Well, as you know, the past 20 weeks, we've kind of had a study through the looking at liberal Christianity, and we kind of finished that historical overview. And now we're going to turn our attention to a little book that my professor wrote a few years ago, Dr. Michael Kruger. And as we will look this evening, it's called The Ten Commandments of Progressive Christianity. Now, as far as a way of introduction, Dr. Kruger wrote this book in response to a devotional by this man. His name is Richard Rohr. Now, Richard is a Franciscan monk who promotes what he calls an alternative orthodoxy. Now, if that sounds familiar, we've kind of looked at that kind of thing the past few weeks, haven't we? an alternate, really, view of what Christianity should be. Of course, this is nothing more than code for progressive or liberal theology. It's the same focus of liberalism that we studied over the past 20 weeks, which stresses doctrine, which stresses action over doctrine and love over holiness. Now, Roy's devotional is called Returning to Essentials. So, but what essentials is he talking about? Is it really the essentials of the Christian faith or is it something else? And you can see what he's trying to do here. He's trying to paint his view of Christianity as the original Christianity. But as we're going to find out, it's far from the original vision of Christianity as given forth in the scriptures. Now, this little devotional is actually derived and actually derives 10 principles from this book called if the church were Christian, rediscovering the values of Jesus. Again, you can see where he gets his inspiration from in this title. The name of the author is Philip Gulley. Now in Rohrer's devotional, he sets forth 10 principles as opposed to commandments, because commandments are too rigid and orthodox, right? You can't have commandments. So they're almost like suggestions or kind of things to live by that liberals do. And really, this serves kind of as a confessional statement, he thinks, for modern liberal or progressive Christianity, while, though, at the same time, pretending to deplore confessional statements, which is oxymoronic. But again, that's postmodernism for you. Essentially, there are 10 progressive commandments for Christianity. Now Kruger, Dr. Kruger, points out that it is the fact that each of these Ten Commandments contain what he calls half-truths. This is why progressive Christianity is such a threat to the truth. Because like the lies from the mouth of Satan, these progressive commandments are weaved with truths so they will sound Christian, and so fool those who are less grounded in the faith. Now over ten chapters, Kruger seeks to diagnose and critique each of these tenants derived from Gulley's book, offering a biblical and theological response to each. Now, we're gonna be looking at the first two commandments this evening, and the Lord said the same will finish them up by the time we reach the end of the year. Now, the first commandment, Jesus is a model for living more than an object for worship. Yes pastor it is and we'll admit amen. Now this is Dr. Kruger's assessment here. Dr. Kruger says in many ways this is a fitting first commandment for progressive Christianity. When given the choice between worshiping Jesus, which requires that he is divine, and merely looking at Jesus as a good moral guide, liberals have always favored the latter. And that really is true, right? Because at the heart of liberalism is a denial of Christ's divinity, right? They like the idea of a Jesus who's a good example but they hate the idea of a Jesus who is divine. Because what does that mean? That means that there's a level of accountability that comes with acknowledging Jesus as God, as Kruger points out. First and foremost, what does that mean? That if you acknowledge him as God, you acknowledge that worship is due to Christ, right? Now, liberalism at its core, as we know, is just another form of idolatry. And it seeks to elevate man to the level of God, or in many cases, above God himself. Now, idolatry can't stand for true worship to take place. Why? Because idolatry is man's autonomy, his power to determine whom or what he will worship. So if Jesus is truly God, then he would naturally demand worship, and this would be anathema for any unbeliever, including the liberal, right? Now what makes Gulley's principle particularly deceptive is the fact that he insists that the church's worship of Jesus is something that he, Jesus, would not have favored. But as Kruger asks, If Christianity stands, can it stand if Christ did not claim to be God? In other words, is it a viable religion if Jesus Christ did not claim to be God? Well, the first issue that Kruger points out is that there is an overwhelming scriptural witness that says that Christ himself claimed to be more than just a good moral teacher, but God himself. We all know the I Am statement, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am, in John 8. And also, too, his declaration of equality with the Father, I and the Father are one. These are explicit statements claiming divinity. Yeah, David? good teacher, and he says, who's good? Right, why do you call me good? Only God is good, right. He takes the good teacher thing in exclusion to everybody else. That's right. And he's trying to say, he's trying to tell you, do you know who you're talking to here? Do you know who you're talking to here? There is no good, just good teacher, right? Again, that's what, it's almost as if he's kind of correcting the liberal there, isn't he? He's correcting the liberal right there in David's example. No, only God is good, right? Only God is good. This is from the words of Jesus Christ himself. That's exactly right. Why else would they do that? Right, right. Why else would they do that? Except that he is claiming deity. But beyond the Gospel of John, the synoptic Gospels provide a sufficient witness testifying regarding the actions that Jesus performed. For example, Jesus readily forgave sins. That's something that only God can do, right? What do you think the Pharisees, again, why were they so offended with the lame man who came