GOD TO EZEKIEL: THOSE WHO LIVE A LIFE OF SIN BUT TURN TO GOD ARE BLESSED

We tend to have many complaints against God. The Israelites also had their complaints, often accusing God of injustice:

• “Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?” (Ezekiel 18:29; ESV)

What was the basis of Israel's complaint? They thought that God's ways were unfair. For example, God informed Israel:

• “When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.” (Ezekiel 18:26-28)

This revelation is revolutionary. We tend to think that our good works will be weighed against our evil works. If the good outweighs the evil, we will be rewarded. If the evil outweighs the good, we will be punished. Consequently, if our good is greater than our evil - and 98% are convinced that their account is favorable and therefore deserve only the best from God - we reason that we are entitled to play fast-and-loose for a bit.

However, God had warned Israel that when they trust in their own righteous account and sin, they are lost. Similarly, when the evildoer turns to God from a lifetime of evil, he will live!

According to human thinking, this is unjust. However, this charge is based upon a faulty assumption - that we can earn good from God through our good deeds. Instead, throughout the Bible, God warns that we can never be good enough to ever claim anything from God. Paul dismissed this understanding of human merit before God:

• “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” (Romans 11:35)

Of course, God would never be in the position of owing us anything. Instead, our entitlement presumptions had to be humbled:

• “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:19-20)

No one was righteous through their performance. Israel had wrongly thought that the law was given as a means to earn righteousness and to personally attain self-righteousness. However, it had been given for the opposite reason - to show Israel that they fell far short of attaining righteousness. In fact, anything less than moral perfection would damn them:

• “Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them." (Deuteronomy 27:26)

Although we might find this offensive and unjust, this message of condemnation, nevertheless, is the consistent message of Scripture. Jesus therefore warned:

• “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:22)

The smallest infraction could damn us. James therefore insisted:

• For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.  (James 2:10)

The slightest sin would make us liable to punishment (Romans 6:23). Therefore, Israel's hope had to be in the mercy of God and not in their performance:

• He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. (Psalms 103:10-13)

It might not seem fair that God would damn us for a single sin, or that if a righteous man would turn from God in his last day on earth, he too would be damned. But consider this - if anyone was convinced that they their accumulated virtue entitled them to turn from God, it meant that they never knew a Him and that their self-righteousness had blinded them from the magnitude of their many sins. It also suggests that even from the start, they were trusting in themselves and not in the mercy of God. Instead, had they any awareness of their true moral status, they would have cried out for forgiveness and mercy.

Jesus’ parable illustrates this principle. A proud Pharisee and a broken sinner enter the Temple to pray. The Pharisee trusts in his own performance and prays accordingly:

• “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.” (Luke 18:11-12)

There is no hint that the Pharisee didn’t perform these “righteous” acts. He probably did. However, he had been trusting in himself (Luke 18:9). Meanwhile, the sinner lacked this “assurance” and therefore prayed for God’s mercy alone. Jesus explained:

• “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

This is essentially God’s instructions to Ezekiel. Those who exalt themselves to think of themselves as worthy and consequently turn from trusting in God are damned, while those who know that they cannot trust in themselves and turn to God are forgiven.

How the Christian Evolutionist Interprets the Bible

One Christian evolutionist (CE), in setting the stage for a discussion of the Book of Job, asks:

• Did Job really exist? Is the book of Job about the real suffering of a historical figure? Both Walton and Longman [two commentators] note that it is not possible to know for sure, and both emphasize that it does not matter.

Does it not matter? I think that it matters in a number of ways. However, more importantly, we should ask whether Job’s historicity is a concern for Scripture and its integrity!

Ezekiel treats Job as historical – just as historical as Noah and Daniel:

• Even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord…as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it [the city that God has decided to destroy], they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)

Clearly, if Job is fictitious (allegorical), then God’s warning of destruction would be compromised. This warning could then be interpreted in line with the “fictitious” Job as also fictitious – an empty warning.

James also refers to Job as an actual, historical person:

• As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. (James 5:11)

If Job was a fictional invention, then James is wrong. However, James has used the account of Job to prove that “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” You can’t do this with fiction or allegory. Fiction can’t prove; it merely illustrates!

In order to be consistent, if these commentators are going to question the historicity of Job, they must also question the accuracy and trustworthiness of James. Evidently, they do not take James’ or Ezekiel’s references to Job as authoritative. We therefore must wonder what it is that they do regard as supremely authoritative. In other words, what for them constitutes such weighty evidence that they would deny that Job is historical? What can be more authoritative than Scripture?

Here’s what often happens. When we believe in evolution and try to justify it in light of the Bible, we conclude that the Bible isn’t about history or science. Once we have made this compromise, we are then able to marry Darwin and the Bible without conflict. After all, if the Bible is about the spiritual world and Darwin is about the physical, there can no longer be any contradiction, because they deal with two entirely different subjects!

However, this compromise profoundly affects interpretation. The Bible no longer has to be historical. Job, Daniel and Noah no longer have to be historical, and the Bible is just an allegory.

However, allegories aren’t facts and therefore, they aren’t evidences. They are merely illustrations. Once we marry Darwin to the Bible, the miracles of the Bible no longer can constitute evidence. The fulfilled prophecies are no longer evidences but allegorical illustrations of spiritual principles. Besides, if we can’t trust what the Bible teaches about the physical world, how can we trust what it says about the spiritual! Say goodbye to apologetics and the defense of the faith.

Why then should we believe? Well, merely because it feels right to us. And how about the other religions? Don’t they feel right to their adherents? Say hello to religious pluralism, and let’s try out the god Vishnu.

