CHAPTER XXIV
"AND YE SHALL BE HOLY"
WHEN CHRISTIANS ENDEAVOUR TO DRESS MODESTLY AND FOLLOW NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCTIONS
ON HOLINESS, "PERMISSIVE GOSPEL" BELIEVERS LABEL THEM AS "LEGALISTIC"
AND "CULTIC." IS THIS ACCUSATION FAIR?
|
|
IS GOD INTERESTED IN OUR "BEHAVIOR" OR IS THAT JUST A "PENTECOSTAL OBSESSION"?
IS GOD IN THE BUSINESS OF "AFFIRMING" ANY AND ALL LIFESTYLES IN THE NAME
OF "LOVE"?
WHAT ABOUT SMOKING, DRINKING, AND WEARING APPAREL? DO THEY MATTER?
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
DR. BOYD // GOD THE BEHAVIORALIST // "LOVE"
AND "AFFIRM" -- AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY! // THE
REAL AUTHOR OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL // ARE
YOU DISTINCT FROM YOUR BEHAVIOR? // CALVIN AND
LUTHER // JESUS' WARNING
AGAINST THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL // WHO
ARE CHRIST'S REAL FRTIENDS? // A CHAIN REACTION
// PARABLE OF THE EVIL SERVANT // PARABLE
OF THE TALENTS -- MATTHEW 25:14-30 // DOING
THE WILL OF THE FATHER // WHAT DID
PAUL THINK OF "BEHAVIORALISM"? // BEYOND THE
COMMA // HOLINESS -- FREEDOM OR BONDAGE?
// ONENESS POSITION ON WORKS // PAUL'S
POSITION ON SALVATION AND WORKS // GALATIANS
5:19-21 -- LOSING THE INHERITANCE // EPHESIANS
5:3-7 -- DECEIVERS WITH VAIN WORDS // ROMANS
2:2-6 -- ACCORDING TO DEEDS // HEBREWS
10:26- 27 -- SINNING WILLFULLY
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DR.
BOYD
The God that Dr. Boyd would have us worship is radically different
from the God revealed in the Bible. For the God we meet in the sacred pages
of the Bible is intensely interested in our behavior and how we live our
lives.
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord
am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine
(Lev. 20:26).
And that ye may put difference between holy and
unholy, and between unclean and clean (Lev. 10:10).
This interest that God has in our conduct is reiterated in the New Testament
also.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48).
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness
of the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven
(Matt. 5:20).
In fact almost the entire Sermon on the Mount is focused on how we should
behave and conduct ourselves in this life. It touches almost every realm
of activity: giving, speaking, marriage, lending, prayer, appearance, judging,
obedience. It Concludes with the question:
...and why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not
the things which I say (Luke 7:46).
GOD THE BEHAVIORALIST
But the God that Dr. Boyd presents to us is quite different;
"But being 'in Christ' means nothing, unless it means that our behavior
is no longer the issue " (Boyd, p. 220).
He reached this conclusion, he says, when he began questioning,
"how it was that if God really loved me, he could be so uptight about
my behavior?" (p. 217).
Apparently, at least for Dr. Boyd, if a parent is concerned (uptight) about
their child's behavior, it shows a lack of love! For the same reason Dr.
Boyd labels the God of the Bible, which Pentecostals proclaim, as a "Behavioralist,"
and he states it quite plainly:
"God, in this view, is a supreme behavioralist. It seems that God is
not in the business of loving and affirming people. Rather, God is in the
business of loving and affirming - or hating and rejecting behavior. If
you do good God approves of you. If you do bad God rejects you. But this
only means that in neither case is God dealing with you. It's your behavior
that God is really interested in " (Boyd, P. 217).
But he would maintain a distinction between a person and their behavior:
God loves and affirms you; your behavior is something separate and not
related to who "you" really are, and in fact, not related to salvation
either! We shall see later from the Bible that this is the foundational
lie upon which this entire super structure of error rests, and is destined
to be swept into hell along with its proponents!
"LOVE" AND "AFFIRM" - AND LOOK THE OTHER
WAY!
