Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Obedient Faith (Luke 6:46)

Transcript

The Obedient Faith (Luke 6:46) · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reform thinking. So imagine calling your boss Sir
0:04
right to his face and then, you know, immediately throwing his
0:07
instructions in the trash while he watches you do it.
0:10
You would be fired before lunch. Right, you'd be gone.
0:13
But let us take that scenario and drop it into the 1st
0:17
century. If you did that to a Roman
0:19
sovereign or recognized master, doing that was not just
0:23
insubordination or like, bad manners.
0:26
Oh. Absolutely not.
0:26
It was literal treason, Yeah. Literal treason.
0:29
And that staggering reality is the entry point for our deep
0:32
dive today. It completely changes the
0:34
gravity of the text we are looking at.
0:37
The sources provided for us today are two exhaustive
0:40
theological and exegetical analysis of a single piercing
0:44
question. A really uncomfortable question.
0:46
Very uncomfortable. It is asked by Jesus Christ in
0:48
Luke chapter 6 verse 46. The text simply asks Why do you
0:52
call me Lord Lord and do not do what I say?
0:55
That one sentences, well, it is terrifying.
0:57
We are investigating a massive, glaring gap between what people
1:00
say with their lips and what they actually do with their
1:02
lives. Yes, and the authors of our
1:04
source material point out that this verse is designed to
1:07
shatter the illusion of false assurance.
1:09
It strips away the comfort of just having the right religious
1:11
vocabulary right. It forces a heavy audit of
1:14
genuine faith. The goal here is to grasp the
1:17
full weight of that contradiction, so we have a
1:19
thorough breakdown of 1st century history, Greek grammar,
1:23
and heavy theology to uncover what genuine allegiance actually
1:27
looks like. And to really get the shockwave
1:29
this question caused, we have to look at the socio political
1:33
realities of 1st century Galilee right around 8028 to 30.
1:38
Right, because Israel is under strict Roman occupation at this
1:40
time. The political and social setting
1:43
is incredibly tense. You have Roman Garrison's
1:45
everywhere, tax collectors and a local population that is just
1:49
desperate for liberation. Air is thick with rebellion.
1:52
It is, and when we read the English word Lord today, we
1:55
often filter it through a modern democratic lens.
1:58
We think of a polite title. Right.
1:59
Like a respectful nod to someone in charge, Like calling a
2:02
teacher, Sir, or addressing a judge is your honor.
2:06
We think of it as a courtesy. But in the 1st century Greco
2:09
Roman world, it was not like that at all.
2:11
No, the concept of the curious was the Greek word translated as
2:15
Lord carried imperial and absolute weight.
2:19
OK, let. Us pause there because I want to
2:20
make sure I'm grasping the implication.
2:22
Sure, if the word curious carries that much weight.
2:25
It is not just a term of endearment or respect.
2:29
It is a declaration of a specific relationship.
2:31
Spot on. The cultural fabric of the Greco
2:34
Roman world was built heavily on the institution of slavery.
2:37
You had the curious, the master and the doulos the bond driven
2:41
or slave. And the master owned the slave
2:43
completely. Completely, he possessed the
2:45
authority of life and death over that individual.
2:47
The slave had no autonomous rights, no free will to
2:51
negotiate the conditions of their labor, and no identity
2:54
outside of their subjection to the master.
2:56
Wow. Their singular purpose was
2:58
instantaneous, unhesitating obedience.
3:00
So declaring someone as your curious is functionally
3:04
declaring a total surrender of your autonomy.
3:06
You are basically saying I am your property.
3:09
Yes, and because of that legal and social reality, to use that
3:13
title to call someone curious and then openly defy their
3:16
orders was an intolerable rebellion.
3:19
It invited swift, severe punishment, right, Often death.
3:23
Absolutely. A slave who called his master
3:26
Lord while refusing to work was mocking the master's authority.
3:30
So when Jesus leverages this specific term in front of a
3:33
mixed multitude of Judeans, Galileans and coastal Gentiles,
3:38
he is utilizing A cultural dynamic they understood in their
3:41
bones. He is exposing the spiritual
3:43
absurdity of the religious hypocrite.
3:45
Calling him Lord while defying him was an absurd, treasonous
3:49
contradiction to the original audience.
