God Loves… Himself

We will continue our critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. In the last BLOG I set out to show how it is simply impossible to interpret the words of that article in any other way than setting out Reformed teaching on one side and Arminian teaching on the other. When the author uses the words, “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” from the context of the article itself, there can be no question that he is meaning the Arminian view of the responsibility of man. It is true that Reformed theologians can use those same words, but they use them with a far different meaning than the author of the article in question.

The issues at stake here are simply enormous since they deal with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I don’t think that it can be denied in the context of this article and the stated reasons given in the article that the author is using the term “responsibility” in the Arminian sense. We can also look at another sentence that shows this but also makes a dangerous assertion: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” Once again, “since the Baptist Faith and Message embraces both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, it is reasonable for Southern Baptists to expect professors to teach both elements as necessary for the salvation experience.” And even again, “For the sake of reaching the world for Christ, can we not agree that both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are necessary ingredients in our salvation?” The dangerous assertion is that there is a necessary ingredient to salvation other than grace. Scripture is crystal clear that salvation is by grace alone and knows nothing of another necessary ingredient to salvation. Salvation is by grace alone in order that it may be by Christ alone to the glory of God alone. Another ingredient to salvation means that salvation is by Christ and something. While this may be nothing more than careless language, it is repeated.

What we see in this article is the phrase “the sovereignty of God” being used along with the phrase “the responsibility of man.” The phrases are used as two aspects or necessary ingredients in salvation. What does the responsibility of man have to do with the necessary things of salvation? What is necessary for salvation? From the Reformed view (historically) man’s responsibility has to do with man’s obligation and not his moral ability. The fact that man has responsibility only increases his guiltiness before God and has nothing to do with his salvation. Salvation is by Christ alone through grace alone and that is received by faith alone. Faith itself is not a work of man, but is rather a gift of God and is how regenerate men receive salvation. From the Reformed view the responsibility of man has nothing to do with his salvation.

From the Arminian view a necessary act of salvation is for man to exercise his free-will and make a choice. It is the choice that man makes in choosing Christ that God responds to and so saves the person. The differences between these two systems of thought can hardly be any more divergent. Historically these two positions are contradictory and mutually exclusive. According to Scripture they are as well. Whatever comes from a free-will (logically and theologically) is a will that is moved by the power of man and is free from grace if it is a free-will. Salvation is by grace alone and that is from the beginning through eternity. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). Whatever is by grace is not on the basis of works and it is opposite to that which moves us to a work apart from grace. For the will to be free it must be free from outside powers. If we are saved by grace alone, then it is grace alone that moves the will which means the will is not free.

The statements in the article in question are not in accordance with the Gospel of grace alone. Can those that are truly Reformed agree to a unity based on statements like this? Can those that are truly Reformed agree that the theology expressed in these statements should be taught by SBC professors? Can Reformed people agree that human responsibility (as taught in this context) is a necessary element for salvation? Can those who are in line with historical Arminian thinking agree to those statements? As the conference in North Carolina grows closer, the dangers become more obvious. It is so easy to agree with the words and phrases of a statement and never really agree at all. It will be easy for people to become infatuated with civility and the desire to be winsome and the desire to agree with others that they may be blinded to the fact that there is no real agreement in substance. It could be that the desire to agree will be so strong that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be defended. That is a frightful outlook, but we must remember the power that wanting to get along and be accepted can have on men.

At this point I will be moving back into a critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 SBC LIFE. I will attempt to discuss the article and refer to Mr. Chapman very sparingly. However, this article was and is an important article as it sets out the differences between differing groups in the SBC. His article is an attempt to take a middle ground. It appears that the vast majority of people want a middle ground on this issue, even people on both the Reformed and Arminian side. We must be careful and know what is being said about what the middle ground really is. If we don’t, the Gospel will be compromised by at least one side if not both.

Why do I believe this article has such a dangerous concept? It is because it is an attempt to get people to quit arguing for certain positions in an attempt to keep the SBC from a debate. The problem, however, is that the Gospel is at the center of this debate despite the denial of both sides that it is. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is by grace alone from eternity to eternity and at every point in between. There are professing Calvinists and professing Arminians who deny this in either word or by practice. We must be careful to think through these issues with great care or we will be guilty of compromising the Gospel for the sake of peace and we will run around crying “peace, peace, when there is no peace (Jer 6:14; 8:11; Ezek 13:10).