Dr. Boyd presents a God whose "business" it is to accept and "affirm"
us, regardless of our behavior. It doesn't matter what we do, no matter
how evil, God had better "love and affirm us" or else He's a "Behavioralist,"
and not a God of Love! And God must not even get "uptight" about our behavior,
no matter what it is, Dr. Boyd contends. For if he does, it means he doesn't
really "love" you, "it's your behavior that God is really interested in"
(Boyd p. 217) . Succinctly stated, this whole "Permissive Gospel" theory
presents before us a God who is busy "affirming us," "loving" us, in other
words "approving us," while at the same time "looking the other way" as
far as our behavior is concerned - for that really doesn't matter
In fact, we are to be saved in spite of what we do, or indeed, shall
ever do:
"All we are or ever shall be before God then is because of what he
did, in spite of what we do " (Boyd, p. 220) .
And that of necessity would include murders, rapes, blasphemies, etc. "In
spite of," you see!
Dr. Boyd also "begs the question" by making us feel that to be
interested or even concerned about our behavior, (what the Bible calls
"convicted of sin,") is somehow unchristian! He writes:
"Frankly, to make salvation conditional upon particular do's and don'ts
that we perform in our life is to deny Christ's glory and to disparage
God's grace" (Boyd p. 220).
He even feels it is "damaging at a spiritual and psychological level "
(Boyd, p. 33). So we better not be too "uptight" about our "do's and don'ts,"
less we diminish the glory of God and warp ourselves psychologically!!!
Dr. Boyd has also, so to speak, served notice on God Himself. For if God
were to meddle in our behavior or lifestyle, by "evaluating" us in terms
of our "particular behavior," this would make Him a "compulsive perfectionistic
God " (Boyd, p. 218). And of course, such a God is unworthy of worship
or devotion! No, in this theology it behooves God to leave us alone if
He wants to maintain his reputation as a God who "unconditionally loves!"
In fact, to believe in a "nit-picky God," as Boyd puts it (p. 132), is
for him, "a terrifying notion" (p. 133). And as always, Dr. Boyd throws
in his "ad hominim" argument for good measure:
"Where as the theology of John Calvin and Martin Luther was founded
upon Paul's beautiful and freeing gospel... The United Pentecostal Church
explicitly argues against this position" (Boyd, p. 216).
We shall deal with Calvin and Luther's "beautiful and freeing gospel" shortly!
THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE
PERMISSIVE GOSPEL
The real author of this gospel that "it doesn't matter what you do.
God will just the same love you" is Satan the devil. It is his oldest trick
Eve had a correct understanding of the "do's and don'ts' of garden living;
for she told the serpent that to eat the fruit would mean death. Adam and
Eve had their "conditions" and they knew what behavior God required
It was not a question of maintaining God's love" (for in a sense
God loves even the vilest of sinners!); it was a question of maintaining
life! This is one of Dr. Boyd's fundamental misunderstandings. Obedience
and behavior are related primarily to life, not love! For in one way God
loves all men (John 3:16), but only the obedient are saved. The Bible unmistakably
declares that obedience is necessary for salvation.
And being made perfect, he became the author
of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (Hebrews
5:9).
Who receives "eternal salvation?" Those that obey him! But Eve listened
to Satan who convinced her God was not really interested in "performance"
or "nit-picky" details like obedience. He would love her "in spite" of
all she would do, for "behavior is not the issue." She believed him; she
ate; and she died! So in reality, Dr. Boyd's theology is old, very old.
ARE YOU DISTINCT FROM YOUR BEHAVIOR?
What about this distinction Dr. Boyd draws between a believer and
his "behavior." Can a Christian really be a child of God, even though he
"behaves" like a child of the devil? The Bible gives a resounding no to
this Boydian theory which separates a Christian (whom God loves) from his
behavior (which God ignores). For in the Bible, you are what you do! You
are defined by your behavior! John writes:
Little children, let no man deceive you: he
that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He
that committeth sin is of the devil... (I John 3:7-8)
In fact, the very means of distinguishing between "God's children" and
the "devils children" is by their behavior!
In this the children of God are manifest, and
the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not
of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (I John
3:10).
There you have it as plain as words can make it "whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God." "Doeth" indicates behavior, conduct ("performance"
as Dr. Boyd likes to put it). John doesn't say someone is a child of God
in spite of their behavior. He doesn't say that those "who doeth not righteousness"
are of God anyhow, because behavior doesn't matter. He considers it a safe
rule to distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous based on their "behavior."
If it's safe for him, would it be any less safe for God?
The "wisdom" that produced this carnal "loop hole" that behavior
does not affect ones relationship with God, can easily be traced to its
source. For
...this wisdom descendeth not from above, but
is earthly, sensual, devilish (James 3:15).
