Going By Your Conscience?

Are you justified in obeying your conscience?  Can it be wrong?  Is it innate and inborn or developed and nurtured?   Do we inherit it or is it God-given because we are in the image of God?  I posit that we do not instantly know right and wrong from birth ("Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies" [Ps. 58:3]).  The conscience is different in each individual and may be destroyed or muffled by ignoring it or highly fine-tuned by obeying it when we say we have a sensitive conscience.  The criminal in jail for stealing may condemn someone for "stealing" his cigarettes.

Jiminy Cricket said to always obey your conscience.  This only is safe if our conscience is edified by the Word of God as Martin Luther testified to the Pope and Charles V at the Diet of Worms:  "...my conscience is held captive to the Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."  It is no excuse to claim your conscience approves, because it can be wrong or if you have a clear conscience it means God is pleased with you--the Word of God is the standard, not you nor your conscience.

R.. C. Sproul defines conscience: The inner awareness or consciousness of right and wrong and the ability to apply sets of standards or norms to concrete situations.  This may be right and may be wrong.  Do all people know the same sense of right and wrong?  Does it happen at once or do we reach an age of reckoning or accountability that God demands we choose Him or the ways of the world?   Some people let their religious beliefs or convictions interfere with their conscience and violate it and become fanatics for a cause.  Conscience does convict us and God speaks through it:  "I speak the truth in Christ ...  my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 9:1).

The very essence of sin is to do what you know is wrong: "..to him who knows to do right and wrong, to him it is sin" (Rom. 14:23).  Isaiah 7:15  says that the child will one day be able to distinguish good from evil.  I deduce this means that it is developed over time and can be seared, scarred, hardened, or ignored because he reaches that time of the decision to go one way or the other.

What I see the conscience as is not a set of standards, but the ability to develop them and it is part of being in the image of God. Good advice from Paul:  "I strive to keep my conscience clear before God and before man" (Acts 24:16).   An analogy is that we are born with the ability to speak, but must develop and nurture or train and practice to perfect it.  God simply doesn't expect much from a young conscience as the well-refined one.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

How Can Grace Be Irresistible?

Some believers sincerely deny irresistible grace, wrongly assuming it makes God look like a despot and we are merely robots.  If it wasn't for the grace of God, none of us would believe!  It's grace all the way; God saw no merit in us to warrant salvation, neither presalvation work nor preparation to qualify us, and nothing that merits it, which would be the beginning of salvation by works, as the Catholic adds works to faith and merit to grace, distorting the way of salvation, by grace alone, through Christ alone, in Christ alone and only God getting the glory--"Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).

Rome erroneously sees faith as a work (the Council of Trent declared in 1546 that sola fide or through faith alone, was anathema), but we are not saved by works!  Man is incurably addicted to doing something for his salvation (cf. John 6:28-29,  "...What can we do, to do the works of God?  This is the work of God, to believe in Him whom He has sent").  Faith is God's work in us, but our act, God doesn't believe for us.

Now if you object to God being overwhelming or irresistible, think of a young lad who vows never to like girls or a monk who vows not to marry and suddenly God has other intentions or plans!   The change their tune pretty quickly: They cannot deny acting willingly even though it wasn't their plan; it was like getting an offer they couldn't refuse.  Celibacy is a gift of God and not everyone can make it without a mate to help them ("The LORD will create a new thing on earth--the woman will protect the man," says Jeremiah 31:22).

The Scriptural support is given in Romans 5:21 that says, "grace reigns through righteousness."  Grace is sovereign and God will save whom He desires to save according to Romans 9:16 saying, "Not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."  Zechariah 4:6 also says, "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD."   If salvation is a monergistic or one-way, unilateral endeavor or work, and not a cooperation or synergistic work, then it has to be irresistible in effect. God gives us an offer we can't refuse!  Rome claims man merely "cooperates" with God to get saved (making room for some merit that we deserve to be saved in effect), or what is ultimately making man able to save himself!   [Our calls can be effective or noneffective but when God calls it never falls on deaf ears--do you think Lazarus had a choice in being raised from the dead?]  It can be called the efficacious calling of God that quickens or kindles faith in us as we are regenerated in the Spirit.