3:51
But it goes even further than the socio political dynamic of
3:54
masters and slaves and the Roman Empire.
3:56
Our sources point out that this title has an even heavier
3:59
theological history. They bring in the Septuagint.
4:02
Yeah, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew
4:05
Old Testament. It was the primary Bible
4:07
utilized by the apostles and the early Christian Church.
4:09
And centuries before Christ, when the Jewish scholars
4:12
translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, they faced a massive
4:15
dilemma, did they not? They did.
4:17
They had to decide what to do with the divine name, the
4:20
Tetragrammaton YHWH. That name was considered so holy
4:24
that it was not spoken aloud. So they needed a substitute word
4:28
in Greek that could carry the weight of the unutterable name
4:30
of God. Correct, and they chose the word
4:32
curious to replace it. Throughout the Greek Old
4:35
Testament, whenever you see the Lord God acting, saving,
4:39
judging, or speaking, the word is curious.
4:43
OK, that elevates the conversation to an entirely
4:45
different stratosphere. Applying this title to Jesus was
4:48
a direct claim to divine absolute majesty.
4:50
It is a staggering claim. When Jesus asked Why do you call
4:53
me curious? He is not asking why they
4:55
recognize him as a human rabbi or like a polite teacher.
4:59
He is accepting a title of divine majesty and covenantal
5:02
ownership. Yes, he's placing himself in the
5:04
position of the Sovereign God of the universe.
5:06
To call Jesus curious is to declare you are my sovereign
5:10
God, my absolute owner, and I am your bonded slave, purchased for
5:14
your exclusive use. That completely strips away any
5:17
sentimental modern notion of Jesus as just a helpful life
5:20
coach or a spiritual consultant. It really does.
5:22
It is the sovereign God confronting A treasonous
5:25
rebellion masked as religious devotion.
5:28
But Jesus does not just drop this cultural nuke in a vacuum.
5:33
He surrounds it with a very specific literary structure.
5:36
Right. The structure of Luke's gospel
5:38
places this piercing question near the conclusion of what is
5:41
commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Plane.
5:43
And the placement of the verse tells us a massive amount about
5:46
its function. It does.
5:47
Before Jesus asks about their words, he talks about their
5:50
nature. In verses 43 through 45, he uses
5:54
a brilliant agricultural metaphor about trees and fruit.
5:58
He says there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor a
6:02
bad tree which produces good fruit.
6:04
Every tree is known by its own fruit.
6:06
He takes this biological reality and applies it directly to the
6:09
human heart. The Goodman out of the good
6:12
treasure of his heart brings forth what is good, and the evil
6:16
man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil.
6:19
The theological principle here is unbreakable, right?
6:21
Internal nature dictates external.
6:23
Behavior. It is basic biology.
6:25
It is like if you walk up to a tree and it has a beautiful hand
6:29
painted sign nailed to the trunk that says healthy apple tree but
6:33
the branches are covered in deadly nightshade and thorns.
6:37
You do not trust the sign. No, you trust the.
6:39
Fruit. The sign is just a verbal
6:40
profession. The thorns are the actual fruit.
6:43
The output proves the identity. You cannot tape an apple to a
6:47
Thistle and call it an apple tree.
6:49
And that is a perfect illustration of what the
6:51
religious hypocrite attempts to do.
6:53
They attempt to fasten the external markers of Christianity
6:56
onto a heart that has not been changed.
6:59
But the fruit is the infallible evidence of the root, yes.
7:03
If the heart has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,
7:05
it will produce the fruit of righteousness.
7:08
If the heart is dead in sin, it will produce the fruit of
7:11
rebellion regardless of the signs nailed to the exterior.
7:14
Which brings us to verse 46, which acts as a terrifying
7:18
hinge. It swings the door open from the
7:20
biological reality of the tree straight into verbal hypocrisy.
7:24
If a tree is known by its fruit, then a professing disciple is
7:27
known by their obedience. Jesus takes the principle of the
7:30
tree and applies it directly to human speech.
7:32
The lips are fruit, but so are actions.
7:35
If the mouth speaks piously, saying Lord, Lord, but the
7:38
conduct contradicts Christ, the tree must be examined.
7:42
Jesus is not fooled by religious fruit arranged artificially on
7:45
dead branches. He knows the root.