CALVIN AND LUTHER
Shall we examine Calvin's "beautiful and freeing" gospel for openers?
Calvin was an extreme pre-destinationalist. God selected some before the
foundation of the world to be saved and then "forced" them into it. Others
He decided should be damned to hell, and refused to give them even a chance
to repent. And none of this was based on the individual's desire or moral
state. It was just who ever God picked.
Do you think I'm overstating the case? Hear Calvin himself:
"For the seed of the Word of God takes root and brings forth fruit
only in those whom the Lord, by his eternal election, has pre-destined
to be children and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. To all the others (who
by the same counsel of God are rejected before the foundation of the world)
the clear and evident preaching of the truth can be nothing but an odor
of death unto death (John Calvin, Instruction in Faith, Paul I. Fuhrman,
translator, 1949, p. 36)
How's that for a "beautiful and freeing Gospel?" Is that how we "participate
in God's eternal triune love?" (p. 196). And is this how the Trinity goes
about "enveloping us within it?" (p. 189). The God of Oneness may be a
"God of Solitude" as Dr. Boyd calls Him, but at least He offers salvation
to "whosoever will" (Rev. 22:17). He does not pick some to be saved, and
some to be damned. He does not push some into his love, while holding at
bay others who would sincerely want it if only given a chance. Our Oneness
Gospel offer that we give to all men is sincere, and available to everyone
who wants it. We offer "freedom" from sin and the "beauty" of Holiness.
And if they're willing, so is God. That's the real beautiful and freeing
gospel."
John Calvin took over the city of Geneva and ran it like a concentration
camp. It was a Protestant reign of terror. The Catholic Church never dreamed
of the extremes this man went to in controlling peoples' lives. He all
but decreed when you could laugh (if ever!). He was famous for it. When
Michael Servetus disagreed with him, he had him burned at the stake. Is
this the "freedom" Dr. Boyd is speaking about?
As far as Martin Luther is concerned, Dr. Boyd should be glad
he's not still alive. For the good Dr. would have thoroughly rebuked Dr.
Boyd for his wanton Permissive Gospel. He might have even given the order
to "smite, stab, and slay him." Luther was such a "Bible believer" that
he declared the Epistle of James (with which he disagreed) an Epistle of
Straw, and said he would "burn it!" I know it as a fact for I studied at
a Lutheran College. They did their best to get around it, but there it
was. There was no hiding it.
Luther firmly believed in baptism for the regenerating of the
soul and the remission of sins. He taught it in his "Shorter" and "Longer"
Catechism (and any other size you want!). Is that a "beautiful and freeing
gospel?" Dr. Boyd condemns baptismal regeneration as anti-gospel, then
holds up Dr. Luther as our example of gospel preaching. It's either confused,
or illogical or both. Maybe he can explain it. Dr. Luther also believed
in what amounted to the same doctrine of "Transubstantiation" as the Catholics
teach. He called it "consubstantiation." You eat the wafer, you eat Christ.
All so beautiful and freeing! Enough of this cafeteria style use of history.
Neither Calvin nor Luther preached what Dr. Boyd advocates. They were rigid
and "legalistic" beyond what their 20th Century admirers could imagine.
It is a much wiser course to examine what Christ, Paul and the
New Testament had to say on salvation, its conditions, and its relationship
to "behavior" and "performance." And to that task the next few pages are
dedicated.
JESUS' WARNING AGAINST
THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL
Jesus himself warned us to beware of the tainted theology which would
separate standing from behavior. He said,
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
He previously explained that a ...
...good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (v.
17).
Dr. Boyd contradicts this however; for in his theology a good tree ("saved
Christian") may bring forth evil fruit (bad behavior). For "behavior" is
not a factor in being a child of God to his way of thinking. He writes:
"Thinking in this fashion inevitably exalts performing for God above
honestly loving God, for it exalts God's estimation of our performance
above God's estimation of our being."
There it is again -- "our being" is separate from our "performance." He
insists on separating what "God hath joined together." Notice also how
the sincere Christian practice of holy living is constantly caricatured
as a "performance." Why doesn't he use the Bible terms: "conversation,"
"walk," "life," or its modern translation "lifestyle?" He doesn't dare!
It would sound too "lawless" to say your "lifestyle" doesn't matter, or
God shouldn't get "uptight" about your "walk." It's better to hide it under
terms like "performance," "do's and don'ts" or "works."
To be in God's family, (a "child of God") is directly contingent
upon doing God's will. Without this "behavior" you're not in!