Arminians believe that faith precedes regeneration and is the cause of it. The Reformed position is that we are elected "unto faith" and not because of it.  They believe that God elects us because He merely foresees who will believe.  Romans 8:29-30 militates against this view and clearly demonstrates that this so-called "prescient" view is erroneous.  1 John 5:1 in the ESV says that those who believe have been born of God (past tense) and this verifies the doctrine.  2 Thess. 2:13 also militates against Arminianism:  "...He has chosen you unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit [N.B. coming first!] and belief in the truth." John 6:44 says, "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws [woos] him."  If you came to Christ on your own, you probably left on your own too!  The word to woo (Elko in Greek) in the verse means to drag and not just to entice or lead. God can make even make the unwilling willing!

 God doesn't offer to save us--He saves us!  Anything less would be limiting the plenipotence (omnipotence) of God. "Who makes you to differ? What do you have that you didn't receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7).  We were no more worthy, sincere, nor moral to merit salvation, but were chosen "according to His purpose and grace." Jesus declared our helplessness to believe in our own strength, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (cf. John 15:5).  

In conclusion, we should, therefore, affirm the primacy of grace, which is the sine qua non of faith (without which it doesn't exist or necessary and sufficient).  Rome believes grace is necessary, but not sufficient to work regeneration--we merely cooperate and are made able to save ourselves by merit added to grace.  God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11) and we have no claim on God--He didn't have to save anyone and our destiny is ultimately in His hands (Eph. 1:4). "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16). "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14). Soli Deo Gloria!

Drawing The Line

Where do human rights and religious freedom conflict?  Many Christians are against gay marriage and rightly so, for it is not biblical (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9) nor sanctioned as God's plan for man.  But all humans have rights bestowed by God, such as the right to survive which includes the right to look for work or to eat.  We are all sinners and it would be like saying you don't want to serve an alcoholic or a felon.

One cannot deny basic rights conferred by God because said person is a sinner who offends you (this is not promoting or approving their lifestyle).   It would only be prejudice to refuse some service at a restaurant because everyone has a right to eat and this doesn't conflict with any doctrine or teaching of Scripture--all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity as they are all in the image of God, even though marred and tarnished.  Now if the government told a preacher he had to perform a gay marriage, he has the right to refuse--but he may do at his peril and lose his privilege to marry!  He must be willing to pay the price for standing up for right and wrong (we believe in absolute right and wrong--some things are always right, some always wrong).

 No one should be forced to participate in gay marriage in any way that makes him an accessory such as making the wedding cake or taking pictures either (if this is interpreted as their endorsing it like having his name on it or getting publicity).  Why? This clearly goes against sound doctrine and is evil  (male and female He created them ... and said that it was very good). The freedom of religion is not absolute--one cannot say that he has the right of polygamy in America or that he is cannibalistic, for instance.  But all rights have limits (one's rights end where another person's begin): one cannot yell "fire" in a theater either. One must be very careful in legislating that could cause discrimination because that is morally wrong.

But the constitution guarantees the free practice of religion and it cannot restrict its free exercise or force someone into a creed or practice.  Forcing someone to be an accomplice in evil is clearly going over the line morally; I am not a homophobe and do not even object to gays in the military as long as logistical problems are resolved, no one is forced to get "intimate" with them, and no one's privacy is invaded.  But the government crosses the line in forcing the military to "celebrate" or even associate with gay pride in the service which I interpret as "endorsing" it.  They have a right to pride, but not in making me an accessory or accomplice.

In conclusion, the example of a caterer supplying cake to the wedding being interpreted as "endorsing" it (i.e., putting our name to it or making the news or getting publicity--note the example that Paul brings up about the meat sacrificed to idols--for conscience's sake don't ask) would be wrong, but just supplying food or cake to any sinner is not a sin because that is not "endorsing" it.  Let each act according to their own conscience, but if they act in civil disobedience, they must suffer the consequences.   You have to draw the line somewhere:  everyone could be considered an indirect accessory, even the truck driver that brought the dough, but when they "endorse" it in a legal sense we draw the line--we cannot be forced to give our approbation or imprimatur to evil.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Parameters Of Sin..

You can't always determine whether some habit or activity is a sin per se, but anything not mentioned specifically or implied in Scripture is not sin and we shouldn't get a guilt complex--Satan likes to accuse and condemn, but the Holy Spirit demonstrates an open-and-shut case without a doubt and there "is no condemnation for those who in Christ Jesus" according to Romans 8:1.  What is the nature of sin, but to be a violation of the nature of God--sin cannot coexist with the divine nature of God in His holiness, just like matter and antimatter.

