davidbowerkingwood

The Burden of Past Sins can Haunt our Memory

In my work with Global Media Outreach I get many letters from Christians who are deeply troubled by their memories of past sins. They can feel so troubled they question whether God could even love them or forgive them because of what they have done.

They even question their salvation; how could someone who is really saved have sinned so badly? This is further complicated by the fact that although they regret those sins they continue to fail and sin again; how could God love such a sinner, they wonder?

All of us can be burdened with this problem if we let our feelings take control of our minds. As Christians we are cautioned to proceed on the basis of our knowledge of Bible doctrine, not our feelings!

Much of this can come from a misconception of the sin problem; we have a painful awareness of our own personal failings and our inability to consciously and consistently live a holy life. We seem to think that God’s approval is reserved for those who live exemplary lives essentially free of the pathetic sins that seem to plague us.

Some may even try to measure their “goodness” with the perceived “goodness” of others and might, as in the case of the Pharisees, find themselves to be worthy of God’s approval.

The basic problem with all of this is a serious misunderstanding of the sin barrier between God and man. Is our personal sin the culprit in our alienation from God or is our personal sin only a symptom of a deeper problem?

The Bible goes to some lengths to explain the true nature of our problem; the problem started before the law was even given. Without the law, without a moral standard, can there even be a sinful transgression?

The Source of the Problem

The Bible makes it clear that the penalty of sin is death but if that’s the case why did people die before the law was given? How can something be wrong if there is no standard against which to measure an action?

The Apostle Paul explains this in Romans 5:12-14 when he writes:

“12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

Is Paul saying that all people were charged with sin because of Adam’s disobedience in the Garden? Yes, that is exactly what Paul is saying; the underlying sin problem between God and man is Adam’s sin, not personal sin!

Just as a fever does not cause the flu, but is only a symptom of the presence of the flu virus; personal sin does not cause our alienation from God but is only a symptom of the real cause, our spiritual death in Adam.

The Cross Changes That Too!

When Christ uttered the words, “It is finished!” things changed forever. Christ’s death on the cross paid the penalty for all of the sins of the entire world past, present, and future! The impact of 1 John 2:1-2 is far reaching:

“2 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

That is an enormous revelation, this means the penalty for all personal sin was paid at the cross. Personal sin is no longer the issue; the only issue remaining is receiving the forgiveness offered by Christ’s death on the cross.

All of this worrying over more or less personal sin is nothing more than a waste of time as far as the Christian’s place in God’s family is concerned; they were all washed away by the shed blood of Christ.

For reasons known only to God, it pleased God to save the soul and the spirit but not the body. The born again Christian still inhabits a mortal body with a sin nature; a body which can have no part in heaven and must be either discarded or transformed at the rapture.

Quenching the Power of the Holy Spirit

When Christians receive Christ as personal Savior they are spiritually baptised into the church, the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Additionally the Holy Spirit indwells each Christian and will never, ever, leave them. We are told in Romans 8:9-11:

“9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.”

While the Holy Spirit will never leave the Christian the power of the Holy Spirit can be quenched by unconfessed sin in the believer’s life leaving the sin nature in control. In 1 John 1:9 we are told of confession of sin; confession of sin restores the power of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life and permits a Spirit led life.

The Challenges of Battle

I have written extensively on the spiritual war in which all Christians are engaged (To the Soldiers in the Spiritual War) so I will only mention it briefly here. In this context I only want to point out how the Christian’s success as a soldier of the Lord, as well as their general quality of life, will depend on keeping the Holy Spirit empowered in their lives.

Overcoming the evil forces of this world and our own sin nature requires a fully functioning and fully operational Spirit of God at work in the Christian’s life.

25 Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives. Galatians 5:25 NLT

About one year ago I published the above essay. For the same reasons I published it the first time I felt compelled to publish it again.

I am a subscriber to Andy Woods’ blogs and felt the following was much too good and far too interesting not to pass along. The original can be found here: Our Tyrannical Judiciary and How to Fix It

Our Tyrannical Judiciary and How to Fix It
Written By: Andy Woods February 10, 2017

Here we go again. In almost every culture war issue that I can recall spanning the course of the last several decades, the Federal judiciary seems to always step in at the last moment to thwart the democratically expressed will of the American people. For example, the American people want Bible reading and prayer in the public schools, reasonable legal restrictions on abortion on demand, marriage to be defined as that which exists only between a man and a woman, and the repeal of Obamacare. Yet, the unelected, life tenured, and unaccountable Federal judiciary always seems to intervene without a second to spare to overturn the will of the people.

The same pattern has now repeated itself in the immigration debate. If anything was clear from the last election cycle, the American people voted Donald Trump into office largely because of his promises to build a wall around America and to enforce our immigration laws. Trump, to his credit, has recently moved in the direction of keeping his promises through his recent executive order to place a temporary ban (until better vetting standards can be implemented) upon those seeking entrance into the United States from seven nations known for their terrorist training camps. No sooner had the ink on the executive order dried when a Federal District Court judge ruled the order unconstitutional. This decision was then upheld yesterday by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion to similarly render Trump’s executive order unconstitutional.

