Ron Smith

Does James Contradict Paul? The quotes from James and Paul will seem to some to be an argument, but it is not. Both sides of the coin of truth are true. Antinomians need James and those going about to establish their own righteousness need Paul. To take only one and not the other is dualism. James:… faith apart from works is useless (James 2:20) Paul: God imputes righteousness apart fromworks (Rom 4:6) James: Was not Abraham our father justified by works? (James 2:21) Paul: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about (Rom 4:2) James:  a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24) Paul: a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28) And the dead were judged according to their works (Rev 20:12) [Not according to their faith. We are saved by faith but faith is not alone. The proof of faith on judgment day is works.] Disobedience Equals Unbelief And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. (Heb 3:18)  [We are slaves to what we believe in the heart.]   Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46 ESV)   And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Mt 7:23) One can obey “outwardly” without faith, but cannot obey inwardly. “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him” (1 John 3:6 ESV).

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [oral] or our epistle [written]” (2 Thess 2:15). It seems that since the surge of Modernism in the late 20th Century, many evangelicals no longer see the need for observing the Lord’s Day as our spiritual forefathers did. Is it time to quit calling Sunday the Sabbath? Have we evolved to be more enlightened than they were, or is there some other motive? Was their interpretation private, or is ours? Was their interpretation faulty, or is ours? Are we the cloud of witnesses or are they? Do we bear false witness when we say we believe in the Ten Commandments while we really only believe in nine? Do we really need to abolish the custom of having weekends off? Would it be good to open our businesses on Sundays and force our employees to work so they cannot go to church? Where do we draw the line between greed and obedience? The pop interpretation nowdays is that every man can rest whichever day he chooses, go fishing, and thus fulfill the fourth commandment. The main two passages used to support this view are Romans 14:4-6 and Col. 2:16,17. Let us look at them.  We will show that the Matthew Henry Commentary and others believe these two passages are not referring to the seventh day, but rather to the new moon Sabbaths. Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another’s servant?  To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Matthew Henry Commentary Now let us look at how our fathers interpreted these verses. Below is a quote from Matthew Henry’s Commentary. He was a puritan who wrote around 1700. Matthew Henry shows that the apostle was not referring to the Lord’s Day, but to the traditional Jewish Sabbaths that took place at new moons, on feast days, and on Saturday. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation by the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another-kept up a respect to the times of the Passover, Pentecost, new moons, and feast of Tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ’s coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord’s Day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews.” Sunday as the Lord’s Day is the fulfillment of the Sabbath shadow. This is what Christians have always believed and practiced from the early days of church history. Dictionary Of The Apostolic Church In Ep. ad Magn., attributed to Ignatius, we meet with an early admonition, emphasizing the distinction: ‘Let us, therefore, no longer keep Sabbath after the Jewish manner…and rejoice in days of idleness… But let every one of you keep Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law’ (ch 9). In the nature of things, the two days could not continue to be equally observed in the Christian Church. The Sabbath must needs give place to the Lord’s Day: the seventh day of the week to the first. The legislation of Constantine (A.D. 321), which recognized Sunday as a feast day, must have been no small factor in the case; though, again, that would not have been enacted if the custom of keeping the Lord’s Day had not already been predominant among Christians… But there is a clear distinction between the two; and for Christians the Lord’s Day is paramount. The Fourth Commandment was still held to be binding; only Sunday was tacitly substituted for ‘the seventh day.’…Great as the authority of the Sabbath is, the authority of the Lord’s Day for all who accept the resurrection of our Lord is equally great or even greater. Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary Christ’s words do not remit the duty of keeping the Sabbath, but only deliver it from the false methods of keeping which prevented it from bestowing upon men the spiritual blessings it was ordained to confer. The almost total silence of the epistles in relation to keeping the Sabbath doubtless grew out of the fact that the early Christians kept the Sabbath, and that this period was one of change from the seventh to the first day of the week, and any definite rules would have been sure to be misunderstood. For many years both the first and the seventh days of the week were kept as Sabbaths; and gradually the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, took the place among Christians of the seventh day, and they had the fullest warrant for the change. The Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue is just as binding now as it ever was, or as any other of the Ten Commandments. Those who argue that God has abolished this Sabbath, but has written the Sabbath law in our very natures, must have strange ideas of the wisdom of a God who abolishes a command he has made it necessary to keep. Christians in keeping the Lord’s Day keep the Fourth Commandment, as really as do those who keep what

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2Peter 3:9). This verse must be interpreted in context. To whom was Peter writing? Verse one of chapter one tells. It says, “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us…” The context is referring to why the Lord had not yet returned. The answer is that He is longsuffering toward “us.” When Scripture speaks of “us,” it does not mean “us worldlings” or we humans. It means we “who have obtained like precious faith.” God is not willing that any of us should perish. There are those of us who have not yet repented. We must wait till the full number of God’s elect have repented. The following Scripture shows that it was and is the will of the LORD that some should perish. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death (1 Samuel 2:25 ESV). The very reason that they would not listen is that it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.

