Caste Systems: Are They the Key to Understanding Rape, Tyranny, Impotence, and Reformed Theology in the Church?
Originally published October 2, 2012
“So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general is part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth?”
Regarding my upcoming book projects, volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism will merely trace New Calvinism back to its Reformation roots. Volume one traced it from present-day, back to the resurgence movement of 1970. However, The Reformation Myth (TRM) will delve deep into Reformation philosophy, history, its false gospel of progressive justification, and its bogus motif. The so-called Reformation is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind—that’s the thesis of TRM.
During my research for TRM, I stumbled onto the whole issue of Caste Systems. Woe, what an eye opener. What is also very intriguing in regard to the discussion thereof is the topics ability to organize and lend understanding to complex philosophical issues. That makes the concept dangerous to those who prefer their parishioners dumbed down.
Let’s begin by stealing some definitions:
A caste system is a type of social structure which divides people on the basis of inherited social status. Although many societies could be described in this way, within a caste system, people are rigidly expected to marry and interact with people of the same social class. India has a well known example of a caste system, although various forms of caste systems can be found in many other cultures as well (Online source: http://goo.gl/tcCzX).
Yes, India is caste on steroids, but that only serves to lend understanding to caste systems in general. We must also thank Indian culture for demonstrating how caste systems interact and integrate with religion. Often, caste systems come from religion, and determine the social strata, especially in theocracies. The following chart is helpful accordingly:
And….
The roots of the Indian caste system can be found in the Hindu scriptures, although the caste system was adopted by other religions in India as well. According to scripture, Indian society could be broken down into a number of different groups, known as Varnas. Brahmins, the highest caste, were scholars and priests, while Kshatriya were warriors, rulers, and landlords. Vaisya were merchants, while Sudra were manual laborers. Beyond there four basis Varnas are the Untouchables or Dalit, and the system also has a space for outsiders and foreigners who do not conform with the system (Ibid).
Massive research has been done by sociologists on this subject—it is a treasure trove of understanding. I am 56 years old, done my share of schooling, and have never been exposed to this vast topic and its implications. And as we will see, the absence of consideration regarding caste systems, and its very, very likely influence on Calvinism is downright scandalous. Add it to the list of why Calvinism is a “scandalous gospel.” Moreover, the understanding gained via this topic in the realm of spiritual abuse and tyranny is absolutely priceless.
Caste systems can take on many forms, but for now, let’s stick with the more naked forms. These are caste systems that have actually been enforced by civil and criminal law throughout history. As the former and latter excerpts note, caste systems, social and religious, are not exclusive to Indian culture. In fact, European culture has been inundated with caste systems throughout history:
According to Haviland, social systems identical to caste system elsewhere in the world, are not new in Europe. Stratified societies were historically organized in Europe as closed social systems, each endogamous, into for example nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasants. These had distinctive privileges and unequal rights, that were neither a product of informal advantages because of wealth nor rights enjoyed as another citizen of the state. These unequal and distinct privileges were sanctioned by law or social mores, confined to only that specific social subset of the society, and were inherited automatically by the offspring.
In some European countries, these closed social classes were given titles, followed mores and codes of behavior according to their closed social class, even wore distinctive dress. Royalty rarely married a commoner; and if it did, they lost certain privileges. This endogamy limitation wasn’t limited to royalty; in Finland, for example, it was a crime – until modern times – to seduce and defraud into marriage by declaring a false social class. In parts of Europe, these closed social caste-like groups were estates.
Along with the three or four estates in various European countries, another outcast layer existed below the bottom layer of the hierarchical society, a layer that had no rights and was there to serve the upper layers. It was prominent for centuries, and continued through middle 19th century. This layer was called serfs. In some countries such as Russia, the 1857 census found that over 35 percent of the population was serf (крепостной крестьянин).
While the serfs were of the same race and religion, serfs were not free to marry whomever their heart desired. Serf mobility was heavily restricted, and in matters of who they can marry and how they lived, they had to follow rules put into place by the State and the Church, by landowners, and finally families and communities established certain social mores that was theirs to follow because the serfs were born into it.
In modern times, regions of Europe had untouchables in addition to the upper castes and serfs. These were people of the same race, same religion and same culture as their neighbors yet were considered morally impure by birth, repulsive and shunned, just like the Burakumin caste of Japan and Osu caste of Nigeria.