7:47
He is looking at the actual daily conduct.
7:49
And immediately following this confrontation, Jesus drives the
7:53
point home with the parable of the two builders.
7:55
In verses 47 through 49, he talks about a coming flood.
7:59
He says the man who comes to Christ, hears his words and acts
8:02
upon them is like a man who dug deep and built his house on the
8:06
rock. Right when the flood of divine
8:08
judgment comes, the house withstands the torrent.
8:11
But the man who hears and does not act, the very person
8:14
described in verse 46, is like a man who built his house on the
8:17
earth without a foundation. When the flood strikes, that
8:20
house collapses in absolute ruin.
8:22
The sequence is chilling. You have the root and the fruit,
8:25
the hinge of verse 46, exposing the gap between words and
8:28
actions, and then the warning of the coming flood.
8:30
This verse is the dividing line between surviving the storm of
8:34
judgment and total destruction. To isolate verse 46 from the
8:38
trees and the builders would strip it of its theological
8:41
weight. It would obscure the truth that
8:44
a profession of faith devoid of obedience is a sandy foundation.
8:47
It will utterly collapse under the wrath of a holy God.
8:50
To really grasp how precise this indictment is, we have to look
8:54
at the mechanics of the language itself.
8:57
The sources provide a meticulous linguistic dissection of the
9:00
Greek grammar in this single sentence.
9:03
Right. Let us dive into that.
9:04
The opening of the sentence in Greek starts with the word T,
9:07
which translates to why it is an interrogative challenge.
9:11
But. He is not actually looking for
9:12
an explanation, is he? No, he's not asking for their
9:15
opinion on the matter. It is a divine indictment.
9:18
It places the hearer immediately on the defensive, exposing the
9:22
irrationality of their position. It functions much like God
9:25
calling out in the Garden of Eden.
9:26
Adam, where are you? Right.
9:28
God knew precisely where Adam was.
9:30
God was not liking spatial awareness.
9:32
The question was meant to summon Adam's conscience into the
9:35
light. Christ is compelling His hearers
9:38
to account for their glaring inconsistency.
9:41
He is pressing them to admit that no legitimate logical
9:44
explanation exists for calling Him Lord and ignoring His
9:47
commands. The next word analyzed by the
9:49
authors is Calite, translated as you call.
9:52
Yes, Calite is in the present active indicative tense.
9:55
The present tense is paramount for understanding the text.
9:59
In Greek, this tense denotes continuous, ongoing habitual
10:03
action. This is a crucial distinction.
10:06
We are not talking about a person who accidentally slipped
10:08
up once. No, we're not talking about a
10:10
new believer who stumbled into a church service, used the wrong
10:14
vocabulary and made a mistake. Definitely not.
10:17
These are people who make it their constant uninterrupted
10:19
habit to verbally profess him. It is an ongoing lifestyle of
10:23
profession. They're constantly invoking his
10:25
name. They are comfortable with the
10:27
language of the Kingdom. Then we hit the a provocative
10:29
address Kyrie Kyrie or Lord Lord.
10:33
Why say it twice? Why not just say Lord once and
10:35
move on? The repetition is a Hebraism
10:38
utilized to denote intense emotion, presumed intimacy, and
10:42
high earnestness. We see this linguistic pattern
10:45
elsewhere in Scripture. Like when God calls out Abraham.
10:48
Abraham. Yes, or when Jesus says Martha.
10:51
Martha. The double name implies a deep
10:54
emotional connection. So these false converts are not
10:58
casual, disengaged attendees sitting in the back row.
11:01
They are fervent. They are highly emotional.
11:04
They're entirely Orthodox in their terminology.
11:06
They might be the ones weeping the loudest during worship or
11:10
praying the most passionate public prayers.
11:12
The sound of their profession is incredibly reverent, but the
11:15
reverence is completely hollow. That is a heavy realization.
11:19
The intensity of your language and the depth of your emotional
11:22
experience do not guarantee the sincerity of your heart.
11:25
You can have all the right theological passwords, you can
11:27
cry genuine tears, and you can still be entirely self deceived.
11:31
The grammar highlights the deception when we look at the
11:33
next phrase Kai upoi translated and do not do the conjunction.
11:38
Kai links the vocal profession directly to the behavioral
11:41
failure. It is followed by the strong
11:43
negative particle Oh. Yes.