Ezekiel, the Temple, Secularism and the Decay of True Religion

I felt like the Prophet Ezekiel. God had taken him on an intimate and private tour of the inner workings of the Temple. The spiritual decay was far worse than Ezekiel had imagined. Israel’s spiritual leadership was happily engaged in idolatrous worship behind closed doors.

This Sunday, Anita and I went to the Episcopal Church. The honored guest preacher invited us all into the Episcopal inner sanctum, revealing its treasured secrets. According to him the Bible couldn’t be authoritative. That’s because even Jesus had been wrong on numerous occasions, and Paul showed us how irrational many of the Old Testament revelations had been by overturning them. Conclusion: This gives us the authorization to overturn anything in the Bible that’s irrational to us!

Anita and I looked at each other. I had long suspected that the guest preacher’s candid tour was an accurate representation of the real, unvarnished Episcopal Church. (Here’s what we usually hear it saying, “We too believe in the Bible. We just have a different interpretation.”) It reminded me of my tooth where the infection had penetrated to such a depth that I needed a root canal.

I whispered to Anita, “I think that we are seeing the real Episcopal Church.” Then the resident pastor got up to praise the “wonderful” sermon we had all just heard. That confirmed it, and so I took a long fretful walk to compose myself in prayer.

During the coffee hour, I confronted the pastor in the most loving manner I could conjure up. “If the Bible is no longer authoritative, what should be authoritative for us?” I shot at him.

“Well, I didn’t say that,” he corrected me. “Instead, we have to approach the Bible carefully, using our best critical tools.” I envisioned a doctor wearing his anti-septic mask and gloves, lest he be contaminated by the cadaver before him.

“Instead, of placing our faith in the Bible as God’s Word, are you insisting that we should now place our faith in the scholars and their Biblical-criticism tool box?” I asked. He responded surprisingly good-naturedly. However, I shouldn’t have been surprised. He had been a professor at Oxford for six years, among many other places, and knew all about dealing with characters like me. Nevertheless, he was one of the many architects of the new religion – the religion of the educated, secular experts, tamed, defanged, and socially acceptable

“I wish you had been in my Bible study!” I wasn’t going to be flattered. At least, I wasn’t going to allow this too soften me. However, someone else caught his ear, and I wandered away and found the seminarian – the interning General Theological Seminary student.

After exchanging some pleasantries, enough to convince her that I was one of them, I asked her, “What do you thin of the NYC ruling, ousting churches from the NYC schools where they had been renting space on Sundays. She was all in favor of the ruling and cited the “separation of church and state.”

“Well, isn’t this a violation of the principle of ‘equal access?’ If AA can rent space, why not also the churches?” I asked.

She then lifted the veil to the “holy place” of her true thinking. “Well, these churches tend to be fundamentalist. They won’t have women pastors.”

Sadly, it has been the more Biblically-oriented people who had been marginalized from the mainline churches and forced to seek asylum in store-fronts and schools, while the majestic church structures, which Bible-believing Christians had built, have been taken over by “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Now, once again, these churches were going to be booted out.

I then asked her a series of pointed questions: “Doesn’t your position represent ‘viewpoint discrimination?’ In essence, aren’t you saying that religions that don’t share your views or the views of your religion shouldn’t receive equal protection and access under the law?” She graciously excused herself to find more congenial company.

This is the nature of the modern secularized religion – monopolistic, intolerant, and promoting “freedom of religion,” as long as it’s their own pluralistic religion.

This new monopolistic religion is taking many forms. Here’s a recent example:

• Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

• The bill text originally stated that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination. The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions.

Although this clause was finally dropped, it reflects the drift of today’s secularism: “If you don’t play ball with us, you don’t play ball at all. We will not respect your freedom of conscience or your freedom of speech or your freedom to worship if you violate our own religious views.”

While the secularists cry “separation of church and state” when a church rents space at a school, they have hypocritically instituted their own state-sponsored church with government funding in our public schools. And it’s a highly permissive religion! A recent video shows how Planned Parenthoodis sexualizing our children according to their beliefs about the “good” life. 

Meanwhile, the religious belief of naturalism has been exclusively enthroned in the science classroom. Consequently, natural mindless causation is the only form of causation that can be mentioned. Free from any God-talk, they now can joyfully shout, “Look how irrelevant God is! We can explain everything by naturalistic causation!”

However, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that causation is natural and mindless. Instead, it’s another chunk of evidence that cries out “God.” (It is much more reasonable to conclude that our laws emanate from the mind of God. After all, who created and maintains the laws!)

I’m almost sure that Ezekiel wasn’t thrilled with his Temple tour. It meant that he now had to do something. He had to cry out his outrage to a people who didn’t want to hear him and eventually killed him.

AN INTERESTING ADDENDUM:

Some unlikely people are waking up to the threat of secularism and its offspring - moral relativism:

• A Muslim Cabinet minister has become the latest member of Prime Minister David Cameron's government to urge the country to embrace its Christian heritage. Sayeeda Warsi also said that "militant" secularism poses a threat to Europe, a comment that has angered atheists and highlighted the divisive political potential of religion…In an article published Tuesday in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Warsi urged Europe "to become more confident in its Christianity"…

• "You cannot and should not extract (the) Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes," she wrote. "My fear today is that a militant secularization is taking hold of our societies," she added, accusing some atheists of having the same intolerant instincts as authoritarian regimes.

• In a speech in Rome, Warsi said that "too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent." She said in Britain religion has been "sidelined, marginalized and downgraded" and "faith is looked down on as the hobby of 'oddities, foreigners and minorities.'"