The overall purpose of the article was an attempt to bring peace regarding three issues in the SBC by looking at the Baptist Faith and Message. One of the issues dealt with is Calvinism. The desire was to prevent a Convention wide debate on this issue as the author thought it would “do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.” While I totally disagree with the idea that “a debate” on the Gospel would do any harm to the Kingdom of God, we are discussing the reason why the author wrote this article. The author clearly does not want there to be a “debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t.” This is the stated reason and this reason cannot really be debated from the words of the author himself. That is his stated purpose.

With that in mind, the author starts this section of the article (on Calvinism) by quoting Section V of the Baptist Faith and Message. This is the section that speaks of election. He quotes two paragraphs and both are dealing with election and what Calvinists affirm. He then quotes from Section IV of the Baptist Faith and Message which speaks to salvation being “offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” and then “there is not salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.” The whole of Section IV is debated, but the author quoted just a small part of section IV. His very next words after quoting Section IV are these: “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.”

If we look at the overall purpose of the article and then the selected quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message followed by the words of the author of this article, I am not sure how it can be denied that the author is setting out a comparison of Calvinist and Arminian teaching. He does not want the Convention to get involved in a debate over this issue and then he sets out quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message. Section V teaches God’s sovereignty and Section IV is interpreted by Arminian leaning theologians as teaching man’s responsibility. But note that what is meant by the responsibility of man at this point is an Arminian view of man’s responsibility. For more on what the Arminian view of responsibility is, see a former BLOG on this issue (Responsibility and Inability I). There is no purpose in giving Section IV in that context if it is not an attempt to show that the Arminian view of responsibility is taught.

If the author meant the Reformed view of responsibility in his article, then he gave no evidence at all for the Arminian view of responsibility. If he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then there is no reason to say that there should be no debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t. If indeed he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then he did nothing but state what Reformed people believe. What would be the point of that in light of this article? The only possible way to interpret this article in the words it was written is that the author meant that the Baptist Faith and Message and Scripture teach the Arminian view of responsibility. If so, then those who are truly Reformed and those who are truly Arminian have a problem. The author would then apparently think that it is okay to teach both Reformed soteriology and Arminian soteriology at the same institutions. That which is truly Reformed and that which is truly Arminian contradict each other and there can be no real agreement between those who truly hold to the various positions. We are just kidding ourselves to say that this is not true.

Do those that believe in the “five-points of Calvinism” believe in the responsibility of man? Yes, but in a far different way than the Arminian does. Of course the Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man (properly defined), but it does not teach the responsibility of man as the Arminian teaches it. In the past Reformed theologians have went to this issue at hand and thought that the Gospel was seriously compromised by Arminians at this very point (see BLOGS Essentials of the Gospel and following for more on this). In fact, they have taught that salvation cannot be by grace alone unless the Arminian view of ability was denied. In the past Arminians have thought that the Reformed view killed evangelism and churches. The author says that there is an antinomy between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. From the Reformed view of responsibility that may be true, but rather than an antinomy there is a contradiction from the Arminian view. For the Reformed people to remain silent on this issue and to accept peace at this point is to jettison what the Reformers and their theological children taught that the Bible taught on this issue. It can still be argued whether it is to jettison Scripture or not, but there can be no argument about what the Reformers taught on this.

The question then comes as to us as to what to do. There can be no debate and dialogue on the Gospel itself. The Gospel is to be preached and declared and there can be no compromise on the Gospel. One can compromise on ways to express things and certain focuses, but one cannot compromise the heart of the Gospel which is all about the glory of God in the face of Christ by grace alone. Can one that loves the Gospel of grace alone be quiet about others who teach a gospel that is not grace alone? Can there be peace in a denomination while some teach a Gospel of grace alone and others teach something else though still using the same designation? These are not silly little issues and is not just one person being picky. These are things that must be dealt with if we are to be faithful to Christ. Sure we have to be analytical and ask what people mean by words and concepts, but that is exactly what people that have been faithful to the Gospel have done over the years. It is far easier in one sense just to stand back and say nothing, but faithfulness to Christ and His true Church requires that we stand firm regardless of the cost.