11:45
When this specific negative particle precedes a verb in the
11:48
indicative mood, it denies the reality of the action
11:52
completely. It states a factual objective
11:55
reality of total non compliance. And the verb for do is also in
11:58
the present tense, denoting continuous action.
12:01
Correct. It means to perform, to
12:03
accomplish, to carry out as a habit.
12:06
Christ is not Speaking of a singular lapse in judgement.
12:10
He is describing A continuous, unbroken, habitual lifestyle of
12:14
disobedience. It is a devastating paradox,
12:17
continuous speech unmatched by continuous action.
12:20
The present tense of their loud emotional profession clashes
12:23
violently with the present tense of their quiet, stubborn
12:25
rebellion. It is like a leaky faucet of
12:28
disobedience running in the background of their loud
12:30
worship. And the standard against which
12:31
they are failing is established in the final clause of the
12:34
sentence Halego, what I say. The relative pronoun refers to
12:38
the specific things spoken by Christ.
12:40
The final verb is also in the present active indicative I am
12:43
speaking. The standard of obedience is
12:45
exclusively the spoken words of Christ.
12:48
He does not point to a consensus of 1st century scholars.
12:52
No, He does not point to the shifting morals of the culture
12:55
or the established traditions of the Pharisees.
12:57
The standard is His word alone. The syntax does not allow for
13:01
any Gray area. Verb 1 you habitually call title
13:04
of authority, absolute Lord, conjunction of contrast and
13:08
negation. You factually do not.
13:10
Verb 2. Habitually do object of
13:13
authority my words. The language itself destroys the
13:16
category of a person who calls Christ Lord, but lives in
13:19
perpetual defiance of his commands.
13:21
The grammar leaves zero room for a divided life, and that brings
13:24
us to the theological core of the sources we are analyzing.
13:27
The authors use this text as a battleground against a very
13:30
specific theological error called antinomianism.
13:34
Antinomianism literally translates to against the law.
13:37
It is the theological idea that a person can have Christ as
13:40
their Savior to deliver them from the fires of hell while
13:43
simultaneously rejecting Christ as the absolute Lord and master
13:46
of their daily life. It suggests you can simply add
13:49
Jesus to your existing lifestyle of autonomy, taking the fire
13:52
insurance but refusing the change in management.
13:55
And our sources argue that this is a plague in the modern
13:58
church. Just to be clear, we are
14:00
impartially reporting the author's views here, but they
14:03
take direct aim at specific movements within modern
14:06
evangelicalism, arguing that the modern landscape is flooded with
14:10
cheap grace. Yes, the papers point a severe
14:13
critique at the seeker sensitive movement.
14:15
The authors argue that this movement peddles A pragmatism
14:18
desperate for numerical growth, often at the expense of
14:21
demanding actual repentance. They argue that if you lower the
14:24
bar of discipleship to just attending an event and feeling
14:28
welcomed, you produce the exact false assurance Jesus warns
14:32
against. They also target something
14:34
called decisionism. Can you break down what the
14:36
authors mean by that? Decisionism is the idea that a
14:40
past singular decision, like raising a hand in the service,
14:43
walking down an aisle, or reciting a specific sinner's
14:46
prayer, is sufficient for eternal salvation, even if the
14:49
person's affections and daily habits remain entirely unchanged
14:53
for the rest of their life. The authors argue that this
14:55
creates a false confidence based on a momentary action rather
14:59
than a change nature. The sources also level a heavy
15:02
attack on the prosperity gospel. They assert that the prosperity
15:06
gospel treats God as a cosmic bellhop.
15:09
The authors point out a psychological inversion that
15:12
happens in the prosperity gospel.
15:14
Instead of the human submitting to the sovereign master, the
15:17
human uses religious vocabulary as a transactional coin to force
15:21
the master to act. The teaching suggests that if
15:23
you have enough faith or if you speak the right words, God is
15:27
obligated to give you personal advancement, wealth and health.
15:30
It is a complete inversion of the 1st century curious dynamic
15:33
we talked about earlier. The human attempts to become the
15:36
master, using the word Lord as a magic spell to control God.
15:40
From the perspective of these authors, a mouth Speaking of
15:43
grace while a heart actively loves sin is the precise
15:47
definition of the hypocrite Jesus is confronting.