For whosoever shall do the Will of my Father
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother
(Matt 12:50).
Dr. Boyd says it's "in spite of what we do" (p. 220), Jesus says it's because
of what we do. Now whom shall we believe?
WHO ARE CHRIST'S REAL FRIENDS?
Jesus defined his "friends" by their "behavior" towards him:
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command
you (John 15:14).
If a so-called "child of God" is not obeying Christ's Commands, but is
behaving disobediently to them, is he a "Friend of Christ?" According to
the words of the Master, he is not. But according to Dr. Boyd he is, for
"performance" has nothing to do with it!
"The God in Jesus Christ is ... a God who loves and saves on the basis
of how he performs, not on the basis of how we perform" (Boyd, 219).
Therefore, we can disobey his commands (sinful "performance") and still
be "his Friend!" Again, who shall we believe, Christ or Dr. Boyd?
A CHAIN REACTION
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth
them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved
of my father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him (John
14:21).
Keeping Christ's Commandments ("performance" if you please) results in
God loving that person, and Christ manifesting himself to him. Is there
any similar promise for those who don't keep his commandments?
Of course not! In this passage our love for Christ is defined as "keeping
his commandments" - its action, or "behavior" that proves our love for
Christ, not "lip service." This is the first link in an unbreakable chain
reaction. Our keeping his commandments, shows we love him; this results
in the Father loving us; which results in Christ manifesting himself to
us! The Father's love is a direct result of our keeping Christ's commandments.
But Dr. Boyd doesn't agree at all, for he writes:
"We don't need to, and we can't, do something to make God do something
he wouldn't otherwise do. Our performance is not the issue" (Boyd,
p. 195).
But performance is the issue as we shall see in Christ's parables
to us of the "Evil Servant" and "The Talents."
PARABLE OF THE EVIL SERVANT
Performance and behavior certainly were decisive factors in the case
of the servants in "the parable of the household" (Matt. 24: 45-51). The
household represents the "church" (Gal. 6:10). The "servants" are the Christians
(I Cbr. 4:2, Rom. 1:1). The lord is Christ. When the Lord returns, who
is the servant that is blessed and made ruler? The one that is doing the
Lord's will (v. 45-46). In contrast, the evil servant, who was not
doing the Lord's will (v.48-49) is punished. He had disbelieved the promise,
smote his fellowservants, and become drunk. What was the result of this
"performance?" He was "cut asunder" and thrown into a place of "weeping
and gnashing of teeth" (v.51). And that is exactly where the "performance
doesn't matter," teaching always leads!
PARABLE OF THE TALENTS -
MATTHEW 25:14-30
Again Jesus teaches us the importance of what we do, and how it effects
our eternal destiny. The parable deals with the Kingdom of Heaven. The
servants are the believers. The time period is the present age. Each servant
is given a "talent," which represents their assignment in the work of God.
The parable then "fast forwards" to the Second Coming of Christ. "After
a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them"
(v. 19). Those who had used their 'talents" for God's work were told...
Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord (v. 21).
But as we saw in the previous parable of the household, the servant who
did not his lord's will was denied entrance into the "joy
of the Lord;" and was consequently cast into "outer darkness" where there
is sweeping and gnashing of teeth " (v. 30). His "behavior" or "performance"
concerning the "talent" assigned to him was the deciding factor!
DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER
Jesus said:
Not everyone that saith Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven (Matthew 7:21).
Contrast this with Dr. Boyd:
"Our acceptance before God is wholly based on God's performance...
it is not even related to our performance " (Boyd, p. 196).
Did a wider contradiction ever exist in the entire history of theology?
Christ says entrance into God's Kingdom is based on our "doing the will
of the Father." Dr. Boyd says it's not even related to our performance.
We have nothing to do! Such a teaching puts a smile on the face of every
demon in hell. The Father of Lies himself couldn't be more pleased. This
is the very apex and zenith of "easy believism." It can't get any "easier"
than this. Just do nothing! The tide will suck you into the Kingdom of
God automatically with all the rest of the jetsam and floatsam! And this
great revelation (?) of "sin and get in," Dr. Boyd informs us, is...
"lost whenever one denies the eternal Trinity " (Boyd, p. 196).
I don't view it as a loss. Its a positive bonus. You can rid yourself of
two errors for the price of one!
WHAT DID PAUL THINK OF "BEHAVIORALISM"
Dr. Boyd speaks of Paul's
"...beautiful and freeing Gospel that one is saved by grace alone,
wholly apart from works" (Boyd, p. 216).