In the past three BLOGS I dealt with two articles from the October 2007 issue of SBC LIFE. Those articles had to do with people being civil in what is written and said in all mediums of communication. I am not questioning the heart of those men and really not even the central theme of what they have written. I am simply stating that more needs to be taken into consideration. In one sense I am very concerned with what is going on within the SBC and modern evangelical thinking. In another sense it may be partly self-preservation. In the next BLOG or two I am going to return to a critique of an article by Morris Chapman in the August 2007 SBC LIFE. In that article there was a serious compromise of the Gospel. I cannot remain quiet about that. There is something else going on that is of serious concern, though, namely the Building Bridges conference that will take place in November. It is related to the Morris Chapman article. At that conference professing Arminians and professing Calvinists are planning to dialogue on understanding each other and how to get along. There is a strong possibility that if the goal is getting along, then in order to be civil and polite the Gospel itself will be compromised. Whatever else is done, the glory of the character of God in the Gospel is more important than civility for the sake of getting along in one denomination. The issues between the two groups as historically understood are logically and biblically irreconcilable. The differences must be set out with clarity and not watered down.

Jesus Christ would be considered harsh today, but He was and is perfect love. Well, some say, “He knew hearts perfectly and you don’t.” That is correct. But following that argument to its conclusions leads us to the point where we are not able to say anything to anyone. We don’t have to pass final judgment on hearts to obey Scripture and tell people that what they say is not according to Scripture and to stand up for the Gospel. Listen to some words of Scripture pointed to leaders:

Exodus 32:21 – Then Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you, that you have brought such great sin upon them?”

Matthew 16:23 – But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

When the men gather in North Carolina, if their primary goal is not the glory of God and His glory in the Gospel, then they will fail miserably in truth no matter what the outward victories appear to be. If the solution is that both sides will just have to learn to compromise for the greater good of the SBC, all will be lost. The Gospel of the glory of God is of far more importance than the SBC. In fact, the SBC should only be in existence for the advancement of God’s kingdom. If the Gospel is compromised, the SBC has become totally worthless. The men at that conference must realize that civility and being gracious is not the most important thing. They must be there to defend the Gospel at the expense of their reputations and positions. The calls to civility and graciousness may in fact work to dull the edge of the Word of God and this simply must not happen.

It is my view that the SBC in general terms is teetering on the edge of irrelevance. It has become more like the business world and less like the Word of God. It has become more of a good-ole-boy network than of people being concerned about seeking men who seek God. It has become more interested in counting nickels and noses (under a pious guise of baptisms and ministry) than it is in seeking the glory of God. In other words, as it becomes more and more like the world it is becoming less and less biblical.

Here are some words from R.C. Sproul from his book Willing to Believe, pp. 19-20:

Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Theological Seminar in Escondido, California, recently suggested that I write a book about “the myth of influence.” I was startled by the suggestion because I did not know what he meant. He explained that this phrase refers to the modern evangelical penchant to “build bridges” to secular thought or to groups within the larger church that espouse defective theologies.

The mythical element is the naïve assumption that one can build bridges that move in one direction only. Bridges are usually built to allow traffic to move in two directions. What often happens when we relate to others is that we become the influences rather than the influencers. In an effort to win people to Christ and be “winsome,” we may easily slip into the trap of emptying the gospel of its content, accommodating our hearers, and removing the offense inherent in the gospel. To be sure, our own insensitive behavior can add an offense to the gospel that is not properly part of it. We should labor hard to avoid such behavior. But to strip the gospel of those elements that unbelievers find repugnant is not an option.

Martin Luther once remarked that wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy. We live in an age that abhors controversy, and we are prone to avoid conflict. How dissimilar this atmosphere is from that which marked the labor of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. The prophets were immersed in conflict and controversy precisely because they would not accommodate the Word of God to the demands of the nation caught up in syncretism. The apostles were engaged in conflict continuously. As much as Paul sought to live peaceably with all men, he found rare moments of peace and little respite from controversy.