15:50
But to really grasp their theological argument, we have to
15:53
look at how they define the relationship between faith and
15:55
works. The authors write from a classic
15:58
Reformed Protestant perspective, defending the doctrine of
16:01
solified justification by faith alone.
16:04
Solafit is the doctrine that a Sinner is declared righteous
16:08
before God solely by faith, completely apart from any good
16:12
works or human merit. We do not earn our salvation by
16:15
keeping the law right. Wait, hold on.
16:18
If we are saved by faith alone and our works do not earn our
16:22
salvation, how does that square with Jesus demanding that we do
16:25
what He says? It is attention for sure.
16:28
It sounds like the authors are saying faith alone saves us, but
16:30
then immediately saying we have to work to prove it.
16:33
Is that a contradiction? It is a vital question, and the
16:36
authors address it carefully. They argue that while
16:38
justification is by faith alone, the faith that actually
16:42
justifies a person is never a dead faith.
16:44
It is never alone. True faith is always accompanied
16:47
by a changed nature. They point to the doctrine of
16:49
monarchism, the reality that the new birth is an act of God, the
16:53
Holy Spirit alone. God removes the dead heart of
16:55
stone and inserts a living heart of flesh.
16:58
This new heart naturally desires to walk in God's statutes.
17:02
So good works are not the root of salvation, they are the
17:05
unavoidable fruit of a regenerate heart.
17:08
If there is no fruit, there is no root.
17:10
That is the core argument. A failure to habitually obey
17:14
Christ is not a sign of a carnal Christian who has accepted Jesus
17:19
as Savior, but just needs to make him Lord at some later,
17:22
more convenient date. According to the author's
17:25
reading of the text, a continuous lifestyle of
17:27
disobedience is the infallible proof of an unregenerate heart.
17:31
The sources feature a quote by Charles Haddon Spurgeon that
17:34
cuts right to the bone on this issue.
17:36
He stated to profess to love God while living in sin is a blatant
17:41
contradiction. It is mathematically impossible
17:43
in the spiritual realm, but this raises a massive dilemma for
17:46
anyone reading the sermon on the plane.
17:48
Awesome. If the standard is that our
17:50
actions must match our words, aren't we all doomed?
17:53
I call myself a Christian, but I definitely fail to do what he
17:55
says perfectly on a daily basis. How does this verse not just
17:59
condemn everyone to the flood? If our eternal salvation were
18:03
based on our personal, flawless obedience to the commands of the
18:07
Sermon on the Plane, loving our enemies perfectly every time,
18:10
never harboring A hypocritical thought, always turning the
18:14
other cheek without a shred of resentment, every single human
18:17
being would perish the text. Is designed to expose our
18:20
radical inability and our devastating failure to keep the
18:23
law of God. So if the standard is do what I
18:26
say and we continuously fall short of perfection, how do we
18:30
survive the incoming storm? What is the hope?
18:32
The hope is found in a massive theological concept known as the
18:35
active obedience of Christ. Jesus is the only human being in
18:39
history who perfectly did what the Father said.
18:41
During his entire earthly life, from his birth to his death, he
18:45
submitted Florida State to the will of the Father.
18:47
He lived the perfect life of righteousness that we are
18:49
entirely incapable of living. I have heard of Christ's
18:52
obedience on the cross, but breaking it down into active and
18:55
passive obedience is an interesting distinction.
18:58
Let us look at how those two concepts operate.
19:00
In Reformed theology, Christ's passive obedience refers to him
19:04
voluntarily offering himself as a sacrifice bearing the penalty
19:08
for our sins on the cross. He suffered the wrath of God in
19:11
our place, paying the debt we owed.
19:14
His active obedience, however, refers to his perfect lifelong
19:17
fulfillment of the law's demands.
19:19
He did not just remove our negative debt.
19:21
He earned a positive record of perfect righteousness on our
19:25
behalf. OK, think of it like a bank
19:26
account. Passive obedience is Christ
19:29
stepping in and paying off a billion dollar debt that I could
19:32
never pay. My account goes from negative a
19:35
billion to 0. But a 0 balance does not make me
19:37
rich, it just means I am not in debt.