Someone sent me an email that said, “Because fundamentalist religion of all stripes has degradation of women at its core, and fundamentalist Christianity is no exception. Progressive Christians believe the Bible is a human document, a record of humanity’s multi-millennial struggle to understand what is good and what is God and how to live in moral community with each other. But fundamentalists believe the Bible is the literally perfect word of the Almighty, essentially dictated by God to the writers. To believe that the Bible is the literally perfect word of God is to believe that women are tainted seductresses who must be controlled by men.” Authority Both men and women are to be humble and submissive to authority. No one is exempt. Tyrannical men who abuse their women have no authority. Nor do tyrannical women. Tyrants are rebels against the Highest Authority. Calvinism worked out this doctrine in history and it resulted in republican democracy (liberty in the modern world). The humanist Progressives built on this foundation of Calvinism but left the authority of God’s word out. Submission to authority is the path to freedom. Jesus said, “He that sins is the slave of sin” (John 8:34). Only by being under True Authority does one have authority and freedom. “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it” (Mt 8:9).  Rebels (including tyrants) might have power, but they do not have authority. “Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses” (Numbers 12:8)? All rebels against legitimate authority are tyrants at heart. God says to all Progressive tyrants what he said to King Saul. “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king” (1Sam 15:23). Humility is God’s requirement for acceptance. “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). Progressives are rejected from being kings because they invent their own authority.  (Read Edmond Burke, for crying out loud.) God is the highest authority. His word (as given by the prophets and apostles) is His revealed will. The Bible is the word of His people, His firstborn heir and delegated authority who is under authority. “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). God’s church is the Israel of God. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). But if the church is not under the authority of God’s word, the church has no authority. If Progressives pretend to speak for God but are not in agreement with the prophets and apostles of Scripture, then they are false prophets. Jesus appealed to Scripture for His own authority (John 5:39). Even the humanist, Tom Jefferson did not leave God out. He wrote that all men are created and said, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Notice that these rights come from the Creator and the only rights we have are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). It is the sole duty of government to protect those God-given rights. The function of legitimate government is negative, not positive. Its duty is to keep men from murdering, enslaving, and stealing.  Because the Founders understood the proclivity of human nature to control others the Constitution was written to protect those rights and to protect the people from the government. Freedom of religion is the first amendment. Protection of private property is the law of the Creator: Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet.  Protection of liberty: Thou shalt no bear false witness.  Protection of life: Thou shalt not murder. We have no rights for a free education, free health care, etc. because to have that would violate the rights of others.  (Read THE LAW by Bastiat, for crying out loud.) But, we have a right to “altar or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” only through duly authorized government representatives.  Mob rule and vigilantism is illegal rebellion against God’s authority. God hates rebels against true authority, but to rebel under the authority of the highest authority is not only a right, but also a duty. The French Revolution was rebellion against the Highest Authority, God.  It was illegal because it was based on mob anarchy and class envy.It sought to destroy the past and the church.  The current progressives are children of the anti-God French Revolution. They are heirs of Barabbas.  They oppose the God of Scripture and the Constitution.  “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries” (Jude 8).