That we enjoy relative safety from violent attacks against us may indicate a maturing of modern civilization with respect to religious toleration. Or it may indicate that we have so compromised the gospel that we no longer provoke the conflict that true faith engenders.

We must never forget that our hearts are deceitful and that the world is always trying to make us conform to it. The world can get inside of religious denominations and make them more like itself in terms of business practices and its outlook of tolerance rather than the denomination being like Christ and His Word. Peace within a denomination is only desirable if it is a peace wrought by and of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is of Christ alone and grace alone. No matter the words that men say, their theology must sustain that as well. The men going to North Carolina may be going to dialogue in a civil manner and in a gracious way, but they must be sure that they are going to defend the Gospel first and foremost. At times speaking in a civil and gracious way is nothing more than carving the offense of the Gospel away and making it more palatable to some.

The true Gospel of grace alone will always provoke conflict as it reaches the hearts of sinful men. The true message of the sovereign God will always provoke conflict within the hearts of self-sufficient men who hate the rule of God over them. The message that men are dead in sins and trespasses and unable to save themselves in any way is offensive to those who are dead. The message that a person can only be saved by Christ alone and of grace alone is horrible to those who trust in even a little of their own righteousness and power.

This may sound intolerant to some, but so be it. If it is intolerant to judge others, then no one should judge the intolerance of others as that is also judging. If it is intolerant to judge others as unbelievers, then it is also intolerant to judge others as believers. The issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and if anyone denies the Gospel that person is not a Christian regardless of his or her position in the world or church. A worldly tolerance will not say anything and that person will perish. True love will say something. The person that love speaks to will respond in anger, yes, but perhaps will be converted later on. The meeting in North Carolina is perhaps about far more than the men themselves realize. They will stand before God as to whether or not they will be faithful to Him and to His Word. That is far more important than whether or not men think of them as civil or gracious. The goal must be the glory of God and nothing else. Anything else would be idolatry.

In the last two BLOGS I responded to an article by Dr. Page in the October 2007 issue of SBC LIFE which was a plea for civility. I am sure that I might seem uncivil in even trying to point out that something else needs to be said. He might even agree with what I am saying. I don’t disagree with what he wrote, but there is more to the picture. In the same magazine Thom Rainer’s article (A Plea for a More Civil Discourse) was published. He says this: “I’m not saying avoid substantive issues and the calls for accountability, but I plead with my brothers and sisters in Christ, particularly in our denomination, to move toward a more civil discourse, a more Christlike attitude in what we say and write.” While we would all agree with the fact that we should all have more of a “Christlike attitude” in what we say and write, we might disagree on what that means. Jesus Christ absolutely blistered his opponents at times with withering replies and comments. Paul did the same thing. A civil discourse, as interpreted by modern Americans, is not always the most “Christlike” response. Are we still being Christlike when we are saying what Christ said in Matthew 23? If we are truly doing it out of love for God and other people, then we are.

He goes on to say that “our witness is compromised when a spiritually lost world sees us fighting with one another, when they see unloving words hurled without restraint, when they see terse comments cloaked in civility – when they see little evidence of Christian love.” That is correct in the main, but again these things have to be looked at closely. A lost world needs for Christians to be willing to stand up and fight for the purity of the Gospel. The glory of God demands that we be willing to fight for the Gospel. One thing that we have to be concerned about is worldliness. What is that? It is the spirit of the age. One spirit of our age is that of being tolerant and nice in all things. We can be very nice people and do that from being worldly. We can be very civil and do that from just wanting to be like the world or in insulating ourselves from criticism. To be Christlike means that we are to be like Christ in our outward lives and attitudes. Sometimes we must be uncivil (in terms of how modern Americans define the word) and speak in ways that will appear harsh. Good preaching that awakens lethargic people cannot be done in a civil way. It may be that writing books and articles that offend no one are worthless if people need to be awakened.