He refers us to Romans 4:1-8, where we discover that Dr. Boyd is as good
at "adding" to scripture, as he is at "subtracting" from it. For Paul never
mentioned the word "alone;" that is an addition by Dr. Boyd. Martin Luther
tried the same thing in his German translation of the Bible by adding the
word "only" and gave the Catholic Church much ammunition thereby. We are
now used to these "textual revisions" however. For in the same chapter
on page 220 -- he quotes Paul again as saying there is
...no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus (Romans 8:1).
But he puts a period, where the Bible places a comma and severs the second
half of the verse which reads:
...who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.
And no wonder he had to do this "editing." If he let the text stand in
its entirety it would have destroyed his whole doctrine of "conditionless
salvation." The freedom from condemnation is promised only to those who
"walk after the Spirit," something Dr. Boyd feels is not "even related"
to our salvation! It certainly must be a very weak case that requires cutting
and pasting of Bible verses in order to make them mean the opposite of
what they say. Adding and subtracting from the Bible is dangerous work
(Rev. 22:18-19). Those who do it will have their part taken "out of the
book of life."
BEYOND THE COMMA
If Dr. Boyd and other Permissive Gospel advocates would go "beyond
the comma" in Romans 8, and read the whole chapter they might be cured
of their spiritual anarchy. For Paul said to be...
...carnally minded is death (v.6),
and...
...if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but
if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live
(v.13).
To live "after the flesh" is certainly a behavioral life style, and one
that guarantees spiritual death! Instead of soothing people into a false
antimonian philosophy of "conditionless security," Paul pleaded with them
to "mortify the deeds of the flesh" in order that they might live! If a
believer wants to please God, he better consider his life style, for "they
that are in the flesh cannot please God."
HOLINESS - FREEDOM OR BONDAGE?
Why do people like Dr. Boyd feel that to obey God and do what he
says in holy living is somehow not "beautiful and freeing?" I remember
when I was teaching fifth grade in New York City years ago, I asked the
students to write a composition on what it means to be "free." I will never
forget what one student wrote. He said he knew his mother loved him, but
she never cared how late he came in, who his friends were, where he went,
or how he did in school. He noticed other kids his age had to be in at
certain hours, had to get permission to go places, were expected to get
good grades, and generally had to do what they were told or be punished.
He concluded his composition with the statement: "I wish I could be free
like other kids."
This fifth grader long ago saw that obedience to conditions set by a
loving parent is true freedom. He had the real answer to Dr. Boyd's question
of ...
"...how it was that if God really loved me, he could be so uptight
about my behavior" (p. 217).
A parent who is not "uptight" about their child's behavior doesn't really
love that child.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his
Commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3).
A parent who does not get "uptight" about his child playing in the traffic,
doesn't show much love! And that includes trafficking in sin!
ONENESS POSITION ON WORKS
The United Pentecostal Church, The Pentecostal Assemblies of the
World, and all other Oneness bodies certainly believe in God's grace in
salvation. No Oneness organization that I know of teaches that one can
"earn" salvation by doing "good works." Oscar Vouga in his book, "Our Gospel
Message," has this to say:
"Therefore no person can be saved by his or her own good works, for
nothing can wash away the filth of sin but the blood of Jesus; salvation
is only by grace through faith" (Oscar Vouga, Our Gospel Message,
p. 10).
That ought to set the record straight as to where we stand and clear the
air of the false and malicious charges that Oneness teaches "salvation
by works." We never have and never will!
But just because you cannot be "good enough" to "earn" salvation
does not mean there are no conditions to be met to obtain it! Even the
"easy believism" preachers require you do something - raise a hand, come
forward, sign a card, etc. And neither does it mean you can "live as you
please" in complete disobedience and still "enter in."
To illustrate the point let me cite an earthly example. I know
that "every analogy limps;" but this one is quite close to the point. My
mother received a very substantial inheritance from a cousin. She did nothing
to "earn it;" in fact, she had not seen him in years. It was all of "grace."
He provided for her just out of kindness. Yet she had conditions to meet
to obtain: sign documents, report to the bank, file tax, etc. Those conditions
were necessary to obtain the inheritance, and were gladly obeyed.
PAUL'S POSITION ON SALVATION
AND WORKS
Paul explains salvation the same way. In Titus 3:5 after mentioning
that...
...it is not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.