A sense of hereditary exclusion, unequal social value, and mutual repulsion was part of the relationship between the different social strata in Europe. In late 19th century through the early 20th century, millions of the outcasts, downtrodden and socially ostracized people from Europe migrated on their own, or transferred as indentured laborers to the New World (Online source: http://goo.gl/Fx4VU).
Caste systems form naturally from our tendencies to be prejudice against, in varying degrees, what makes us uncomfortable. And different usually =’s uncomfortable. Therefore, the formation of caste attitudes come naturally to us, and unless restrained, become caste systems. And, unless the brakes are applied to caste systems, the mentality can deprecate to the point of the upper social strata viewing the lower strata as less than human, and a threat to the purity of the upper strata. Can we say, “genocide” ?
This gives new brevity to the basic idea of “love” which strives to value others as much as we value ourselves. The antithesis leads to all kinds of formal, informal, spoken, and unspoken caste systems according to what people look like, talk like, have, have not, etc., etc., etc. Does Hollywood have a caste system? Do high schools have a caste system? Do churches have a caste systems? Yes, yes, and yes.
Interestingly, in regard to the founding fathers of this country, they resisted caste systems. You were pretty much judged by the game you brought to the table regardless of how you got the game. That is why there were African American congressman, mayors, and notable educators early in American history. However, the same cannot be said of the Southern states who implemented a racial caste system that was civil and criminal law:
The term caste entered American debates long before the American Civil War, in the antebellum era and has continued through modern times. Frederick Douglass, William Garrison, Horace Greeley, Harriet Stowe, William Seward, Gerrit Smith, Charles Sumner, Theodore Parker, and Cassius Clay used the term caste, rather than race or class, in their writings and speeches to discuss and inspire America to abolish slavery.
And by the way, Calvinism was the predominate religion in the South during the Civil War (at least in regard to backing the South’s apologetic). Just sayin’.
Like falling off a log, the documenting of Plato’s influence on the father of the Reformation, St. Augustine, is equal in task. The same goes for Augustine’s connection to Martin Luther and John Calvin. And to say that Martin Luther had a caste mentality would be the understatement of the century. And caste systems were part and parcel with medieval history. Even more evident is the hyper-caste mentality that influenced the views of Plato. According to Dr. TS Girishkumar:
Plato had a theory of soul which has three parts, reason, courage and appetite. The development of them shall be different in different people. When reason is dominant, and other part dormant, it is the philosopher. Courage is dominant, the warriors. Appetite is dominant, the traders and cultivators. When all three are dormant, the slaves.
This is just the copy of the Varnashrama system in Indian Philosophy. Four Varnas according to the quality of individuals, and unlike Plato’s theory, the quality is acquired and not by birth. The Brhamanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras (Online source: http://goo.gl/JuuGU).
So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general are part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth? I intend to research that question thoroughly.
How much of the abuse/tyranny problem in the church today can be related to a caste mentality? What about the indifference regarding church abuse/tyranny that we see in our day? In a caste system, the system answers to nobody about anything. Is this the dynamic that we are experiencing?
What about impotence? In society, lack of social mobility is proven to cripple society because the possible contributions of the lower strata are ignored and shunned. In the church, do caste systems limit spiritual mobility? Certainly, a plenary pushback regarding such attitudes by Christ and the apostles can be seen throughout the New Testament by word and lifestyle.
And we should not expect that the natural degenerative activity of a caste system will behave any differently in the church. Indifference towards justice, abuse, and tyranny will be the same result.
paul
New Calvinism’s Replacement of the New Birth with Pagan Philosophy
Originally posted March 8, 2012
We can rest assured that our Father doesn’t want us to be confused. He gave us a brain and is honored when we use it, but know this: He doesn’t want us to use it to vet every theory running amuck in the world regarding the meaning of life. His word to us is clear: we have His Spirit; we are not to be deceived; test every spirit; and we have all that is needed to be fully equipped for every good work. But according to New Calvinist David Powlison, the church forgets stuff. Therefore, it needs a research and development purpose to rediscover lost truth and apply it. Buyers beware; you only need to follow the money.
