faith of the gospel (Philippians 1:27, and op.cit.), for the DEFENCE of which, the apostle as example, is SET (Philippians 1:7,17), yes even amidst tricksters, false brethren, 'changers': knowing that the Lord, even Jesus Christ, bound the whole word of God with extraordinary emphasis and the strongest possible exhortation (Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:26, II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 3:16, I Corinthians 2:9-13, 14;27, Matthew 7:21-27).
Titus
The word of God is full of such exhortations, general, specific, general principles applied to specific cases, exclusions: rather like good hygiene. If you grasp the point in the first, it is always easier to see it at all point along the way. It is then no real burden, but more like common sense. SEEING the sense of it, however, depends on BEING in the kingdom where you SEE these things (John 3 - as Christ told Nicodemus). CHURCHES meanwhile should simply both see and obey.
In the Old Testament also there are numerous examples of people who should have known better NOT heeding the call of a prophet. An awful example is that of young Joash, res