Posted on 07/28/2010 2:44:54 PM PDT by pastorbillrandles
The Self deception of Moralism…Romans 2 Posted on July 28, 2010 by billrandles
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2;1-4)
The godless are going to be without excuse ,when they stand before the Throne of the Righteous Judge of the Universe, because they suppress the truth that God has revealed to them, in their conscience and in creation. Truly the Heavens declare the Glory of God...
But Romans 2 shows us that the moral and religious also, who trust in their own morality and who rightly abhor the effects of godlessness on individuals and societies, they too are liable to judgment and are without excuse!
Paul charges the moralist with doing the same thing as the godless. It’s not that they participate in the degraded excesses that godlessness always leads to, they don’t necessarily become moral relativists, or sexual libertines.
What Paul means when he charges them with doing the same thing as the people they judge, is that they too reject God in their thoughts, but it manifests itself in a different way.
Moralism, “do-goodism” and even religion itself can become a substitute for true spirituality, which is only possible by coming to God as a sinner in need of the God appointed Saviour, the crucified Jesus ,and on the terms set by the LORD, through faith and repentance.
But our text reveals that there is a two-fold self deception that such moralistic people engage in.
1)- And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
The first deception : Because there are people so degraded and debased by the culture of godlessness; reprobates, homosexuals,Atheists, terrorists,etc., by contrast there are the “moral majority”, who play by the rules, pay the bills, hold old fashioned, sound stable values , the deception is that the Judgment is for them, not for us also.
Moralism, having “family values”, being a conservative, holding the protestant work ethic et al ,all are extremely beneficial for this life. These habits tend toward greater prosperity, they are in line with the world as God made it to be, and they tend towards a much happier life than godlessness has to offer. But they are no substitute for salvation! Not even the most moral moralist is able to stand in the day of judgment.
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2;1-4)
2)The second self-deception is an outgrowth of the first-Because the Moralist has these habits that tend towards more temporal happiness, (monogamy, no divorce, belief and reverence for Creator, thrift, hard work, merit) his temporal life generally tends to be better lived. The self-deception is that this is God’s approval, we must be doing something right,unlike those godless heathen!
But Paul is telling is that those blessings of our lives are the very kindness of God. They aren’t given by Him because we are doing everything right, they are designed to bring us also, to repentance. The kindness is wrongly taken as approval, when in reality it is mercy, and space to turn to God in humble gratitude.
Perhaps even more than the utterly godless, the moralist ignores the urgency to repent, to turn to God and be saved. Because they are “Not as bad as the others”- moralists are oblivious to the fact that every single day is borrowed time, and every breath taken is credit also, for they too are liable to judgment.
But in accordance with your hardness and your 1impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:5-6)
If God’s judgement will be according to truth, and we know it will be ,(see Romans 2:2), than the standard of it is perfection, nothing less than absolute righteousness.God, we are told, will render to each one according to his deeds. Not even the best, the greatest humanitarian, the most Noble among us would be able to stand in the judgment of the Righteous and Holy God!
R J Rushdoony, the great ArmEnian Calvinist writer and scholar, wrote an article entitled “The Menace of the Sunday School.” The ladies who end up teaching these events are, all too often, moralists. The faith they teach is not Christianity, but moralism.
I agree- much of evangelical christianity has been reduced to moralism unfortunately
The biggest threat I see to religion is that the “do good” mentality, the “socialist doctrine” is creeping into religion under the guise of this modern false morality.
Amen- the so called Social gospel is what ruined “Mainstream” churches 100 years ago-
You can’t buy your way into heaven through doing good works.
It would seem to me that the writer of this is a moralist being that they are standing in judgement of those who they see as being moralists while deluding themselves that they are not themselves casting moral judgements.
There are also many assumptions being made as to whether or not people are placing their own judgement above God’s judgement.
For full disclosure though I am not a Christian and would probably be considered a moralist by others being that I believe in morality in an absolute sense.