When I was a 12-year-old “bad boy” I learned how to receive mercy.  Two friends got me to join them in raiding a Lays Potato Chip van.  My two buddies grabbed some bags of chips and took off running.  I followed a little late and got caught by a teenage neighbor that was a track star.  I broke down in contriteness and begged him to take the chips and not tell my parents.  He said he would if I would get my friends to return their chips.  I agreed, so he showed mercy and let me go.  My contriteness seemed to satisfy his sense of justice. Mercy never works without satisfying God’s law. It always operates in harmony with God’s law.  There is no mercy without satisfying God’s law.  Mercy never runs from the law.  Someone on Face Book said “Run from the Law of Moses that condemns you, into the city of Refuge who is Jesus Christ!”  No one gets mercy by running from God’s law. The way to get mercy is by siding with God’s law against self. Jesus said, “Agree with your adversary quickly… lest your adversary deliver you to the judge” (Mat 5:25). Mercy does not triumph over the law.James says it triumphs over judgment. Running to the City of Refuge is not running from the law. It’s running from the judgment of the law.  Nobody can outrun the Law. The City of Refuge is a provision of the law.  Mercy only comes by making satisfaction in accord with the law.  Only the merciful receive mercy. The law itself requires mercy. The merciful are those who are taught by the law that they need mercy and do not deserve it.  That’s why they can forgive others.  To excuse sin is not the same as mercy. In order to receive mercy, the law must be satisfied.  God cannot be in harmony with His holy nature and excuse sin at the same time. That would violate His sinless nature. God forgives in accord with His holy nature, and so do the merciful. Satisfaction must be made.  The law of aerodynamics does not triumph over the judgment of gravity by eliminating the law of gravity. Gravity is God’s law. Aerodynamics does not triumph over gravity.  It triumphs over the judgment of gravity in harmony with it. The judgment of the law of gravity is “what goes up must come down.” When the plane crashes, that is the judgment of the law. Mercy does not triumph over the law; it triumphs over judgment. Satisfaction is called propitiation or atonement. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb 9:22). Christ “Himself is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). He made satisfaction available for the whole world, but until personal satisfaction is made also, there is no forgiveness. David said, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart” (Ps 51:17).  Both God and the merciful do not have mercy on those who are in denial. Satisfaction must be made.But if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. That’s when mercy triumphs over judgment.

The Covenanters formed an important movement in the religion and politics of Scotland in the 17th century.  In religion the movement is most associated with the promotion and development of Presbyterianism (representative government) as a form of church government favored by the people, as opposed to Episcopacy, favored by the crown.  In politics the movement saw important developments… The name derives from biblical bonds or covenants.  The National Covenant of 1638 takes as its point of departure earlier documents of the same kind and is chiefly concerned with preserving the Reformation settlement free from crown innovations. Its sister document, the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, is also concerned with religion, but its chief importance is as a treaty of alliance between the Covenanters in Scotland and the Parliament of England, anxious for help in the increasingly bitter civil war with Charles I. James VI of Scotland (James I of England) was opposed by the Covenanters in his attempt to bring the Anglican Church into Scotland.  He ousted the Covenanters from their pulpits and homes saying that he was the head of the church.The Covenanters said, “No.  Christ is the head.  We will preach in the fields.”  Later King Charles II and his brother King James II indulged certain ministers and allowed them to pastor churches where Anglican pastors could not be found.  But to do this, they had to compromise with the king’s state church. Covenanters like Richard Cameron railed against these compromisers as being dead and without God’s power. The Lion Of The Covenant Richard Cameron (1648? – 1680) was a leader of the Presbyterians who resisted the Stuart monarchs. The life & ministry of Richard Cameron was among the first of a series of events that led to the Glorious Revolution (1888) and the end of the reign of the House of Stuart.  His followers took his name, the Cameronians, which ultimately formed the nucleus of the Scottishregiment of the same name. He was initially a parish schoolteacher and then a highly successful field preacher of the strict Presbyterian school, a Covenanter. He spent some years in exile in the Netherlands when the authorities demanded that all preachers submit to the Crown’s religion.  He was ordained there and sent back to Scotland with the prophecy by Rev. M’Ward that he would be martyred for the cause of Christ. He returned to Scotland in 1680 and issued with others such as Donald Cargill the Sanquhar Declaration, calling for war against the king, Charles II and the exclusion of his brother (James II) from the succession.  He was killed in a skirmish with government troops, at Airds Mossnear Cumnock, later the same year, in a government attempt to suppress the Covenanters.  This period was later given the title of “the Killing Time” because hundreds, if not thousands of Presbyterians were persecuted and martyred for holding Cameronian views. However, after the accession of William III (in the Glorious Revolution) his followers were pardoned and incorporated into the British Army as the Cameronian Regiment. When hands were laid on Richard Cameron at his ordination in Holland, the one hand of Mr. M’Ward remained and M’Ward cried out, “Behold, all ye beholders, here is the head of a faithful minister and servant of Jesus Christ, who shall lose the same for his Master’s interest, and it shall be set up before sun and moon, n the view of the world.”  And so it was that his hands and head were put on display at the gate of the Edinburgh for all to see.  One of his enemies said, “There’s the head and hands of a man who lived praying and preaching, and died praying and fighting.”[1] Before this was done, his hands and head were delivered to his father in prison to add grief to his former sorrow.  Taking his son’s head and hands, which were very fair, he kissed them, and said, “I know – I know them; they are my son’s – my own dear son’s.  It is the Lord – good is the will of the Lord, who cannot wrong me nor mine, but has made goodness and mercy to follow us all our days.”[2] Eighteen days before Cameron was killed, he prophesied from the pulpit that there would not be a crowned King of the name of Stuart in Scotland.  This was fulfilled eight years later in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  He also prophesied “A man shall ride a day’s journey in the shires of Galloway, Ayr and Clydesdale, and not see a reeking house nor hear a cock crow, ere ye get a right Reformation; and several other shires shall be little better.”  He also prophesied in the same sermon, “The rod that the Lord will make instrumental in this, will be the French and other foreigners, together with a partying this land joining them; but ye, that stand to the testimony in that day, be not discouraged at the fewness of your number; for when Christ comes to raise up His own work in Scotland, He will not want men enough to work for him.”[3]  This prophecy of slaughter was fulfilled 66 years later in 1746 at Culloden. In 1746 the Stuart Prince Charles, with the help of the French, Spain, and others, invaded Scotland where many Highlanders joined him and marched toward London.  At Culloden the English and other Scots slaughtered them.  The slaughter did not end there.  Genocide by the English in the highlands followed. Description Of The Ethnic Cleansing  A little after 12:30 that afternoon the Prince’s side fired what canon they had and waited for the return volley – which came swiftly. His troops were cut down in the dozen by the onslaught of Cumberlands artillery.  Disemboweled by the flying balls of 4lb steel, arms legs and heads were scattered amongst the bunched up and freezing Jacobites.  It all lasted for minutes and when the smoke cleared all that was left to do was to run or charge – the Jacobites outnumbered by at least 2 to 1 charged on the right flank of Cumberland’s lines.  For a brief spell the Duke’s troops on the right were scattered, but soon closed ranks on the charging Highlanders and began the massacre, in turn scattering the Highlanders across ‘Cumberland’s Bloody Killing Field’. By 1:00, only 30 minutes later, it was all over and those Highlanders, who could,