Sin estranges us from God (one need only read Isa. 59:2 says, "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God...."  Alienation of affection or a broken relationship is the idea--we can't get along or agree with others about it and make enemies.  We are God's enemies as sinners!  Sin also enslaves us because we are the servant and slave of sin before we get set free in Christ (cf. Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall have no dominion over you..., and "If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed," says John 8:36).

We are dead to sin as believers and under the Law of Moses (any thought, word, action, omission, or desire contrary to the Law is a sin).  The Law has lost power to condemn and judge us as believers--we are no longer "under the Law" according to Romans 6:14. Does this activity enslave us, do we control it or does it control us?  Moderation is the key, anything in excess might be a sin or going overboard (C. H. Spurgeon was asked when he'd give up smoking:  He replied, "When it becomes a problem!").  Idolatry is one of the essences of sin and putting anything in the place of God or making a god out of it is sinful--the key is to keep God in His rightful place in our lives and always first and foremost in priority--not just important, but first place.

It is not our job to convict our brother of his sins, but it is the sole role of the Holy Spirit.  The preacher is not to get personal or use someone as an example without their permission if he is a member of the church.  Some people may say that smoking is not a sin, but it certainly estranges us and enslaves us just like a vice or sinful habit would, but I am not on a crusade against smokers, who may be trying to quit and are aware of their shortcomings and failures.  Something may be sin to one person and not to another: "For whatever is not of faith is sin," says Rom. 14:23 and James 4:17l says, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it., it is sin for them."   These verses imply a conscience, though not explicitly stated.

The only sin against the body is adultery according to Paul in 1 Cor. 6:18. Therefore to say that smoking is a sin because it's bad for you is fallacious reasoning, and one could go on to say that meat is a sin because it causes heart problems due to its cholesterol, or being out of shape and not exercising is a sin because we should glorify God in our bodies.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Why Is Preaching Unique?

A disclaimer:  I am not anti-intellectual or anti-scholastic, but realize God uses all types of personalities and people.   I am not trained in what is called homiletics in seminaries and, though it is considered a what I like to call a no-no to read a sermon, unless you can read like Jonathan Edwards or the Senate chaplain Peter Marshall,  I have witnessed the Spirit's unction regardless--it is the Spirit doing the work, not us.

The prophetic preacher knows how to make the comfortable feel ill at ease, and the needy and poor in spirit to get the good news of encouragement.  There is something for everyone: that's why Jesus said to feed His sheep and His lambs.  We never get tired of the milk of the Word, though only the mature can handle the meat.  The preacher never gets tired of repeating things because even Paul didn't.  It is good to shock the sheep out of their comfort zone and so they are challenged by the message, and not be satisfied only in an academic manner.

Only upon mastering his theology and honing it to perfection, being immersed in the Word and prepared by prayer can he communicate effectively (with illustrations that make you identify with the sermon) what God has laid on his heart and deliver the goods, having a purpose in his preaching.

Preaching is more a thing of the spiritual health of the preacher and not his intellect, though God uses what intellect he has (we are to love God with our whole mind), it is necessary, but not sufficient.  "Where is the wise person?  Where is the teacher of the law?  Where is the philosopher of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor. 1:20).  Paul learned on Mars Hill (Acts 17) that he was to proclaim the gospel and not debate it, that it wasn't an intellectual thing:  He then resolved to know nothing (i.e., keep the main thing the main thing and not to major in the minors), but Christ and Christ crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2).

To say:  "You are a great speaker!" (George Whitefield was known for his oratory, but he had the Spirit too) is not really a compliment, unless one has the concurrent or simultaneous unction of the Holy Spirit.  Discern whether he has the Spirit, not whether he is a brain, or worse yet, an intellectual parading his learning  Some parishioners are impressed with their preacher's brains, not their relationship with Christ or their wisdom--they are to be men of God.  If he wants to be known for his brains, he should really be a prof in a seminary.


There is a difference between being spoon-fed the facts in an encyclopedic or systematic way and listening to a Spirit-led sermon--Jesus didn't lecture (you may get a lot of info, but nothing practical to apply), but preached and taught because the sheep don't need a lecture but a Savior.  If an unbeliever can do it, such as lecturing, it is not preaching.  The preacher should be able to assert divine inspiration or illumination to be "led by the Spirit" to expound on a message as a "word from the Lord"  (if he doesn't recognize the leading of the Spirit he has no business in the pulpit and should at least wonder if that is his gift).