Standing in judgment is not what makes one a moralist, everybody makes judgments, indeed they must. But ignoring one’s need for a Saviour on the grounds, that their own good works are sufficient, and trusting in one’s comparitive morality is what the Author-(Paul,through the Holy Spirit) is addressing here
Fair enough. I would never make the claim that mankind’s morality or judgement replaces that of God.
...the goodness of God leads you to repentance....
Things I did in my youth whose evil I failed to understand back then, I see now and regret and ask God for forgiveness, which I suppose is well and good. But ABOVE ALL, above all, I fall on my knees thank God for enlightening me, for so gently and patiently letting me understand how sinful and wrong those things were; I cannot imagine going through life, growing old without ever realizing how awful those things were. THAT would be worse, to have remained blind to the nature of my sins.
Every person passes judgment on others every day in order to survive, from judging (and rejecting) a restaurant because it smells foul and the cook has dirty fingernails, to judging (and rewarding) a job applicant with a job because she is dressed modestly and has good references. But that's between humans and other humans, and surely illustrates that as we judge, we will ourselves be judged by our fellows. But the moralist I think is feeling that he or she has a seat at the table, a voice in the chorus, regarding a sinner and his or her appointment with God on Judgment Day. I think it's between the sinner and God and none of the rest of us has a place in it at all. Pastor Bill, your sermon reinforces that for me, and I hope that I'm not misreading it.
RJ wrote: The faith they teach is not Christianity, but moralism.
That brings to mind a Jewish conservative telling Rush, when talking about why so many Jews are Liberals, that they've replaced Judaism with Liberalism as their religion. I sometimes wonder if some Christians haven't replaced Christianity with Social Conservatism.
AMEN!!!
Social Conservatism is not a ‘do good’ type of activism but is about protecting the rights of individuals.
Take the issue of ‘public decency’ for example. It is not about trying to change people but is intended to protect people and their children from being attacked publically from indecent attacks.
In the case of ‘abortion’, which is also considered ‘social conservatism’ there is not an attempt to change people either but an attempt to protect innocent Life.
It is a left-wing distortion to paint the social conservatism as someone who wants to force their morality on others. It is everyone’s right to have representation on how to protect their rights.
Just to add.
The reason I posted in this thread is because I sense that it is an attempt to try to stear Christians away from speaking out publically on morality in fear of being a moralist instead of being a true Christian.
That is more inline with the leftist attacks on Christians that tell Christians to keep their Christian views (morality and judgements) behind closed doors because they dont belong in the public square.
I totally see where you are coming from BIGIF, and I agree with your last two quotes. Its a fine line isn’t it? That is why there is a Romans one and a Romans two- individuals in degradation of sin need o be confronted and called to repentance and faith- but so do those who aren’t in such degrading sins- and in fact(rightly) abhor them- thanks for your comments-Pas bill
Thanks but I also see that I may have been over-reacting to what you wrote as well. (I re-read it again) It doesn’t go anywhere towards the degree that I brought it to.
It more simply is trying to get people to be introspective enough to realize that they too will be judged by God and to not let their own perception of their morality replace their need to accept that fact.
I appreciate that you didn’t over-react to my thoughts and wish you all the best.
To me, Social Conservatism is wanting to use the Federal government to establish and enforce moral behavior (as opposed to local and state government -- people can decide in their own communities what morals they want to legislate, and the ones who don't like it can leave). It is moral to support charity, but when the Federal government does it, it becomes immoral -- money that you and I would choose to give to charities WE choose, is removed from us by way of taxes to provide charity via welfare and entitlement programs. INDIVIDUALS must be the ones to exercise morality, not the government; when government presumes to dictate and enforce morality, we become a LESS moral people.
For example, government today reflects a belief that it's immoral to discriminate against open homosexuality in the workplace and in schools. If you or I want to exercise our God-given right to discriminate against open homosexuality by rejecting it in our workplaces and schools, we are punished for it by the government.