As stated in The Truth About new Calvinism, it all boils down to the enemy’s agenda: 1) keep people out of the kingdom 2) deceive kingdom citizens into living spiritually anemic lives 3) which leads to a lack of testimony and thereby facilitates purpose number one. If the kingdom of darkness couldn’t keep you out, it can at least use you to keep others out. And we only need to examine that in context of what worked so well: “Did God really say….” The apostle Paul warned us many times in regard to being led away from the truth by vain philosophies.
New Calvinism is a reductionist theology. Reductionism is two-fold. First, in an attempt to make much of God’s grace and little of man’s efforts, the role of man is reduced as much as possible in theological systems. Secondly, this entails diminishing the primary instrument for man’s participation in God’s work—the law. Therefore, something needs to be done about the new birth because it implies the ability to participate in upholding God’s law in sanctification. New Calvinists have several different ways of denying the new birth; this post is about what they replace it with.
The primary tenet of New Calvinism is the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us as developed by the Australian Forum, a think tank for the Progressive Adventist Movement. One reader commented in regard to part 5 of the New Calvinism for Dummies video series:
One of the things that popped into my mind when you were talking about “objective” and it occurring outside ourselves. It also seems like the NC is inviting the person to stepoutside themselves to be an observer of themselves. Like they are being invited to emotionally remove themselves from who they are, becoming the unemotional observer, which would also lead to some coldheartedness. With the emotions corralled, as such, it just sort of reminds me of Spock on Star Trek.
That’s a good assessment, and speaks to the fact that New Calvinists are very coldhearted and indifferent, also lacking in having a sense of justice about them. That’s one of the bad results of partaking in anti-word philosophies:
….and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of anomia, the love of most will grow cold (Matthew 24:11,12).
Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law (Psalm 119:70).
The centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS) is the mainframe that holds all of the various movements within New Calvinism together and gives it a hyper-ecumenical flare. The various groups within New Calvinism all have their own way of making this doctrine work with real life, but the overall goal of the doctrine is the same: gospel contemplationism leading to a passive manifestation of a realm. This is merely a device of the only primary goal of the kingdom of darkness from the beginning of redemptive history; specifically, “Has God really said.” It is meant to divert God’s people from Christ’s simple counsel:
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock (Matthew 7:24).
If every verse in the Bible is about what Christ has done and not what he SAYS; ie, “these words of mine,” biblical wisdom for kingdom living is circumvented. Secondly, if our only “do[ing]es” is a passive yielding to a realm, the kind of intentional application of God’s word necessary for a life built on a rock is also circumvented. This will lead to the circumvention of Christ’s goal stated in Matthew chapter five:
14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Therefore, the simple biblical approach of learn/hear>>>obey>>>God glorified, must be replaced with a more passive formula. Opponents of the biblical model would say they only want to exclude man’s efforts so God will get all of the glory, resulting in contemplation/meditation>>>_________>>>God’s works manifested, not ours. The blank is filled in by various and sundry techniques which New Calvinists point to. This often confuses the real issue. But getting back to the main point, the new birth must be refuted because it makes the contra formula possible. And because the latter formula is reductionist and narrow, it must be embellished. Hence, Christian Hedonism, Heart Theology, unbiblical forms of prayer, Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, reorientation of desires, etc, etc. This is vital in selling the product because we were created for work (you know, feet, hands, stuff like that), and passive theologies therefore contradict the conscience. So the blank between meditation and work must be filled in with some plausible stuff that sounds good. Please note: I am stating all of this in context of sanctification. COGOUS>>>life application>>>manifestation of works verses new birth>>>learn and apply>>>obedience.
Furthermore, the application must not only supply a feasible life application, but must also appeal to human desire. This brings us back to the astute comment by the aforementioned reader. This whole idea of COGOUS giving one the ability to step outside of themselves and be an observer of their own life. Some would call this Nature/Freedom philosophy; this is the freedom from the laws of nature, and in the case of New Calvinism, God’s written law as well. There is no better way to demonstrate this than by a quote from one of the most popular New Calvinist articles ever written:
What, then, is the subjective power of this message? Firstly, we find that there is real, objective freedom, the kind that, yes, can be experienced subjectively. We are freed from having to worry about the legitimacy of experiences; our claims of self-improvement are no longer seen as a basis of our witness or faith. In other words, we are freed from ourselves, from the tumultuous ebb and flow of our inner lives and the outward circumstances; anyone in Christ will be saved despite those things. We can observe our own turmoil without identifying with it. We might even find that we have compassion for others who function similarly. These fluctuations, violent as they might be, do not ultimately define us. If anything, they tell us about our need for a savior.
