P. 1
The Spirit of Christ--An Answer to Liberalism

The Spirit of Christ--An Answer to Liberalism

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by dlee7067
Many believe to have the spirit of Christ means we love and forgive those actively engaged in sin even if they are impenitent, that is accept their sin. What is the truth?
Many believe to have the spirit of Christ means we love and forgive those actively engaged in sin even if they are impenitent, that is accept their sin. What is the truth?

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: dlee7067 on Apr 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial No-derivs


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The Spirit of Christ—An Answer to Liberalism As a result of an article I wrote not too long ago I was more or less

accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage (a manmade invention that is a misnomer and a thing unknown in the Bible as anything other than sin) and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ. There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of right and wrong. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30). It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it was and is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him and love him and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really! Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore in the next few verses he warns those cities of what lies ahead in the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum who he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV) When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach what were they sent preaching? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said "unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father. In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts by Peter's preaching that Jesus was indeed the Christ they asked "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens Luke records Paul's

preaching there saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV) But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you live based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe. For them to be right about Paul several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17). (2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles recorded by Luke then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history then what about the book of Luke itself, why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books. (3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him (where did this wisdom come from, who gave it to him— DS), has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ his detractors to the contrary not withstanding. Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and lay claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles as well as Peter's and all of Paul's and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How? Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to

the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about Christ and the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John how can we believe the things John wrote for he might have been deceived about those things as well. Furthermore, if this James that is mentioned in Gal. 2:9 is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings as well as John's then come into question. I guess of course one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem. You do see do you not where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it. This liberal crowd who want to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV) Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation. Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality (he will be pleased with gay marriage), abortion, etc. because it would be intolerant not to be and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They say "do be deceived." Paul said not to be. They claim Christ is on their side and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern day liberal?

Now how about the spirit of Christ in his own personal being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV) Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Now I ask again after quoting these passages was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience. Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed) is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that? Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about right and wrong than God does, as long as I think my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->