They can get strong impressions and illuminations or even feel a burden they can't resist sharing.  People want to hear what God has been speaking to you about, not just what the so-called scholars have to say (they may be good to cross-reference, mention in passing,  or footnote though)--the better we know our Lord the better we will be able to preach, but learning to depend on the unction or anointing of the Spirit is paramount to good, sound preaching.

We should never attempt to preach in the flesh or without God's leading ("As many as are led by the Spirit are sons of Gods," which implies to be "filled with the Spirit").  The good preacher knows his audience, class, or congregation and where they are spiritual.  He doesn't preach over their heads, nor try to "wow" them with his scholarship and appear pedantic.  He may have to condescend or reach down to their level, but not be patronizing or insulting to them.  It is always a fine line to walk and he is bound to offend some no matter what.

Some preachers never preach well enough to get rejected and just gather crowds not families, which are bodies of Christ. The aim is not to be popular but to speak in the name of the Lord.  He cannot please them all and even Christ didn't go for quantity, but quality!  Only a man of God can say,  "I was led by the Lord to expound on so-and-so or such-and-such."  This doesn't mean he had some mystical experience, but that he knows the Lord well enough to recognize His leading and impressions created to do something about a subject matter.

Being called a gentleman and a scholar is not a spiritual complement, because the Pharisees were scholars and knew what the famous revered rabbis had to say too.  On the other hand, Jesus spoke like no other man to His day and didn't footnote, but dared to claim His own authority (He would indirectly quote by saying, "You have heard it said...")--He didn't say, "Thus says the Lord," but "I say unto you." He dared to be different and broke the mold, thus raising the bar for preaching and prophesying.  His listeners should be eager to hear "a word from the Lord." If he has the gift, he may even prophesy during the sermon.  In the last days, a word from the LORD will be rare: See Amos 8:11.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Learning a Christian Worldview

"No nation has survived the loss of its gods" (George Bernard Shaw).

A worldview is a way of interpreting your world, such as purpose in living, where you came from, and where you are going--our role in the world-system--questions such as:  Is there right and wrong? Is there a God?  What is the meaning of life? How do you interpret reality?  There is a current war of ideas in the world:  Marxism (basically an economic understanding, but also totalitarian, aiming to establish a domination of the proletariat or working class and abolishing the bourgeoisie in class warfare), secular-humanism (basically that man is the measure of all things, up with man down with God, or deifying man and dethroning God, and reality starts from man), New Age (the idea of cosmic consciousness or supra-consciousness, being in touch with the inner god), postmodernism (founded by Nietzsche as the patron saint,  saying that "God is dead" or irrelevant and we can live without Him), Islam (believing the future belongs to Islam and being bent on world hegemony), and  Christianity (Christ's kingdom is in the hearts of man and not of this world and the church is a power to transform and preserve society) itself--the first five have one thing in common in that they oppose Christianity.  Any viewpoint that doesn't start with God is evil!

We are to discern good and evil to be able to handle the meat of the Word (Heb. 5:14).  Once we get saved, the battle has just begun and we enter Satan's turf as the god of this age.  But the battle is the Lord's  and as John said in 1 John 4:4, "Greater is he who is in you, than he who is in the world."  Paul says in Rom. 8:31, "If God be for us, who can be against us?"  We have to know our enemy according to Sun Tzu in The Art of War because he believes in dividing and conquering, and playing mind games, and waging psychological warfare.

"For we are not ignorant of his schemes" (cf. 2 Cor. 2:11).   Don't give him a beachhead, but arm yourself with a divine viewpoint to understand what he is doing.  Do not fight among yourselves as Lord Nelson noticed his troops doing when he said, "Gentlemen, remember, the enemy is over there!"  In Walt Kelly's cartoon Pogo, he says, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."   We can be our own worst enemy because the three enemies are the world-system itself, the devil and his minions, and our own flesh or sin nature (cf. 1 John 2:15 -16).  The government is not the enemy, for all the powers that be are established of God (Rom. 13:1).