Secondly, this freedom gives us permission to confront and confess our pain. We can look our self-defeating and regressive tendencies in the eye for once. We no longer have to pretend to be anything other than what the Gospel tells us we are: hopeless sinners in need of mercy. Honesty and repentance go hand in hand – freedom puts us on our knees, where we belong. A subjective Gospel turns repentance into a frightening affair, evidence that God is far away from us. An objective Gospel provides the assurance that actually produces repentance, forging the pathway to the place where we find forgiveness and redemption. We can finally grasp hold of the truth that it is always better to be sorry than to be safe. The pastoral implications for marriage alone are staggering.
(David Zahl and Jacob Smith: Mockingbird blog, “The Subjective Power Of An Objective Gospel”).
I think this quotation says it all. It is a freedom from obedience to the law (because we are totally depraved sinners that can’t keep it anyway), freedom from consequences, and supplies a mentality that we can use to detach ourselves from the burdens of life. It is Nature Freedom philosophy to the max and could be accompanied by the song, “Don’t Worry Be Happy” by Bobby McFerrin:
Here is a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don’t worry be happy
In every life we have some trouble
When you worry you make it double
Don’t worry, be happy……
Ain’t got no place to lay your head
Somebody came and took your bed
Don’t worry, be happy
The land lord say your rent is late
He may have to litigate
Don’t worry, be happy
Look at me I am happy
Don’t worry, be happy
Here I give you my phone number
When you worry call me
I make you happy
Don’t worry, be happy
Ain’t got no cash, ain’t got no style
Ain’t got not girl to make you smile
But don’t worry be happy
Cause when you worry
Your face will frown
And that will bring everybody down
So don’t worry, be happy (now)…..
There is this little song I wrote
I hope you learn it note for note
Like good little children
Don’t worry, be happy
Listen to what I say
In your life expect some trouble
But when you worry
You make it double
Don’t worry, be happy……
Don’t worry don’t do it, be happy
Put a smile on your face
Don’t bring everybody down like this
Don’t worry, it will soon past
Whatever it is
Don’t worry, be happy
….because everything that matters is outside of you—the cross. Just sit back and let life make the cross bigger; stop trying to be the gospel instead of living the gospel by faith alone. That’s one of the many allurements of New Calvinism, but primarily, it’s a theological framework that allows us to fill in the practical application line in any way we would like to. And we like that.
paul
Charles Haddon Spurgeon: The Prince of Preachers?
Originally published July 29, 2013
“The problem is the fusing of law and grace, not election. People on both sides of that argument can fuse law and grace together and often do….Notice that who does the work is not the issue. Work period is the issue.”
Protestantism is the foundation of the American church. Our heroes of the faith are those who protested Rome but never left Rome. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin merely believed they could do Rome better. Luther and Calvin in particular were fed-up with the popes and gave birth to a resurgence of Plato’s moral tyranny. The popes were in the tyranny business for money and the fulfillment of sinful desires; the Reformers were in the tyranny business for the glory of God. Their mentor, Augustine, boldly proclaimed that the Bible was useless without Plato’s insight and proclaimed Plato a pre-Christian Christian.
Plato’s philosophical principles and anthropomorphic presuppositions laid the foundation for every political and religious caste system in Western culture. Plato’s DNA is in every tyrant ever born in the West whether political or religious. His philosophy lives in both anemic form and viral, fleshing itself out in either philosophical capitulation or the zealot’s bloody axe. Only God knows the number buried in that landfill named, “The Traditions of Men.”
During the first advent, Christ spoke often of two concerns: the traditions of men and antinomianism. Anti-law of God is made possible to the degree that the authority of men usurp the authority of God’s word. Tradition is powerful and often relegates truth to a metaphysical anomaly. Such is the case with American religious heroes. Their stardom defies logic and truth. While Americans shake their heads in disbelief at documentary films that show Hitler pontificating to swooning masses, we celebrate the Pilgrim Puritans who hung Quakers and baptized women in waters of death. Tradition knows no limits in regard to hypocrisy and ignorance. Better to skim the Cliff Notes of tradition than to suffer a possible stroke by the exercise of thinking.