I would like to repeat that what Thom Rainer says is good, but there is more to be said on the subject. Without knowing his heart and what he meant in writing it, we know that some people will interpret his words in a modern and worldly way. For example: “Would you pray with me that the world will see us as men and women who love the Lord with all of our hearts, and who love one another? Will you be a part of the conversation that shifts from negativity to Great Commission obedience?” What does he mean by a conversation that shifts from negativity? Some people think that talking about sin is negative. Some people think that saying anything that is not positive in the superlative is negative. Without trying to get into what he might or might not mean, we must be careful to note that the Bible commands us to preach, teach and write against sin. We must be careful to speak the things that are of God as God tells us to speak and write them. Those things are termed “negative” by many people. If we love God with all of our heart and also love others, then we must talk and write in ways the world will think is negative. That will give us an opportunity to explain what real love is. Let us look at a few texts of Scripture.

Numbers 20:12 – But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”

1 Tim 5:20 – Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

Jude 1:3 – Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Whatever Dr. Page and Thom Rainer mean by the need to be civil, we must remember that we are to treat God as holy and sometimes that means being uncivil in the eyes of the world. Whatever they meant by the need to be civil, we must remember that we are to rebuke people for sin in the presence of all. Whatever else it means to be civil; we are to contend earnestly for the faith. We know Jesus and Paul did and they would not be called “civil” today. Standing for the Gospel of grace will require us to be uncivil at times because the world and many religious people hate God and the Gospel of grace. While it will appear as uncivil and will be hated, true love for God requires it.

This discussion is about the October 2007 issue of SBC Life today. Just inside the front page an article with large letters stands out: A Call for Christian Civility. This is not an open attack on that article, but is simply to say that there is a gaping hole in it that does not deal with the reality of the Christian life in many ways. It is the God-centeredness part that is not really brought into play. Being civil is not the same thing as love and one can be civil as a way of covering up our cowardly hearts that need to be standing for the glory of God when others personally attack God by their sin and their theology. We are to love God above all and as the primary thing. True love for God will never be opposed to true love for another though it may be opposed to the appearance of civility.

Believers must love God and His glory by seeking growth of His kingdom in the hearts of others. That means it is good to be corrected if it makes us more like God. It is a good thing when a brother corrects something in our life or theology. It is true love if the heart is right with God to be corrected and to correct. Ephesians tells us that the church grows when believers grow in love. It is not love to be outwardly kind and civil without telling a person about a dangerous growth on him or her if that person does not see it. Neither is it love to be so given to outward kindness and civility that one ignores the much greater dangers of sin and bad theology. Even more, it is not love for God.

If we chafe at being corrected it demonstrates pride in us. Pride is that exaltation of self over God. The only thing that a correction that is true does to us is hurt self and the feelings of self which is pride. If it is pointing out a truth about God and His glory, it is good for us in reality. Imagine being Paul who was sort of the new kid on the block. “But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you” (Gal 2:5). Paul saw that the Gospel was at stake. What would he do at this point? It is easier within a social or religious context to remain quiet and conform to the rules of niceness, but the Gospel itself was at stake. Some of the Jews had come in and had brought some teachings that were contrary to the Gospel. True love means that we stand for the Gospel no matter the cost and sometimes that includes the cost of being outwardly nice.

Not only that, “but when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Peter was one of the inner circle that was taught by Jesus Himself. Peter was a big gun and leader in the Church. But when he began to be led astray, Paul opposed him to his face in front of them all (Gal 2:14). Was Paul being civil? Not by modern day standards. Was Paul being nice and polite? Not by modern day standards. But Paul was a man who loved God and the Gospel. What he did was moved by love for God and for the souls of the people in that time and is good for the souls of people now. Love for God and the good of the souls of others must always take precedence over civility. Does that mean we are to be rude and run roughshod over people? No, it means that we are to love God and others at all times. Most of the time that means we will be what people think of as civil. But there are times when what is thought of as civil would require us to be idolaters and to be quiet when the character of God is being attacked. At those times love for God must take precedence over civility.

We have other examples of Paul speaking out against religious leaders: “Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” 2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” 4 But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” 5 And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'” (Acts 23:1-5). Paul only said he was wrong because of the Scripture that says one should not speak evil of a ruler of the people. Was Paul speaking in love when he said what he said here? We must be careful about setting up standards of civility for all people in all cases that would not allow us to be like Paul and Jesus.