We are exhorted to "hate that which is evil and cling to that which is good" in Rom. 12:9 and in 1 Thess. 5:21-22 it says, "...hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."  [which means that when evil appears, resist it.]  Only those who have their senses trained to "discern good and evil" can digest the meat of the word and the infants in Christ can only live on the milk of the Word according to Hebrews 5:14.  We need to love God with our whole minds and not be indolent or anti-intellectual--we are to use the minds God has given us (Mark 12:30).

 We are in the world, but not of it according to Scripture (John 15:19 says, "You are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world").  If we love the world-system or cosmos of Satan, the love of the Father is not in us--indeed he entices us with many delicacies of the world to compete with our spiritual appetites.  Beware of the pseudo-philosophies of this age as the admonishment in Col. 2:8 says, "Let no man spoil you through philosophy or vain deceit..."  We need to "contend for the faith" like Jude said in Jude 3 and that means taking stands for Jesus and sticking up for what is right in an evil world.  We are the salt and light as the children of God.

Paul's swan song was:  "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith" (2 Tim. 4:7).  We all have a conscience and can tell right from wrong (Rom. 2:15), and we are all responsible and don't have any excuses for knowing God (Rom. 1:18-20).  In 1 Chron. 12:32 it says that only a few people were able to interpret the times and knew what to do.  Daniel 11:32 says that the "people who knew their God "shall be strong and do exploits."  At the time of the end, the wise will understand and the wicked will not (Dan. 12:10).  When Nebuchadnezzar realized that God was sovereign he came to his senses (Dan. 4:35).

 Today we seem to be doing what's right in our own eyes (similar to the Israelites in Judges 21:25--"They did what was right in their own eyes").  The culture says that there is no standard of right and wrong--it is all relative and you can't force your morality on another person.  It isn't that we can't legislate morality, it's whose morality we legislate.

In Allan Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind, he says that people now believe "all truth is relative"--if that is true then that statement has no value because it is also relative. They say nothing is always wrong and nothing is always right; what matters is sincerity.  This goes back to Satan's lie:  "Hath God said?" xd. Gen. 3:1).  They seem to believe that the only truths that are relative are those that defend the Christian worldview!  One prof was reported as saying, "You can know nothing for certain." One astute student asked, "Are you sure?"  "Yes, I am!"  Jesus was the Truth itself, the incarnation of Truth with a capital T and came to bear witness of the truth--the Romans, including Pilate, doubted the existence of absolute truth (true no matter who believes it and whether anyone believes it).  They thought that "might made right."  This was the epitome of cynicism and an insult to Christ's veracity--he didn't even wait for an answer! The secret is to stay away from extremes:  "Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil" (cf. Prov. 4:27; Isa. 30:21; Josh. 23:6; 1 Kgs. 22:2)).

As Christians we are to "submit [ourselves] to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors..." (1 Pet. 2:12-13)  Paul says something similar:  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1).  We are to "render unto Caesar" according to Matthew 22:21 and even be light and salt in the world, trying to make people see the light to get saved according to our gift.

With privilege there is the flip side of responsibility; they go hand in hand.  There is such a thing as "social justice" and a social commission, but not a social gospel, though.  Our social commission has not been rescinded.  One only need refer to the prophets, Amos and Micah.  We assert that  God is the only legitimate legislator (legal positivism says that man can make any law he desires) and His character is the law of the universe. Isaiah said, "Woe unto them who decree unjust laws..." (Isa. 10:1-2).  It has been said, "If we have contempt for government, we get contemptible government."

God's providence works all things according to His divine decrees and He has no Plan B; He has no other plan, but to use us as His vessels of honor and to bring glory to him (cf. Isa. 43:7).  Everything is going according to plan as Isaiah says in Isa 37:26 and He is in control according to Isa. 14:24, 27 and 46:8-11. "Behold, the nations are as a drop of the bucket..." (Isa. 40:15).    "He's got the whole world in His hands."  Psalm 22:28 says that God is sovereign over the nations and we can be sure even over every molecule in the universe.  Eph. 1:11 says that God works out everything according to His will.  John Wesley used to read the paper to "see what God is doing in His world."  God is even in control of the toss of the die (Prov. 16:33) and in control of the whims of the king (Prov. 21:1).  He leaves nothing to chance:  Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