Calling Charles Haddon Spurgeon the “Prince of Preachers” is perhaps the grandiose example of illogical tradition. Spurgeon was a shameless Calvinistic hack. He once said,
There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
The most inconvenient thing ever for admirers of Spurgeon is the truth. He constantly disregarded the plain sense of Scripture, though eloquently. While comparing Augustine and Calvin to the apostle Paul in the same sermon (A Defense of Calvinism), any concern for Paul’s warning of being a proponent of a doctrine named after a man was totally disregarded by Surgeon in open defiance to the truth (1COR 3:1-9).
But the fundamental problem is the fact that Calvin taught a blatant false gospel. He believed that grace was not possible unless Christ fulfilled the law for us (CI 3.14.9-11). He believed that Christians are still “under law” which is the very definition of a lost person in the book of Romans and the premise for Calvin’s total depravity.
Hence, Christians remain under the law for justification and must live their Christian lives by faith alone in order to keep their salvation. If Christians live by faith alone in sanctification, the perfect obedience of Christ is perpetually imputed to us and we remain saved. Of course, this requires a complex doctrinal judgment in regard to what is works in sanctification and what is not a work in sanctification in order to live our Christian lives by faith alone resulting in the maintaining of our salvation. This is the very reason for the anemic sanctification that has plagued Protestantism for centuries. We either throw Law out the window completely, or live in fear regarding what is a work and what isn’t a work in our Christian lives lest we find ourselves in “works salvation.”
The problem is the fusing of law and grace. Not election. People on both sides of that argument can fuse law and grace together and often do. Unbelievers are “under law” while believers are “under grace.” We are justified APART from the law (ROM 3:21). Christ didn’t come to fulfill the law FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION; He came to die for our sins so that a righteousness APART from the law could be credited to our account. If Christ had to fulfill the law…. for our justification, law is still the BASIS for our justification and justification is then NOT OF GRACE. The basis of our justification is not law, we are rather UNDER GRACE. This is what the apostle Paul wrote:
Romans 11:6 – But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Notice that who does the work is not the issue. Work period is the issue. The BASIS of grace is the issue here, and if the basis of grace is works it is no longer grace. If Christ had to keep the law for us to make grace possible, according to Paul, grace is no longer of grace. To the contrary, Paul states that Christ came so that he could fulfill the law through us in sanctification completely separate from justification:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Notice that a perfect keeping of the law is not required for us in sanctification to please God for justification. Why? Because the two are separate and there is no law in justification for the believer. The two are separate. We are saved apart from the law for justification and the law informs our sanctification (ROM 3:21, GAL 4:21). Calvinism propagates a grace based on works. Its consummation is an antinomianism where Christ must keep the law for us because we are unable to please God through the perfect fulfillment of it in our Christian lives—perfection as a goal not withstanding in sanctification, but not for justification. According to Calvinism, we have no faith that is alive; we are still dead in our trespasses and sins. It is of the variety that separates us from the fulfillment of the law in sanctification as well. Only Calvin was genius enough to devise a doctrine that combined the best of works salvation and antinomianism.
Only truth sanctifies (John 17:17). The idea that Spurgeon ever helped anyone with his preaching is an illusion grounded in the traditions of men.
paul
Love: Romans 12:9,10
Originally posted October 30, 2013
We now continue our study in the book of Romans, Chapter 12, and verse 9:
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.
Last week, we looked at some gifts that God has granted to those who call on His name. Christians have different gifts that function within the body of Christ. The apostle Paul used the human body and its anatomy to illustrate this point. If organs don’t function, the body is hindered (1Corinthians 12). Paul also stated that God assigns these gifts with different levels of ability.
Not only do we see this in the Parable of the Talents, but we also see in that same parable the danger of a mentality that likens the function of the body to works salvation (Matthew 25:14-30). Notice that immediately following the condemnation of the servant who hid his talents in the ground, giving back to God what had originally been given, verses 31-46 speak of what? Love. Take note: there is grave danger in seeing your function in the body of Christ as some kind of work possibly tied to salvation. It may point to a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel. We are not under the law. Justification is a finished work accomplished by God only. Sanctification is the work of our love toward God and others.
I see the same kind of fear in contemporary Christians who think that functioning in the body of Christ can be works that are connected to justification if not done exactly right; ie., by faith alone. There isn’t a freedom to work diligently because of the fear that it can affect our original salvation. Tentative body parts—that’s a problem. If you have a tentative heart, they have to fix you up with all kinds of battery operated gizmos. And that’s what we have in today’s church: tentative body parts, parts that don’t know that they are parts, and others who want an excuse for not being a part; ie., it would be works salvation. This idea is either cause for undo fear or an excuse.