As in the case of all the aforementioned cultural war issues, the court’s decision here is rooted in its left-wing political bias rather than what the text of the Constitution actually says. If this trend involving judicial overreach is not soon rectified then we are really not living in a free form of government. Rather, our government can instead best be defined as a form of “soft tyranny.” Tyrants ignore the will of the masses and do as they please.

However, enough with the complaining. The issue now becomes what can be done about it? One possibility is to remove from office renegade and unconstitutional judges through impeachment. The power to impeach Federal judges is expressed in Article III, section 1 of the United States Constitution, which governs the Federal judiciary. “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…” Judicial bad behavior would obviously encompass refusing to follow the Constitution and the laws of the land. However, as evidenced by the failed attempt to remove former President Bill Clinton from office for perjury and obstruction of justice, the American people seem to have little patience with the impeachment process thereby making it a politically unviable option today.

Rather than aggressively pursuing impeachment, one popular solution instead seems to be to wait for President Trump to appoint more originalists to the Federal bench and hope that Trump’s nominees can make it through the Senate confirmation process. Trump’s recent selection of Judge Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the untimely death of Anthony Scalia provides reasonable grounds for optimism in this regard. Will Trump continue to appoint originalists to the bench who can also be confirmed by the United States Senate? Only time will tell.

However, there exists a much simpler, legal, and expedient solution toward rectifying our current judicial, oligarchical nightmare. The solution is found directly in Article III of the United States Constitution, which governs the Federal judiciary. As explained in a new book by former Speaker of the House Tom Delay (and Wallace Henley), Article III grants power to our elected representatives to solve this problem immediately.1 Our leaders only need the political will to exercise their constitutionally derived authority. Our Constitution gives the Congress three basic powers over the Federal judiciary.

First, according to section 1 of Article III, other than the Supreme Court, Congress is responsible for creating all other Federal courts. “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (italics added). Such power of creation also includes the authority of Congress over the wayward Ninth Circuit. According to DeLay and Headley, “This also means that what Congress can create it can uncreate.”2 Thus, Congress should now move aggressively in the direction of dissolving the Ninth Circuit, or dramatically cutting or even eliminating its budget, or perhaps breaking it up into something less monolithic.

Second, according to section 2 of Article III, Congress has the authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. “…the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (italics added). Simply put, this means the Congress has the ability to tell the Federal courts what types of cases it can hear or cannot hear. Thus, Congress should also immediately move aggressively in the direction of passing legislation that removes from the Federal judiciary the ability to hear cases involving any and all hot button cultural issues. This would include removing from the Federal judiciary cases involving the so-called “separation between church and state,” abortion on demand, universal healthcare, and also immigration.

Third, Article III fails to assign to the Federal judiciary any enforcement power. In other words, when the Federal judiciary issues a decision it is completely dependent upon the executive and legislative branches of government to enforce their decisions. DeLay and Henley note, “Rulings by SCOTUS or other federal courts, therefore, are only opinions if not enforced by the Executive or Legislative branches or the states.”3 Thus, when the Federal judiciary makes decisions that have no basis in the actual text of the Constitution, the other branches of government should simply refuse to enforce such decisions. It is within both the authority and duties of the alternate branches of government to do so since its members also take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. In other words, the other branches of government should follow the example set by President Andrew Jackson. Jackson is alleged to have once quipped, in response to judicial overreach by then SCOTUS Chief Justice Marshall, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Such Constitutional discernment and inaction on the part of the other coordinate branches of government would render the Federal judiciary impotent and would have likely led to victory in the culture war long ago.

In sum, rather than waiting on the POTUS and the Senate confirmation process to place originalists on the bench or impeaching unconstitutional judges though a cumbersome process, the real power to tame an over active Federal judiciary resides within the express powers that our founding fathers wisely gave to our Congress. These powers consist of abolishing wayward lower courts, shrinking the jurisdiction of what the Federal courts can hear, and the other branches of government opting not to enforce blatantly unconstitutional, lawless judicial decisions. Now that the Republican party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, it has no excuse for not exercising the powers that the Constitution affords them to beat back the judicial leviathan.

Although the power to do so exists, the question becomes is the political will also there to use it? Sadly, the Republican Party may not have the spine necessary to permanently solve this judicial recurring problem. After all, if they did solve the problem, the Republicans would then be simultaneously forfeiting a major campaign issue that they regularly use every four years to motivate its base (largely consisting of conservatives and evangelical Christians) to get out and vote for their candidates. This issue, of course, is the leftist direction of Supreme Court and the rest of the Federal judiciary. After all, if the Republicans permanently fixed the problem of an overactive Federal judiciary, the use of this election year issue would also and at the same time disappear. Such a self-serving political motivation may explain why the Republicans have not yet employed this ultimate nuclear option. May God give us statesmen as our leaders who are more concerned about solving a major societal crisis than they are in returning their own party to political power during the next election cycle. Only if this happens will America then legitimately be rescued from the soft form of judicial tyranny that she is now ensnared and victimized by.

Endnotes

Tom Delay and Wallace Henley, Revival! Revolution! Rebirth! A Radical Call from the Former Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives (World Ahead Books, 2016), 329-45. [↩]
Ibid., 332. [↩]
Ibid., 332. [↩]