Christian worldview sees social injustice: "What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the face of the poor...?" (Is. 3:15).  "Rescue the weak and the needy..." (Ps. 82:4).  The believer who knows the Lord is concerned about the plight of the poor (Ps. 41:1) and the evil in the world:  he doesn't just see evil and say, "Why?" He also sees good and says, "Why not?"  This is what it means to know the Lord according to Jeremiah 22:16--to be concerned about those less fortunate and defending those who can't defend themselves, the weak ("He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; Then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD [in Jer. 22:16]).  Amos and Micah are champions of the underdog and the underprivileged and deplore how "they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals--those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted (cf. Amos 2:6-7).  "...Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy..." (Amos 4:1).  Malachi is appalled at those  "who oppress the hired worker in his wages..." (Mal. 3:5).  We are not to be partial to the poor nor to the rich but show justice to all (Deut. 19:15).  Charity and welfare were mandated in Israel according to Lev. 19:4, Deut. 15:4, and other passages--they were allowed to "glean the fields" of the landowners.  There was to be "no poor in Israel."

Now, what kind of values are Christians supposed to espouse? They should subscribe to the sanctity of the family unit as having preference over the government's authority, because it was established before it; it should believe in the inherent worth of the individual  (you have rights, but they end where mine begin--you can swing your fist but not hit my nose!) as being in the image and likeness of God (the imago Dei), and that means having a mind to know and communicate with God, a heart to love Him, and a will to obey Him.  These are called unalienable rights and our culture is based on it in the constitutional Bill of Rights.  We are merely stewards of God's riches ("The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof" says Ps. 24:10) and are responsible to Him to give account at the judgment.  (There is a Protestant work ethic mentioned in 2 Thess. 3:10 that declares that those who are not willing to work shall not eat.  


All authority ultimately comes from God and we get our rights and dignity form Him; "unless you assume a God, the question  of man's purpose is meaningless," and without God, man is a "useless passion." (Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre).  We believe the government has limited power derived from God--it is not a necessary evil, as Augustine said, but necessary because of evil.  We have a duty to this government since we owe them our security and protection of our property and our person from crime--justice and law and order are the primary functions.  Marriage is to be held in honor and a "man shall leave his mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh" and "God made them male and female and said that it was good."  No rights are absolute, such as you say it's your religion to be a cannibal or that you can yell fire in an auditorium!  Sometimes it may be our duty to disobey, which is termed civil disobedience--God's laws trump the government; shall we obey God or man? ("We must obey God rather than man," according to Acts 5:29).

I believe firmly that the Bible sanctions no certain type of government, as long as human rights are respected.  Government was first documented to be divided into three parts in Isa. 33:22 into the legislative, judicial, and executive branches (king, judge, lawgiver).  I refer to Lord Acton's adage  that is a cliche now:  "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."  We do not believe that our rights (note that the obverse of rights is responsibilities necessitated) are derived from the government, but directly from God, who gives us dignity and worth as man in His image or the ikons of God, as it were.

In the final analysis, it is vital to know Scripture to combat the prevalent secular humanistic viewpoint (deifying man and denying God) in the world and not to fall into the devil's trap.  Sir Francis Bacon said, "Knowledge is power."  And the Bible backs this up in Proverbs 10:14 saying, "The wise lay up knowledge..." And Proverbs 24:5 says, "And a man of knowledge enhances his might."  We must not remain silent and concede everything away.  They are trying to eradicate Christianity from the marketplace of ideas and the public square.

"If there is no God, everything is permissible" (Dostoevsky).   But we believe in transcendent or natural law that everyone is able to know by nature apart from the government.  Law is designed for wrongdoers but God confers rights on us.  People are in a state of rebellion against our so-called bourgeois values (which really is the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization).  As the psalmist says, "What can the righteous do when the foundations are destroyed?" (Ps. 11:3).  For one thing, we should pray for our leaders, not condemn them [It is our God who put them there, as Paul said (cf. Acts 23:5), "It  is unlawful to speak evil of a ruler of your people"]

Christians are not "utopians" but are waiting for Christ to usher in His Millennial Kingdom at His second coming.  A word to the wise is sufficient: Christians have no geopolitical aspirations like the Muslim world bent on dominating the world with their hegemony, and they should not sound the alarm, but "occupy till He comes" (business as usual).  As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

In conclusion, we have read the last page of the Bible and know how it all will turn out and are assured that we are on the winning side and victory is inevitable in the end.  N.B. Keep the faith!  "The LORD frustrates the counsel of the nations; He thwarts the plans of the peoples...Happy is the nation whose God is Yahweh!" (Ps. 33:10-12).  A word of encouragement--all is not lost:   God is able to heal our land if we confess our corporate sins and humble ourselves in repentance as His people (2 Chron. 7:14).  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Testimony Of Zacchaeus