19:39
Right. Active obedience is Christ
19:41
taking His infinite wealth of perfect righteousness and
19:44
depositing it into my account. But how does His perfect record
19:48
legally become mine? Through the mechanism of
19:50
imputation, when the Holy Spirit regenerates A Sinner and grants
19:54
them the gift of faith, the perfect act of obedience of
19:57
Christ is legally imputed or credited to their account.
20:00
God the Father looks at the believer and does not see their
20:03
flawed, stumbling attempts at obedience.
20:07
He sees the flawless, unbroken obedience of the sun.
20:11
The authors draw a very sharp contrast here to illustrate
20:14
their point. Again, we are impartially
20:16
reporting the source material here, but they contrast this
20:19
Reformed understanding of imputation with the theological
20:23
framework established by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent.
20:25
Yes, the sources highlight that the Council of Trent argued for
20:28
a system of infused righteousness.
20:31
This is the idea that grace is infused into the believer
20:34
overtime, typically mediated through the sacraments of the
20:37
Church. The believer must then cooperate
20:40
with that infused grace through their own good works to
20:43
eventually become righteous enough to achieve justification.
20:46
It sounds like filling a gas tank that has a slow leak.
20:49
You have to keep adding to it and working to maintain the
20:51
level. The authors vehemently reject
20:53
this model. They argue that infused
20:56
righteousness places the burden of achieving justification
20:59
partially on the shoulders of the flawed human.
21:01
The sources assert that believers are justified entirely
21:04
by the alien righteousness of Christ, a perfect righteousness
21:08
that comes from completely outside of themselves, credited
21:11
to them by faith alone in a single legal declaration.
21:15
The alien righteousness of Christ.
21:17
It is a staggering comfort, but it brings us right back to our
21:20
central tension. What is that?
21:22
If I am saved entirely by His perfect obedience credited to
21:26
me, why does Luke chapter 6 verse 46 demand my obedience?
21:30
Why do I still have to do what He says if His record is already
21:33
in my account? Because of the reality of our
21:36
union with Christ, Christ operates as the prophet who
21:39
speaks the definitive word, the king who demands total
21:42
allegiance, and the priest who supplies the perfect obedience
21:45
we lack. Because we are united to Price
21:47
by faith, His Spirit now dwells within us.
21:49
The Spirit of the obedient Son actively works to conform us to
21:53
the image of the sun. So the motivation for obedience
21:55
completely shifts. We obey not to earn our
21:58
salvation, but because we are already united to the obedient
22:01
King. We obey not to be saved, but
22:03
because we have been given the spirit of the King, who lived
22:05
perfectly. The gospel does not make
22:07
obedience unnecessary. It makes obedience possible,
22:11
grateful, and acceptable. Our works are not the payment
22:15
for our salvation. They are the evidence of our
22:17
vital union with the Savior. The author's that this is not
22:20
just an ancient history lesson or a dry theological debate.
22:24
It is designed to force an immediate, uncomfortable audit
22:27
of our own lives. They pose the question, where in
22:30
our modern lives do we use the right Christian vocabulary but
22:34
completely ignore the actual demands of Christ?
22:37
The application must be as direct as the text itself.
22:40
The primary question the sources press upon the reader is where
22:43
do your lips say Lord while your actions say no?
22:47
It is an audit of the daily routine.
22:49
Are you calling him Lord on Sunday morning but nurturing
22:51
bitter, unforgiving anger toward a family member on Monday?
22:54
Are you singing passionate worship songs but excusing
22:56
dishonest business practices, greed or secret sins during the
22:59
week? Are you maintaining the external
23:01
vocabulary discipleship while refusing the actual practice of
23:04
self denial? The authors apply this principle
23:07
specifically to the structures of the home and the church in
23:11
the realm of the family. They argue for complementarian
23:14
roles based on biblical texts. They assert that fathers are
23:18
called to be the spiritual leaders of the home, taking
23:21
responsibility for the discipleship of their children,
23:24
and that abdicating this leadership while calling Christ
23:27
Lord is a contradiction. They state that wives are called
23:30
to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, observing the
23:34
specific commandments of the Christ they profess.
23:37
And when looking at the church, the authors argue for
23:39
congregations that are Word ruled rather than Mood ruled.
23:42
They insist that the church must measure its ministry, its
23:45
worship style, its preaching content, and its exercise of
23:49
church discipline entirely by the words of Christ.