Limited government in a God-fearing Judeo-Christian nation such as the U.S. ensures GREATER morality; increased government ensures LESS morality.
Our government is meant to protect the rights of individuals -- including their right to behave immorally (within the law), and reap the consequences of that immoral behavior and have the chance to learn from it, to find God, to walk their individual paths to Salvation. Social conservatives, like social liberals, advocate using the government to deny people that right, it seems to me. Breaking the law of man is one thing -- behaving immorally, breaking the law of God, is another thing altogether.
Why dont you give me an example of where you see this so-called Social Conservative movement in action whereas they are pushing for a belief that the federal government should enforce all morality? It does not exist.
Is it on the abortion issue? Or on the issue of homosexuality? Or on the issue of public decency? Where?
On all the above issues it is the left-wing that has pushed that the federal government should control the morality of all. Not social conservatives as you claim.
If the fight is already at the federal level as brought there by the left-wing then federal action may be needed to fight back against this violation of our rights but there is no such definition of ‘social conservatism’ that seeks to have the federal government control all morality in the sense that you claim.
And you're exaggerating a bit ... "Social Conservative movement ... pushing for a belief that the federal government should enforce all morality," for example. I never made the charge.
Let's put it this way: I've never heard or seen self-described "Social Conservatives" pushing to keep the federal government OUT of the picture. I've not seen ONE Social Conservative stand up and championed how limited government ensures GREATER morality, not less.
Many social conservatives are all for a Federal law that would outlaw abortion, punishing doctors who give them and women and girls who have them.
What's wrong with that, you ask?
Think it through. How would it be enforced without massive invasion of privacy? Wouldn't it entail that every single pregnancy test be registered and its results monitored, and if a baby was lost via miscarriage, every incident be investigated to confirm that it was indeed a natural miscarriage and not a deliberate one?
I'm all for states prohibiting doctors or anyone else from performing abortions -- and I'd hope all 50 (or is that 57? ;^) of them would do it. But a Federal law? Going Federal is what created the evil Roe v. Wade decision, for heaven's sake.
Abortion is wrong, no question. I oppose abortion completetly. But I also recognize that abortion is a moral question between a pregnant woman, the abortionist, and God. Yes, it's murder, yes, it's horrific, but because the child has not yet been born, it's entirely likely the child's very existence is known to NO ONE but the mother, God, and presumably, the abortionist. Therefore, the government can only ever have a very limited role in investigating and persecuting it as a crime -- unlike the murder of a person who has been born. Abortion is certainly murder, but it is a unique form of murder unlike any other; when social conservatives insist otherwise and ask for Federal oversight, they are opening an ugly Pandora's box.
On the other hand, I HAVE seen "social conservatives" such as Mike Huckabee and Laura Ingraham indicate that they'd be all for government restrictions on smoking tobacco.
The Founders envisioned a government that would protect people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They didn't envision a government that would "protect" people from "immoral" behavior in their midst. As for "public decency," (however you define that), it seems to me that again, "social conservatives" are prone to side with liberals in their desire to control the behavior of their neighbors. Me, I'm for less government and I'm a CONSERVATIVE -- if the guy across the street wants to paint his house purple, that's fine with me; I know TOO MANY self-described "conservatives" who would jump on a bandwagon as quickly as any liberal to prohibit such an "indecent" behavior.
Again, my main beef: just because someone is against abortion or gay marriage or is pro Christianity, even, doesn't mean that they're conservative. I will be impressed with "social conservatives" when they start emphasizing that LESS government will lead to GREATER morality.
Thank you Pastor Bill
Exactly correct.
Salvation is only reserved for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ through the Grace of God - not the "so called" good works.
I wish the Catholics would follow this pattern for today's salvation - which is grace & faith in Christ Jesus - and the faith OF Christ for us today - it is not the faith in one's own (perceived) good works for Saint Peter to count...
Christ is the Head of the Church...not Saint Peter...