Zacchaeus was a publican, which was worse than being called a sinner because he collected taxes on Rome's behalf and swindled all he could manage.  But one day he heard that Jesus was coming to Jericho and he was curious enough to climb a sycamore-fig tree to see him, seeing he was short in stature.  Jesus surprised him and invited himself over to his house for dinner.  Jesus convicted him of his shortcomings and failures as a fallen sinner and he showed genuine repentance by giving restitution and owning up to his cheating, in addition to just confessing it. Zacchaeus wanted to come clean and from what he did, it sounded like he did more than eat his humble pie. He wasn't just seeking fire insurance, but a relationship with Jesus; then he was good to go!  He sold out lock, stock, and barrel to Jesus and became a new person.  Note that Jesus was not afraid to get down and dirty with the scum of the earth and the most despised.  He didn't condone their sin, but welcomed sinners and even ate with them; this infuriated the Pharisees and Jewish hierarchy.

[Repentance is doing a 180-degree turn, an about-face, or a U-turn-- radical turning from sin to God.   It means you have stopped trying to save yourself and are willing to trust and obey Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Luke 3:8 says that we must bring forth the fruits of repentance.  We must turn from dead works to serve the living God.  We must not only repudiate and renounce sin but all our sins-- and decide to follow Jesus in obedience to the faith, in the act of abiding in Christ and His Word.  It is more than a change of opinion, but a whole change of heart, mind, and will.  We must be convicted of our sins, feel sorrow or regret for them, and be willing to turn from them and follow Christ as His disciple.]

There is no saving faith without genuine repentance because they go hand in hand and one is the flip side of the other:  one could use the terminology penitent faith or believing repentance.  Nevertheless, Zacchaeus' change of heart was real and he knew it.  He had changed his way of thinking and was willing to assume all the responsibilities for his errant ways--there is a cost to discipleship:  ironically there are the twin truths that salvation is free, but it costs everything, because Christ wants us to surrender to His will--it is no longer a yoke of the Law, but the yoke of Christ's will.   I suggest that he had a vacuum in his heart that Jesus filled and he recognized the Savior.  He had already come to the conclusion that riches don't satisfy the longings of the soul and one cannot buy happiness or love.

This is an example of how Christ, the Good Shepherd, finds us and brings us to the fold when we are lost; but we must realize we are lost first.  He came not to call the righteous (those who think they are okay), but the sinner (who knows he needs God and cannot save himself or has literally given up).  What did Jesus save him from?  From a life of sin and purposelessness, of pleasing and living for self, and empty meaningless existence.  In short, he saved him from his sin (that's why His name is Jesus) and only He has the power to set us free from our sin nature;  our sinning doesn't demonstrate our freedom, but proves our slavery!

Being saved doesn't mean we have the freedom to live in the flesh just because we know we are saved, but the power to live in the Spirit.  Zacchaeus didn't have to clean up his act or turn over a new leaf to get saved, he got saved first and God changed his from the inside out.  God wants us to obey Him out of love and gratitude (he who is forgiven much loves much), not out of slavish fear.  Love is the strongest power in the universe and God is love and when we know God we learn to love our enemy, our neighbor, and our brother. You could fulfill the demands of a law, but not of love.   Zacchaeus got more than he bargained for, he was just looking for acceptance and answers and found love; no one is looking for God according to Romans 3:11, but the search for God begins at salvation--he finds us, we don't find Him!  Pascal said that he would not have found God, had He not first found him.

The lesson of Jesus reaching out to this publican is that no one is too bad a sinner to be saved--we are bad, but not too bad for salvation.  We are not to look down on "sinners" because George Whitefield said it well:  "There, but for the grace of God, go I," when asked about a condemned man going to the gallows.  Zacchaeus was informed and deformed by sin, but meeting Christ transformed him.  Once is never the same after meeting Christ--there is no neutral ground; one must decide to be for or against him.  The Scripture is right in saying that we must "repent and bring forth the fruits of repentance."  We must demonstrate our new faith and if we don't share it we will lose it--we cannot be a secret disciple, but must be willing to confess Him before men openly and without shame.  Soli Deo Gloria!