But most importantly, it’s not love. God has given us an array of gifts for the purpose of loving others; so, how important are those gifts? Your gifts—the gifts that came with your salvation. Chrsit died to give you those gifts. That makes them paramount, but this other immense privilege we have is to sanctify our works with love.
Yes, we have the privilege in this life to practice the one gift that is eternal: love. ALL the other gifts will pass away, only love will continue into eternity:
1Corithians 13:1 – If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
We have to practice our gifts in order to love. Love is the only thing that continues after this life. Undoubtedly, love will function differently in eternity, but let us remember that love is defined in many different ways. Christ never partook in anything loveless. Every thought of His life and every action was in love. Think about that for a while. I fear that we have a very narrow view of love in our day.
As Christians, we love ourselves naturally (we discussed that last week), and as Christians, we are called on to love ourselves. Why? Because the best way to love ourselves is to die to self for the sake of others. Seeking self never leads to spiritual wellbeing. He who seeks his life will lose it, he who loses his life will find it (Matthew 10:39). Love is in part a selfish act. That was Paul’s point made to husbands in Ephesians 5. The idea is that not loving your wife is a metaphysical anomaly because not loving your wife is a stupid way of trying to love yourself. It’s curing a headache by smashing one of your fingers with a framing hammer—you’re not even thinking about your headache now because your finger hurts a lot more.
Of course, the world lies and states that the way to love yourself is, “If it feels good, do it.” There is this thing that Paul identifies called the “desires of the flesh.” As we have seen in our study of Romans, the unregenerate are enslaved to those desires, but free to do good. No unregenerate person is perfectly evil. But the direction of their lives is the desires of the flesh. So of course, it is no surprise that “if it feels good, do it” is the motto of their lives. Some boldly name it and claim it, others unwittingly function that way. Saved people are enslaved to righteousness, and free to do evil. Therefore, no saved person is perfectly righteous, but they seek spiritual wellbeing, and they know that is found in dying to self. It’s a matter of being selfish according to wisdom. Obviously, one who seeks to die to self has the goal of finding his/her own life in mind, right?
Argue for or against the intrinsic value of mankind all you want, God has wired us to value life, and that life includes our own self-awareness. To value life is to value yourself—this is inescapable, unless you’re not alive, then I agree that it is a dead issue.
So, the goal of love is to define love, and seek it as our primary motivation. The works of the flesh, or the old nature that was put to death (by the way, we only have ONE nature: the new one), cannot execute love, so we must put off its way of thinking and doing, and put on the ways of the Spirit which are always of love. The old nature is dead, but still has an influence on our mortality. This, I think is a mystery, but some like Dr. Jay E. Adams posit the idea that being habituated through the old ways of living is the key to understanding the Christian’s struggle with sin. That is at least part of it.
That brings us to verse 9. In this verse, Paul teaches us how to obtain genuine love. We are to cling to all that is good, and hate all that is evil. It is a matter of investment. Where your treasure is, your heart will be there also (Mathew 6:21). No doubt, without the inward change initiated by God, there would be no real change, but that doesn’t exclude the biblical fact that outward change also facilitates inward change. The maxim, “All change comes from the inside out” is patently false. Because we believe the truth of God’s word, we make choices to do things outwardly to strengthen the inner man. Falling into sin doesn’t strengthen the inner person, so we make a choice not to enter environments of temptation. The idea that practical outward obedience doesn’t strengthen us is a bad idea and usually rooted in mysticism.
So, the way to “genuine” love is to invest in good and shun evil in the way we think, and what we do. To only dwell on the bad elements of a person is first not true, and second, will certainly lead to hatred rather than love. Divorce is almost always the result of an untrue evaluation of one’s spouse. What you want to think about a person for whatever reason doesn’t make it true. We are to evaluate others and ourselves truthfully. Also, we can invest in others to strengthen them.
This coincides with some of the elements of love Paul pointed to in 1Corithians 13. Love doesn’t delight in evil. This is my primary beef with TV shows that make humor of things that God would disapprove of. That’s delighting in evil. That’s not love. You’re not loving God by laughing about something that is evil regardless of the context. Partaking in such will devalue your appreciation for the fact that God’s Son died to save us from such. Why do we laugh about things that nailed Christ to the cross?
