In recent conversations I observed as several (ultra) conservative preachers began to defend a spirit-led approach to preaching standards. This was particularly suggested in the context of standards that admittedly have no scriptural support. They were using verses like "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," and "keep His commandments, AND do those things that are pleasing in His sight."
Their point is that you don't need scripture to preach a standard. It must also be noted that by preach they mean: "Essential compliance by all members of the congregation at the risk of being in rebellion to the pastor, and therefore God, and resulting in being lost." I do not need to point out the incredible danger of this sort of ill-logic; it is THE recipe for Pharisaism.
There are a number of inherent flaws in this model:
1. There is no objective basis for it's conclusions. It is based solely on the sanctified sentiments of self, and that is not spiritual but carnal. An "I feel" approach to setting standards of separation and conduct facilitates a church culture where "every man is right in his own eyes." This subjective model becomes premise on which we feel justified to judge our brother for holding a different and lesser standard. After all, if he was a spiritual as me then he would preach against "X," and the reason that he doesn't is because he is carnal and does not pray. Anyone who is praying knows that God does no approve of that. Or, as is often said: "You don't have the same Holy Ghost that I do if you don't preach against X."
2. It will inevitably lead to Pharisaism. It will always lead to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Men will inevitably began to bind the consciences and faith of Christians to their personal preferences. No man has the authority to do that.
3. It is flawed in its hermeneutic; it misunderstands these passages. Acts 15:28 says in reflection: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us." But was that the only premise upon which the decision was made? The answer is, no! Acts 15:15 & 19 was the premise: "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..." It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the apostles because it was written. Jesus plainly said that the Holy Spirit would teach what He himself had taught (John 14:26). Being spiritual does not mean that you do not need bible for what you bind on God's people. The word itself is spirit and life (John 6:63). If you want to be truly spiritual in your judgments then preach the word, nothing more and nothing less.
Their point is that you don't need scripture to preach a standard. It must also be noted that by preach they mean: "Essential compliance by all members of the congregation at the risk of being in rebellion to the pastor, and therefore God, and resulting in being lost." I do not need to point out the incredible danger of this sort of ill-logic; it is THE recipe for Pharisaism.
There are a number of inherent flaws in this model:
1. There is no objective basis for it's conclusions. It is based solely on the sanctified sentiments of self, and that is not spiritual but carnal. An "I feel" approach to setting standards of separation and conduct facilitates a church culture where "every man is right in his own eyes." This subjective model becomes premise on which we feel justified to judge our brother for holding a different and lesser standard. After all, if he was a spiritual as me then he would preach against "X," and the reason that he doesn't is because he is carnal and does not pray. Anyone who is praying knows that God does no approve of that. Or, as is often said: "You don't have the same Holy Ghost that I do if you don't preach against X."
2. It will inevitably lead to Pharisaism. It will always lead to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Men will inevitably began to bind the consciences and faith of Christians to their personal preferences. No man has the authority to do that.
3. It is flawed in its hermeneutic; it misunderstands these passages. Acts 15:28 says in reflection: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us." But was that the only premise upon which the decision was made? The answer is, no! Acts 15:15 & 19 was the premise: "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..." It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the apostles because it was written. Jesus plainly said that the Holy Spirit would teach what He himself had taught (John 14:26). Being spiritual does not mean that you do not need bible for what you bind on God's people. The word itself is spirit and life (John 6:63). If you want to be truly spiritual in your judgments then preach the word, nothing more and nothing less.
An important note about Pharisees is their name is taken from the word 'separated'. Their firmly held belief was that the law of God required an additional fence to protect men. Even if you have an appearance of godliness, the 'separated' often start from the arrogant idea that God's word does not go far enough to protect men from themselves. That is pride and unbelief. What a difference a line can make indeed.
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Delete