23:51
A church cannot operate on pragmatic marketing strategies
23:55
or the shifting preferences of religious consumers and still
23:59
legitimately call Jesus the Lord of the Church.
24:02
The sources also bring in severe cultural critiques regarding how
24:06
the modern church interacts with secular philosophies, and we are
24:10
carefully reporting the author's intense stance on these
24:13
political topics here, but they point specifically to frameworks
24:16
like critical race theory and Marxist ideologies.
24:20
The authors argue that these secular frameworks attempt to
24:23
redefine the fundamental nature of sin.
24:25
They argue that these ideologies demand new standards of secular
24:29
repentance and distract from the biblical definition of sin,
24:32
which is the transgression of God's law.
24:35
The authors maintain that the standard of obedience for the
24:37
Christian is the inspired word of God alone, not the evolving
24:41
demands or the social pressure of a secular culture.
24:44
The text forces a choice between 2 masters.
24:47
You cannot call Christ Lord while adopting the ethical
24:50
standards of a culture in rebellion against him the.
24:53
Ultimate application of Luke 6, verse 46 connects back to the
24:56
reality of the coming flood mentioned in the parable of the
24:59
Two builders. The authors point out that
25:01
suffering severe trials and final judgment are guaranteed.
25:04
The flood is inevitable and the function of the flood is to
25:08
reveal the foundation. The storm tests the structural
25:11
integrity of the house. When a medical diagnosis
25:14
shatters your plans, when financial ruin hits, when
25:18
cultural persecution rises, or when death finally approaches, a
25:21
faith built entirely on religious vocabulary will
25:24
collapse. You cannot decorate sand with
25:26
Christian phrases and expect it to hold up under the torrent of
25:30
real suffering or divine judgment.
25:32
The text calls the reader to build right now, to dig deep
25:35
right now, to hear and do right now.
25:38
The contradiction between speech and action is not a minor
25:41
personality flaw. It is a matter of eternal life
25:43
and death. The heavy gravity of Luke 6
25:46
verse 46 is that the Lord who exposes the falsehood of the
25:48
hypocrite is the only one who possesses the authority to save
25:52
that hypocrite when they come and repent in genuine faith.
25:54
We are looking at the eternal difference between just
25:57
possessing the vocabulary of faith and possessing actual
26:00
saving faith. It is a terrifying reality to
26:03
confront. But the authors draw a parallel
26:06
to another passage that drives this point home with even
26:09
greater force. And this is the final thought we
26:12
want to leave you with today. If we look at the broader
26:14
context of Jesus's teaching, we see a parallel warning in
26:18
Matthew Chapter 7, verses 21 through 23.
26:22
Jesus expands on this exact same indictment, but he places it at
26:26
the terrifying scene of the final judgement.
26:29
He says that on that day, many will stand before him and point
26:33
to their incredibly busy religious resumes.
26:36
They will say, Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name and
26:39
cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your
26:42
name? They will point to their public
26:44
ministries. They will point to their
26:45
dramatic displays of spiritual authority.
26:48
They will use the double vocative, the intense emotional
26:51
plea, to justify their standing. And Christ will declare to them,
26:54
I never knew you depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
26:58
The chilling reality presented by the authors is that on the
27:01
final day of judgement, advanced theological degrees, perfect
27:05
church attendance records, massive public ministries, and a
27:09
flawless religious vocabulary will account for absolutely
27:12
nothing if the faith was not genuine.
27:14
If the life was not characterized by a habitual
27:17
submission to the actual words of Christ, the foundation is
27:20
sand. The people in Matthew 7 we're
27:22
doing incredible works, but they were doing them on their own, in
27:25
terms, not in obedience to the Master.
27:28
They were workers of lawlessness, operating outside
27:31
the bounds of his stated commands while using his name
27:34
for credibility. It is a question that requires
27:36
immediate, honest reflection from every person who claims the
27:39
title of Christian. Why call him Lord if we will not
27:42
do what He says? We want you to sit with that
27:45
staggering reality today. The storm is coming.
27:47
The inspector will look at the foundation.
27:49
Is your faith built on the rock of hearing and doing, or the
27:52
sand of an empty vocabulary? Thank you for joining us for
27:55
this deep dive. Take a hard look at the
27:56
foundation you were building on.