I can provide verse and scripture proof that Christ is the Head of the Church, if you wish to see them on this post...
I would say that the "moralists" actually DO the same things as the people they judge. But since they know and acknowledge a right and wrong they don't do them in the open as the libertines of Chapter 1 do. They may no do them to the same degree - but they do them. They may not rob banks but the cheat customers. They cheat on their wives in secret, lie to accomplish goals. They are just as guilty before God as those they judge, but have the added sin of hypocrisy.
Beautiful insight- thank you-
I may have missed the point here. Romans 2:1 is talking about people who judge others. Are we exempt because we know Christ? Isn't the point that we should judge ourselves when we see sin in others? You have just written a post that judges others. So have I.
1 Cor 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
You are mistaken on two points. First the admonishment not to judge others applies to judging individuals. No individual is being judged here. We are expected to judge sin, which is what we are doing. Second, there is a big difference between "judging" and "admonishing". We aer expected to admonish, in love, our brother when he sins. (Luke 17:3). But, if we see our brother sin and thus conclude that he is a worse person than ourselves and deserving of judgment...that is judging. And if we do it we, in turn, will subject ourselves to the same judgment from God.
You see this often where they try to use the Bible itself as an argument against war or the death penalty. Sometimes they even take it so far that you as an individual have no right to self defense...........
They use passages in the Bible to try to purport that the lazy and unwilling are entitled hand outs indefinitely. No kidding, using the game of cherry picking and loosely interpreting the meaning they try to support the idea that it's even bibically acceptable to have a same sex marriage.
To them the Bible is meaningless anyhow. They don't read to understand (for context), they simply look for an excerpt they think supports their position. To them the Bible is a “living document” not unlike the US Constitution and they believe that the Bible can be used to support any position, literally. It's the consequence of a society that is becoming more hedonistic, less principled, and where ethics (Utilitarianism) have displaced morals (Dentological thought). Ethics teach relativism and allow for the rationalization of nearly any behavior. Ethics become mob rule and and in fact they even teach situational ethics in school. Once you adopt the utilitarian school of thought, anything can be rationalized because the word of God and the Bible are nothing more than a neat historical document open to interpretation. The real code of conduct becomes "man made" and the code of conduct d. But these have no absolute right and wrong, there is no real doctrine nor even consistency in it's teachings or practice. It is ironic that even the moral relativist, even the secularist sees a need for a "code of conduct" but they cannot accept God, and therefor create this parallel system that is supposed to instruct right and wrong to people in the absence of God. Ethics as taught in government courses, our education system and business is essentially the realization that there is a need for this code, but trying to keep the "G" word out of it.
The danger for the churches is that when they try to boost membership by pandering to decadence, they loose the spirit of what they are about. It is that reason why I left the Lutheran church. They have lost their way and IMHO are not even in step with Christianity anymore. The churches fall into this pit because they often are seeking membership and to attract these numbers they feel they have to becomes more "inclusive and diverse," buzzwords of the liberal. One thing I found is that the S. Baptists (Not really my style entirely) have tried to get their membership by changing the format of the service with big shows, splitting up the people into groups and catering to them......... The point is they stay true to the message and achieve membership with the way they deliver it. That's fine, but others have chosen to change the message itself and/or jump on the bandwagon with what is essentially a socialist dogma.