...then Paul goes on to say that it was by water baptism, "the washing
of regeneration," or "bath of regeneration" in the Greek, that God accomplished
this. This was followed by the "renewing of the Holy Ghost." The exact
soteriological doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church International,
the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and all other Oneness groups.
Paul expresses the same thing in I Corinthians 6:11:
And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit of our God.
The washing in Jesus Name, in other words baptism, is the means of obtaining
sanctification and justification, and reception of the Holy Spirit! And
yet Paul would be the last to say he was preaching salvation by works!
Baptism is never called a work in the Bible, but the interesting fact is
that Jesus definitely labeled "believing" as a "work" in John 6:28-29.
So those who advocate salvation by "belief" only, are technically preaching
salvation by works!! Glass houses again!
It's more than strange that Dr. Boyd would cite Paul, even in
a lopsided manner, for Paul had much to say on "behavior" and "salvation."
GALATIANS 5:19-21 - LOSING
THE INHERITANCE
After listing the works of the flesh, (adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
idolatry, wrath, strife, etc.), Paul concludes with this warning:
...the which I tell you before, as I have told
you in the past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom
of God.
And yet "peeping voices" tell us, "performance" has nothing to do with
it, because...
"...our behavior is no longer the issue" (p. 220).
If behavior is "not the issue," and we inherit "unconditionally," "in spite
of what we do," then Paul should have saved his ink! For his warning would
not only be superfluous; it would be down right hollow.
EPHESIANS 5:3-7 - DECEIVERS
WITH VAIN WORDS
Here Paul warns not to let fornication, uncleaness, or covetousness
be even "named among you, as becometh saints." This is expanded to include
filthiness, and foolish talking. He boldly states that ...
...no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous
man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ
and of God.
And he warns us in no uncertain terms about those who insist behavior doesn't
matter:
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because
of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
And less anyone subvert his words by saying this doesn't apply to Christians,
he adds:
Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Live like sinners; partake of their wrath! Why all this warning if there
is no risk of damnation (wrath of God) because of persistent sinful living
?
ROMANS 2:2-6 -- ACCORDING
TO DEEDS
After having listed a whole catalog of sinful activities in Romans
1:29-32, which included: murder, backbiting, homosexuality, deceit, fornication,
etc., Paul issues a warning to Christians who think they can participate
in such behavior and not lose their relationship with God.
And thinkest thou this, O Man, that judgest them
which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape
the judgment of God?
The "behavior doesn't count" mentality is described in the next verse:
...or despisest thou the riches of his goodness
and forbearance, and longsuffering...
Paul comes down hard against the "live as you please" philosophy in verses
5 and 6:
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest
up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds.
In Pauline theology "deeds" matter, because they matter to God! In Boydian
theology they don't matter, in fact, are not "even related," because "our
behavior is no longer the issue."
What a great chasm there is between Paul's message and Dr. Boyd's
nonbehaviorial panacea. Just listen as Paul goes on:
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man
that doeth evil... but glory, honor, and peace to every man that
worketh good... (Romans 2:9-10).
There are those annoying words again "doeth" and "worketh." Why does it
not say that God will "affirm" and accept those Christians who are doing
evil, after all isn't God supposed to be in the business of loving and
affirming" people, regardless of their behavior? (Boyd, p. 217). Paul says
just the opposite! Those "who by patient continuance in well doing seek
for glory and honour and immortality" will receive eternal life (v. 7).
Those who are "contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness"
will receive "indignation and wrath" (v. 8). Again, it is behavior:
"continuing in well doing" results in eternal life; failure to "obey the
truth" results in wrath.
HEBREWS 10:26-27 - SINNING WILLFULLY
For if we sin willfully after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
devour the adversaries.
Willful sinning on the part of Christians, leaves them with no sacrifice
which would "excuse" such behavior, but rather a fiery judgment which will
"devour" them - behavior and all!
I think it is clear at this point that Dr. Boyd's entire theory
of behavior not being related to standing, is false and dangerous. Jesus
compared it to a house built on sand:
But he that heareth, and doeth not, is
like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against
which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the
ruin of that house was great (Luke 6:49).
And the real tragedy is that this whole foundationless false security,
which will ensnare and damn untold innocent people, can all be traced back
to a young man who could not find sufficient motivation, even in the preaching
of Hell fire, "to change permanently certain aspects of the sin-character"
that he had acquired in his pre-United Pentecostal Church International
life! (Boyd, p. 22) They must have been something to lead to this!!