What did Paul mean when he called Ananias a “whitewashed wall” in this context? He was being like Jesus when he did so. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” (Matthew 23:27). The same Greek word for “whitewash” is used in both instances. Paul was speaking to the same type of religious people that Jesus was. He told the man that he was covering his wicked heart with a washing of external religion. Being like Jesus and Paul in this case is not lacking in love, but it is not being civil. At times we have to choose between love and civility. Jesus and Paul chose true love even though it would not be considered civil today.

It is perhaps disingenuous to entitle this as Responsibility and Inability, but it is still in the overall context of the real issue of this BLOG. I received the October 2007 issue of SBC Life today. Just inside the front page an article with large letters stood out: A Call for Christian Civility. The antonym for “civility” is “rudeness” while synonyms are “polite” and “courteous.” While there are a lot of positive things that can be said about Dr. Page’s article, there is a gaping hole in it as well. It is the God-centeredness part that is not really brought into play. Let me explain.

There is a lot of concern today about love. That is a concern that is biblical, but we must take care that what we mean by love is what the Bible means by love. If we replace the biblical meaning of love as that which simply means being outwardly nice, polite, and courteous and things like that, we have missed a large part of the meaning and perhaps the most important part. There is no love apart from the love of God dwelling in a human soul. The outward man can be nice and polite and have no love at all. The outward man can sell all he has and even give his body to be burned and have no love (I Cor 13:1-3). One can practice all of those things and have no love at all. We must be careful or we will replace biblical love with external actions or appearances.

The heart of true love is a love for God first and foremost. I never love another person if I am telling them something that is not to the glory of God and is not intended that way. I also do not love another person if I withhold the truth of God in order to be polite. In fact, it can be idolatry to be outwardly polite and nice if the other person needs to hear some truth of God which is best for his or her soul. This past weekend Paul Washer was in Kansas and spoke several times over a period of three days. He spoke of a physician that would not tell the person what was wrong with them. That is a great analogy. Can you imagine a physician that would not tell patients what was wrong with them because he wanted to be nice and polite? How can we tell people in a way that they will hear us that they are dead in sins and trespasses? How can we tell people in a nice and polite way that they are enemies of God and that they hate Him?

It is true enough that Dr. Page is speaking of believers speaking to believers. However, the same truth still exists for believers as well. We must know that just because a person is religious does not mean that person is a true believer. It is also true that believers are wrong on many issues and need correction. In fact, just after II Timothy 3:16 which teaches the nature of Scripture it teaches us a few of the purposes of Scripture: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (II Timothy 4:1-2). The Word of God is breathed by God, but that same Word is to be preached and taught and people are to be reproved, rebuked and exhorted by that Word. We must never lose sight that true love is never opposed to the application of the Word of God.

We must also learn from the New Testament that true love will take strong stands on the Word of God and that is always oriented toward God. It is almost never love for another person to withhold what is good for another’s soul. It is never love to allow others to malign the name of God in their theology. Dr. Page rightly bemoans personal attacks on other people, but we must also realize that all sin of life and theology is a personal attack on God Himself. There are times when we must be something other than what our modern age thinks of as nice in order to rebuke people for their personal attacks on God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is primarily the display of the glory of God. When a person does something in life or theology that is contrary to the Gospel, that person has personally attacked God. This is something that must explode into our reality. We are to be lovers of God and of the Gospel first and foremost. When a human being attacks God by word or life, it is love for God and the other person to rebuke that other person even if it does not have the appearance of niceness or politeness to it. It can still be love.

We are to be people that live before God first and foremost. If the society does not appreciate that, it may simply be that they don’t appreciate people that live in the presence of God. Love is not the same thing as politeness though they do converge many times. But since they are not the same thing, they are not always seen at the same time. A desire to be polite and nice can keep us from true love. In that case, civility and politeness can be stumbling blocks and we must be non-civil for Christ’s sake. For Christ’s sake, people, love God and others enough to be willing to be less than civil and polite in appearance. Love for God demands it.