Red- thank you for the comments- if you are ever in Cedar rapids Iowa, come and worship with us at Believers in grace Fellowship-
It's a subject that interests and concerns me. I was myself caught in the world of ethics and social liberalism years past. I found my way out of this mess, but I realize that this philosophy, this dogma is like a drug. It's appealing and addicting because it tells you you're not at fault for anything. It says that anything that feels good is OK. It's a philosophical paradigm where religion, politics, views on family, sexuality, crime and punishment, nationalism, personal culpability and responsibility, where it all bleeds together and overlaps. It all makes sense in a sick way, but it's a complete rationalizing of what feels best to oneself and is devoid of any true concept of duty and responsibility. If you look at those who really go down that road, even though they are not in violation of any laws, even though they themselves might say their behavior is ethical, it's a shortsighted world view that leaves a path of destruction along the way. It is this liberal philosophy that is at the core of the destruction of the family, is largely to blame for the divorce rate, and latch key kids (The “I'm not happy anymore” statement). It is this mentality that has caused the lascivious society where you have advertisers market drugs for the 1/4 of the adult population with herpes, or where production of a PG TV show had to be stopped because of the rampant STDs the actors were spreading to one another. It's this thinking why mothers have abortions (over 50 million since R vs. W). There is a reason why you can't get young men to join the military but many able bodied young men have metal objects in their face, tattoos on their neck and think that being masculine and tough is wearing puffy cloths and looking intimidating............ You have a hard time finding just someone that can come to work on time and isn't sick on Mondays and Fridays........ Is a hand shake what it was? Does a promise mean anything? What is the meaning of treason today? Why is 1/3 of all the Internet traffic porn? How do people view loyalty or their oath of office? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada The liberal mindset teaches us “utilitarianism” and this believes in nothing except oneself and maximizing pleasure. It is by definition hedonism. The secular are by definition “heathens” and most liberals “savages” but if you use the literal worlds which describes their behavior and assign it to them their feelings are hurt and they think you're “close minded” (Silencing words). Life becomes selfish, shallow, and it ends up revolving around ones genitals. Seriously, have a discussion with nearly any homosexual or lesbian and even if you talk about the weather, the conversation will nearly always come back to their sex life. That's because they define who and what they are by their sexual behavior. They become a set of gonads on legs. Be careful when you hear the word “ethical.” Some don't understand the subtle difference or use the words interchangeably and don't fit the description. However, there is a big difference between ethics and morals. Ethics is one of those modern concepts like a “lifestyle” and those that choose their words wisely and use “ethics” in conversation are almost always the heathens and savages.
To collaborate the idea of the selfishness of American liberalism look at if from this perspective. To liberalism everything is OK as long as the positive impact is to oneself and the negative to someone else:
Legalize drugs, but I don't want my son taking them.
Legalize prostitution, but I don't want my daughter to be one.
Ban anything for environmental, cost, safety reasons, as long as it's not something I do or enjoy.
Be against the death penalty, but don't ask me what I would want to do with someone that killed my wife and daughter after he raped them.
Increase the taxes to pay for something as long as they are not mine.
Tell others what they can and cannot say, but not me.
Ration health care, as long as it's not mine.
Modern American liberalism has nothing to do with the older concept of liberalism years past. Modern liberalism is a pseudonym for those that are looking for a permissive society with no boundaries so they can live out their sexual fantasies. Like the American feminist, it's all about their organs. To them the most significant invention ever, was the pill. To them the only thing that seems to matter is their “right” to have a free abortion on demand. Seriously, though these people see themselves as complex, cultured, debonair, sophisticated, intellectual..... they are in reality primitive and chasing the most basic human urges. They have a facade they love to keep up, but underneath it all they are simple creatures that practice serial polygamy, spreading their STDs, talking about fluffy nonsense, not looking past their next paycheck, and acting in every way only in their own best interest in complete disregard of their siblings, elders, spouse, nation, business, office/job, God......... Ethics (Utilitarian thinking) is a oxy moron in that it really is something that teaches us to only worry and maximize what benefits "me." As soon as I can get the younger and sexier girl, dump the wife. If I suddenly am confronted with the realism of war, decide that you're conscientious objector after all. If your parents are a bit to burdensome, stuff them into an old folks home. When the kid is being a kid, medicate them and slap in a DVD. If you mismanage your finances, file bankruptcy. Plan nothing for retirement or health care and demand the government take care of you........ of course there are legitimate cases for each, but ask yourself this. Of all the divorces, the bankruptcies, the kids on Ritalin when that was the big fad, how many are really justified and necessary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.