In case you don’t know what “name it and claim it” means, it refers to those modern Charismatics that pick something they want God to give them and then say they are believing God to give it to them. For example, if they want a Cadillac or healing or whatever, they ask God for it and then proceed to speak it into existence. They teach that you must not say that you are sick because that might make you sick. They say that is a negative confession. When they get sick they deny it and say they just have the symptoms, but not the disease. Unfortunately, many have died of the symptoms. We have all heard of the examples that hit national news. Parents, for example that had a child with a disease that the parents refused to treat because they were “believing for” healing. Then the child died. I knew a couple that was trained in the name it and claim it system and the wife got cancer. She asked me what the “formula” for healing would be. When I told her there is no formula and that “true faith believes nothing can happen to you unless God lets it happen; and if He does, it is for your good, even unto death. There is no promise that you will be healed unless God speaks it. True faith trusts God to make that judgment. But you do have the guarantee that God loves you and whatever He decides will be for your good, even unto the worst scenario.” She said, “Horrors! No! I dare not admit of death!” She thought it all depended on naming and claiming it. John Owen said, “Take heed to not tell yourself that you have peace with God before God Himself says it.” I have seen “Name it and claim it” Calvinists and Arminians do the same when it comes to salvation. The sinners’ prayer is the “formula,” or pointing to a proof text. They dare not admit of death. I once assigned a reading on “True and False Conversion” to a seminary class and one pastor said (in effect), “Horrors! My people would doubt their salvation if I taught that!” My question is this: “What is wrong with that? Does not God command us to make our calling and election sure and to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith. Many evangelicals seem to think that faith in faith is what saves. Believing you’re going to heaven does not make it so.Believing God is what makes you know.Believing you’re okay does not make it true.Believing God is what carries one through. John Owen asks, “How can we know it is God speaking and not we ourselves?” He says we must be careful to not justify ourselves before God does. “It is God that justifies” (Rom 8:33). “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:27). Don’t worry. You will know when Christ speaks. He is the Amen, the True and Faithful Witness. But the danger is to mistake His voice for your own. Don’t name it and claim it.

When the apostle said, “You are not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14) he was talking to believers. All unbelievers are still under the law and its condemnation. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Moses, the lawgiver, can bring us to the border of the Promised Land only. And only the Greater Joshua (Christ) can take us in. But no one will enter without the law bringing us to the border because men will see no need for a Savior until the law convinces them they cannot save themselves. The natural man hates God’s law “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be” (Rom 8:7). For the unbeliever the law is an external threat written in stone. But at saving conversion God puts His law internally in the heart (Jer 31:33). The believer then says, “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97). He meditates in it day and night (Psalm 1). He now sings both the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev 15:3). “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12).