We also need to take heed that we don’t delight when our enemies fall into sin. That’s delighting in evil. Republicans should not delight when a Democrat president gets caught up in some kind of scandal. Treating others the same way we would want to be treated applies to our enemies as well (Luke 6:21). How would you like to be treated by your enemy? If he stumbles upon your lost oxen in the wilderness, would you want him to return it? (Exodus 23:4,5). It was pointed out last week that self-love is a morally neutral metaphysical fact. We are wired to value life in general, including our own. This is assumed in the stated biblical goal to love others in the same we already love ourselves (Mark 12:31, Leviticus 19:18).
Be sure of this: any teaching that posits self-hatred in the vein of the whole total-depravity motif will lead to the devaluing of life in general. This is not only logical, but has been the witness of history. The idea that we can totally dismiss the value of our own lives while valuing life in general is a misnomer. In regard to the caliber of Jonathan and David’s friendship, it is said that Jonathan loved David as much as he loved himself (1Samuel 20:17). That standard seems to be the zenith for mortals. It’s neither bad nor good, it’s simply reality. Remember, Paul stated that no person has ever hated themselves (Ephesians 5:29). Often, self-destructive behavior comes from anger, enslavement to “desires,” or escape. People often follow their desires to the detriment of others without consideration of whether or not they would want to be treated that way.
I like some things about cable TV; specifically, those detective shows that document real-life cases. Those shows are a spectacular insight into human behavior. I have seen many of these shows that report the following motive for murder according to the confessions of the perpetrators: they simply wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. That’s a “desire.” A desire to kill someone for the experience is an evil desire. How would they like it if someone killed them just because they wanted to know what it felt like? This is an extreme example, but it is a primary principle of this discussion and covers the whole spectrum down to the finest details of living by priorities.
And what is the priority? Love is the priority.
Verse 10 builds on this point:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
Let’s consider two of the words in this verse, first, “outdo” (proēgeomai):
To lead the way for others, i.e. show deference, prefer.
To go before and show the way, to go before and lead, to go before as a leader.
~Strong’s Dictionary.
This is a good example of how some have the gift of leadership, but everybody is to lead, or set the right examples. We call this “duty,” a word completely out of vogue in our day. In this particular case, the practice of our gift in context of love, or duty is “honor” (timē):
A value, i.e. money paid, or (concretely and collectively) valuables; by analogy, esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself. Honor, precious, price, sum. A valuing by which the price is fixed. The price of a thing bought or sold. Honour which belongs or is shown to one of honour which one has by reason of rank and state of office which he holds. Deference, reverence.
~Strong’s Dictionary.
This is consistent with the rest of the New Testament: leading is setting the example, it has nothing to do with authority. If someone is practicing proper leadership, and you don’t follow them, you are not benefiting yourself (Hebrews 13:17). We are to be persuaded by the proper example.
Moreover, Paul is stating that we should aspire to be the best at showing the value of others. It is the same word used in 1Peter 3:7 for how husbands are to treat their wives—they are to be highly valued. This is also the same word used throughout the New Testament, nearly 40 times, to describe the high value of God’s people. Again, I can’t help to mention that this turns the whole total depravity gig upside down. Compare this to a Reformed funeral I attended just a few weeks ago. The deceased man’s own son stood up and “honored” him by proclaiming to the hundreds there that his father was a “wicked sinner.” Others testified that this was an honorable title because the former pastor was, “all about the grace of God and the gospel.” God help us. The way we love each other in the church today is to proudly proclaim ourselves sinners.
Is this not rejoicing in evil as well?
I will not relent in calling out this great evil in our day. We have indeed arrived there by the absence of tenacious and incessant complaint. Only the absence of a great outcry could result in a man honoring his dead father by calling him a “wicked sinner.”
Let me close with Matthew 24:11, 12 –
And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.
Certainly, a lot more could be taught here about love, but I want to close by making the point that love needs to be defined biblically. Christ, in speaking of the latter days, states that lawlessness will be increased by false teachers. The word “lawlessness” is anomia—it means to be contrary to the law of God in particular. The result of that will be the absence of love and a irreverence for life following.
And I believe we are in those days. Let us teach and practice a biblical love.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment