The Dangers of Self-Preservation

"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he is the one who will save it" (Luke 9:24).

In Acts 24 we clearly see the dangers of self-preservation which causes blindness to truth. Here we see the contrast between the deceived religious community and their supposed love for truth; the corrupt Roman government and their supposed love for truth; and the apostle Paul and his actual love for and stand for truth.

The deceived religious community and their supposed love for truth (24:1-9)

There is an appearance or form of godliness without the power of godliness. The real motive of the deceived religious community is self-preservation and not truth-promotion. Whatever is seen as a threat to the movement, expansion, and existence of the religious community is dealt with in some form or fashion by the religious community – even if that threat is pure truth!

What is amazing is that while being motivated by self-preservation, the religious community carries on its wicked, ungodly, and unrighteous activities (attempting to murder the apostle Paul) under the disguise of righteous motives and actions (5-6). The real reason though for the attempted murder of the apostle was not that he was guilty of any of the charges brought against him but that he was perceived as a definite threat to the deceived religious community - and he was! – He was considered a ringleader – one who stands in the front rank!

Those who take their stand on the truth no matter the consequences are not only considered a definite threat to the existence of the deceived religious community – they are! That is why some of the primary leaders of the deceived religious community today are saying that the greatest threat to the evangelical movement is fundamentalists – and what they mean by fundamentalists is people who take their stand on the truth no matter the consequences – we stand in the way of their ecumenical efforts and expose their heresy and hypocrisy and are therefore considered threats.

The deceived religious community isn’t interested in truth but in self-preservation and they are interested in self-preservation because in actuality they believe that they are the truth and know the truth.

The Roman government and their supposed love for truth (24:22-27)

Hypocrisy is not just a religious thing – there are hypocrites in every profession. Even governments and maybe I should say especially governments can be hypocritical too. The Roman government was very hypocritical by having an appearance of justice without actually having and doing justice. The real motive of the Roman government was self-preservation even at the expense of truth and justice.

The Roman government was able to carry on its wicked and unjust activities under the disguise of being concerned about justice. Whatever was seen as a threat to the Roman government, especially her precious Pax Romana (Roman peace) was dealt with in some form or fashion, even if truth and justice had to be overlooked.

While Felix was supposed to love truth and uphold justice, he didn’t even come close. He knew the truth about Christianity that it wasn’t a bunch of political revolutionaries (22), he lied about needing Lysias there as a witness to determine the case (22b), he held captive a man he knew to be innocent (23), he desired to receive bribes (26) and most telling of all – he avoided the conviction of the Holy Spirit about his sin and need to repent (24-25).

Felix was married to Drusilla, the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I. She was Felix’s third wife. While still in her teens, Drusilla had been given in marriage to the king of Emesa. Felix lured her away from her husband and married her. No wonder Felix became frightened when he heard Paul speak of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come – he wasn’t interested in truth nor adjusting his life to truth through repentance of sin and faith in Christ Jesus. There is grave danger in self-preservation

The apostle Paul and his actual love for and stand for truth (24:10-21)

Paul was innocent of all charges and the charges could not be proved (13). Right behavior flows from right beliefs, doctrine determines duty, and truth is not to be compromised (14-16). Loving and serving God in truth is based on loving and obeying the Word of God (14).

Paul had the power of godliness although judging by appearances he appeared to be a lawbreaker and trouble-maker. Paul’s motive was not self-preservation but alignment with the truth (16). Paul took his stand for truth no matter the consequences (21). Later, in Acts 25 we read that Paul was even willing to die based on truth - "If then, I am a wrongdoer and have commited anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die" (Acts 25:11).

Those who have been redeemed have received the love of the truth so as to be saved and they aren't interested in self-preservation but in truth promotion - they are interested in "is it right" and not in "will it work."

The Purpose of the Death of Christ

Since the purpose of the incarnation was the humanity of Christ for making penal substitution possible, then the purpose of the baptism of Jesus was not His identification with fallen man (that was the incarnation) but His identification with His Father’s perfect plan of redemption which verified that the Lord Jesus would accomplish the fulfillment of all righteousness in His humanity by faith in His Father’s wise, loving, and powerful ability.

In His humanity Christ lived a perfect and sinless life by faith in total obedience to God’s will without utilizing His own equality with God (Philippians 2:6). Therefore He is the author and perfecter of faith (Hebrews 12:2). This also removes the common excuse for our failures and sins that “we are not Jesus.” We would do well to remember that in His humanity He didn’t utilize His equality with God and was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

The perfect and sinless life of Christ was necessary for penal substitution – so that through His death, although He didn’t deserve to die, He could make propitiation for the sins of the people. The death of Christ was not for Himself but for others – “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried…” (1 Corinthians 15:3). This great and liberating truth is what we also sing about - “He took my sins and my sorrows, He made them His very own; He bore the burden to Calvary, and suffered and died alone” (I Stand Amazed in the Presence).

So the incarnation was in order to make penal substitution a possibility and the crucifixion was in order to make penal substitution an actuality. It was through the death of Christ, the sinless Son of God, as our substitute, that God could legally and justly forgive us of our sins. “He (God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24).

However, there is more to the good news about Christ than His sinless life and sacrificial death. There is no good news if Jesus only lived a sinless life and died a sacrificial death. IF that were the case then none of us could or would be forgiven (1 Corinthians 15:17). Without the resurrection of Christ, the atonement would amount to a double injustice (Proverbs 17:15). BUT, with His resurrection, the atonement is just and God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

The Purpose of the Baptism of Jesus

The biblical purpose of the incarnation was to make possible penal substitution. The incarnation was the Lord’s identification with fallen man by taking on the form of a man in order that He might make propitiation for the sins of the people. “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendent of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18).

So if the incarnation was the Lord’s identification with fallen man, then what was the purpose of the baptism of Jesus?

You, like me, have probably heard or read that the baptism of Jesus was His identification with fallen man – but that simply is not a true and correct interpretation of that event. And since the baptism that John (the Baptist) was performing was a baptism of repentance, surely, Jesus’ baptism was for another reason because He had no sin and no need to repent. So again I ask, what was the purpose of the baptism of Jesus?

The baptism of Jesus was for the purpose of His identification with His Father’s perfect and good will in the matter of salvation, redemption, penal substitution. In essence the Lord was illustrating the Father’s plan of redemption – death, burial, and resurrection of His sinless Son – and His willing obedience to His Father’s plan. This is of utmost importance for us to grasp because it gives us a clearer and deeper understanding of the work of the Lord Jesus in securing our salvation through living His life perfectly by faith under the loving Lordship of His Father.

Contrary to what many believe and teach, the Lord Jesus did not strategize by leaning on His own understanding and did not utilize His equality with God in His ministry but rather trusted the Father with all His heart and therefore He is the author and perfecter of faith (see Hebrews 12:2).

As to the Lord not strategizing by leaning on His own understanding and not utilizing His equality with God we read, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:19). We also read this about the Lord, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (literally utilized or asserted)” (Philippians 2:5-6).

It was after the baptism of Jesus which was His public identification of His willing obedience to His Father’s will that the Lord was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. Those temptations were designed by the devil to get the Lord to take matters into His own hands rather than trusting His Father with all His heart; to get Him to utilize His equality with God by exerting His own power; and to get Him to strategize by leaning on His own understanding. The temptations were designed to divert the Lord from His willing obedience to His Father’s plan of redemption in which the Lord identified and illustrated in His baptism – and with this the Father was well-pleased (Matthew 3:17).

The Purpose of the Incarnation

Biblically speaking, what was the purpose of the incarnation? This question is of utmost importance and is not to be trivialized. To misunderstand the purpose of the incarnation is to misunderstand the righteousness of God and the necessity of penal substitution through a pure and sinless sacrifice for the purpose of God legally declaring the unjust, just, while God remains just. In simple terms (not trivial), God is just (right) and always will be and He will not violate who He is. Therefore God cannot and will not arbitrarily declare an unjust creature, just, without there being an actual legal transaction securing both the justness of God and the justness of the unjust. There has to be an imputation of the justness of a just substitute to the unjust or else God will not declare him or her to be so.

Therefore the incarnation was a necessity for penal substitution, for atonement! This was the primary purpose of the incarnation – to make propitiation for the sins of the people. I will establish this biblically but first I want to look at a few examples of misinterpreting and trivializing the incarnation.

Probably the most famous (should be infamous) for his misinterpretation of the incarnation and atonement would be Charles Finney. Concerning Christ and the atonement Finney said, “He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us” (Charles Finney, Christ Our Advocate, VI. What His plea in behalf of sinners is, Number 7).

So according to Finney man could have been forgiven based on the mercy of God alone and apart from the incarnation – “Our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.”

Since Anselm (1033-1109) most of the Church has understood Christ's death in forensic, i.e., legal categories. In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm argued that God having willed to redeem us, he could so in no other way than by the incarnation.

Not so, however, for the Pelagians. In their scheme, it has been considered unjust for Christ to have suffered vicariously for sinners. How can one righteous person suffer for others, especially the unrighteous? This was Pelagius' argument and has been followed in more Modern times by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875).

Hugo Grotius was the major proponent of the governmental theory of the atonement. He trained as a lawyer rather than a clergyman. Following closely in his footsteps in the nineteenth century was another lawyer and proponent of the governmental theory of atonement, Charles Finney. According to the governmental theory of atonement, the purpose of Christ’s death was not to satisfy the demands of God’s just nature so that He might be able to do what He otherwise could not have done, namely, forgive sins. The governmental theory of atonement separates the person of God from the government of God so that sin is not a violation of God’s person but of His laws. However the two cannot be separated and to violate God’s laws is to violate God’s nature, His person.

Another example of misinterpreting and trivializing the incarnation is seen in writings of many in the postmodern movements of our day. Such as Ron Martoia in his book Morph. Seeking to justify being like the world to win the world (cultural relevance), the incarnation is grossly misinterpreted by Martoia as God’s desire to be culturally relevant. He says, “The quintessential example of genius intersection is, of course, the incarnation: God’s presence, voice, and message piercing and penetrating 1C culture. As we simply observe the potency of the incarnation, several things come to mind. God sent Jesus as a person. God could have sent the message packaged any number of ways. He didn’t choose a CD player to herald the good news, a Web page that automatically pops up every time someone logs on, or an MP3 download into our ear canal. The fact that he sent a person bespeaks God’s desire to be relevant, understandable, approachable, and relational (Ron Martoia, Morph, Group Publishing, 2003, pg. 17).

Could God have redeemed any other way? According to Martoia, “God could have sent the message packaged any number of ways.”

Did God send Jesus for the purpose of cultural relevance? According to Martoia, “The fact that he sent a person bespeaks God’s desire to be relevant, understandable, approachable, and relational.”

But according to God’s Word God could not have redeemed any other way, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendents of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18).

Penal substitution is the only way God can forgive and remain just. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Therefore the incarnation was necessary for the realization of penal substitution and that is the primary biblical interpretation for the incarnation. If God could have redeemed any other way, surely He would have done it! But because there was no other way – what a demonstration of the love of God in penal substitution – “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

Morph! Are we really supposed to be conformed to the image of the culture?

Today we are being told to water down God’s Word in order to be relevant because people will not listen to clear truth – “This has clear implications for those weekend talks we give called the sermon. People are looking more for a path than pontification. They long for a path pointing them toward spiritual discovery – discovery those of us in the church are still experiencing with humility. Pontification that has the smell of doctrinaire arrogance is simply the phony turn off many outside the church have come to expect from those of us inside the church” (Ron Martoia, Morph: Group Publishing, 2003, pg 19. emphasis mine).

Pontificate: to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner (Webster’s Universal College Dictionary). I guess that the man who dares to be dogmatic and preach sound doctrine is too “pope-ish” and arrogant. While there are abuses, the true man of God cannot avoid being labeled “arrogant”, “dictator”, and all sorts of evil if he is true to the Word of God. “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11-12).

God hasn’t called me to give “weekend talks”, He has called me to preach His Word and in so doing I must speak what I have seen and heard and I must say, “Thus says the Lord.” Shall I water down God’s Word in order to be relevant? Shall I be like Ron Martoia who gave the example of Chad and Christina? Chad, who “just couldn’t buy the ‘pat answers,’ and Christina who “would try church if ‘my kids don’t get brainwashed into believing this “Jesus is the only way to heaven” stuff’” (pg 20). And then Martoia said, “A year and a half later, they’re relatively consistent attendees at Westwinds and are slowly getting involved, cautiously exploring, and becoming noticeably intrigued by those around them” (20). What has he preached in a year and half? So what if they become members and regular attendees at Westwinds? Will that make them saved or deceived? Pragmatically speaking Martoia will be very successful – but what about biblically speaking?

Not only are we being told to depart from God’s Word by watering it down, we are also being told to defile ourselves with the world by conforming to the world. Martoia’s thesis is that in order to influence the world we must “morph” into the image of the culture which is the opposite direction in which the Bible uses the word metamorphe. He even uses 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 to attempt to prove that we are to be like the world (16). In his quest for “cultural context”, Martoia completely misses “scriptural context.” The context of 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 is found and begins in 1 Corinthians 8:1, “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols…” and ends in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.” Paul wasn’t speaking of conforming to the world to give them what they want – he was speaking of building bridges to give them what they need. No Jew would listen to Paul’s presentation of the Gospel if they were offended by him eating food that wasn’t “kosher.” No Gentile would listen to Paul’s presentation of the Gospel if they were offended by having to become Jews in order to be saved. No church would listen to Paul if they were offended by his conformity to the world – this man who said do not be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) and that the world was crucified to him and he to the world (Galatians 6:14).

Martoia gives the quintessential example of philosophical humanism with his interpretation of the incarnation: “The quintessential example of genius intersection is, of course, the incarnation: God’s presence, voice, and message piercing and penetrating 1C culture. As we simply observe the potency of the incarnation, several things come to mind. God sent Jesus as a person. God could have sent the message packaged any number of ways. He didn’t choose a CD player to herald the good news, a Web page that automatically pops up every time someone logs on, or an MP3 download into our ear canal. The fact that he sent a person bespeaks God’s desire to be relevant, understandable, approachable, and relational” (pg.17 emphasis mine).

Could God have redeemed any other way? According to Martoia, “God could have sent the message packaged any number of ways.” But according to God’s Word, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendents of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18).

Did God send Jesus for the purpose of cultural relevance? According to Martoia, “The fact that he sent a person bespeaks God’s desire to be relevant, understandable, approachable, and relational.” This is a gross misinterpretation of the incarnation. No wonder people could sit through his “weekend talks” for a year and a half and never be brainwashed into believing “this Jesus is the only way to heaven stuff.” Martoia obviously isn’t interested in preaching the truth of God’s Word but in speaking the language of the world – “they (false prophets) are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We (true prophets) are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:5-6).

Watering down the Word of God (departing from the Word) and being like the world to win the world (defilement with the world) leads to the supreme outcome of apostasy (deceived by our own works).

The Purpose Driven, Seeker-Sensitive, Emerging Church movements are harbingers to the deluding influences spoken of in 2 Thessalonians that God is going to use to “first, gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into My barn” (Matthew 13:30). “In regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him….Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first…(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 3).

These movements are against everything God has called me to stand for and He has called me to stand against everything these movements stand for. Let no one in any way deceive you!