through the roof? Why were they so offended that Jesus forgave his sins? because only God can forgive sin. So what was Jesus doing by that very action? He was claiming to be God himself, right? Also too, Jesus controlled the weather at will. That's something only God can do, right? Not a good teacher, not just some good person. That's right. Absolutely. Also, too. Not only that, but he was able to raise people from the dead. Now, in the Old Testament, there were two other examples of Elisha and Elijah were able to raise from the dead, but what did they have to do? They had to pray to God to make it so. Jesus just did it. Why? Because He controls the power over life and death. Right? That is something that only God has the authority and the power to do. David? That's right. That's right, you're forgiven. Again, that was the basis of his healing, right? He was healed to demonstrate the inner healing that Christ had done in the forgiveness, right? It was just a demonstration. Again, everything that Jesus did, everything that he said, was as a testimony of who he said he was, that he was the one, he was Messiah, the one that the Father had sent, right? Yes, absolutely. That's right. to attest what is being spoken about the Kingdom of God. That's right. That's exactly right. Now, God obviously works providentially and assists us in things, but that is certainly not a miracle. That's certainly not a miracle. And so you're right, we have to be careful when we make such statements that we not misappropriate a truly supernatural act, right? like the Rangers in the World Series. That's right. That's right. We do flippantly use that. And I think I did win wherever they won on Monday. So I have to talk to myself. Oh man, that is the miracle of miracles, right? That's exactly right. So all these things were only done in order that the God of the universe may be able to accomplish what he said he was going to accomplish. Now as Kruger points out, these very facts led C.S. Lewis to point out the following, and many of you have probably heard this quote before from mere Christianity. It says, I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him, that's Jesus. I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be a devil of hell. You must make your choice. There is no other way to take Jesus than either for what he said he is, as a liar or a lunatic, right? So that is all you can do. Jesus' very words just preclude him from just being a great and moral teacher. You have to account for what the scripture says. As much as the liberals want to hide and say that Jesus never said these things, the scriptural witness is the most reliable historical accounts of Jesus. And they don't like it, but they can't deny it. But they do, they try it all the time. They try all the time to just pass by, they just discount the scripture without any evidence or proof. They just do it all the time, because that's all you can do, right? They're spiritually insane, this is what spiritually insane people do. They act irrationally, and that's what these people are doing. These liberal Christians are acting irrationally. So that is, according to the witness of the Gospels, you are left with the choice of concluding that Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or God forbid, who he said he was, God incarnate, right? And that's, again, anathema for the liberal, for the progressive. But also Kruger points out that on numerous occasions, Jesus readily accepted worship, something, again, that was only reserved for God alone. In Matthew chapter 2, the Magi, they came and worshipped him, right? In Matthew chapter 14, the disciples worshipped him on the boat after he walked on the water. After all, only God can control the weather, right? That's one of the things that they acknowledged in it. In Matthew 28 and Luke 24, They, the man born blind, I'm sorry, the mosque will worship him in the resurrection. And then John nine, I'm sorry, I got behind here. And then John 9, the blind man, the man who was born blind after Jesus healed him, what does he do? He gives, offers him worship, he worships him. And then what does Doubting Thomas say, right? After he needed proof, he needed undeniable physical proof that Jesus was there, right? He said, unless I'm able to touch him and feel him myself, I will not believe. And what does Jesus do? He condescends to that poor soul, right? He says, huh, touch me, please. I am here. I am here. He overcomes his doubt. He overcomes it with the power of the Holy Spirit. As we know, later on, what does he do? He breathes the Holy Spirit upon them. That is an image of the gift of regeneration being granted to the disciples, right? Jordan, one of the things that comes to mind readily Is the fact that God has made it possible for every Christian to have a relationship with other Christians and with our triune God himself? and the reality and the necessity and the presence and the regularity that we enjoy as Christians to prove that God is God. The problem is we will not quit trying to play God ourselves and get off of our arms. And Saul was knocked off of his and his life changed and God has a way of knocking off of our prideful self and ego and all of that sort of stuff. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, and he certainly does that. But then in other parts of the New Testament, besides the Gospels, Jesus is declared as deity as well. We all know the passage in Philippians chapter 2, that Paul says that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Again, an act of worship, right? Hebrews chapter one, the writer declares that the angels worship Jesus. Again, another thing, and of course I could give you a myriad of examples in the book of Revelation because it's full of worship, but who are they worshiping? They're worshiping Jesus Christ, right? And so there's a multitude of examples that he is being worshipped, right? But in, David? Also in Revelation, he has a lot of like commands for the churches. Yes, yeah. That goes back to the authority thing. That's right. That's right. And it's not, so it's not just a teaching like here's what you gotta do so that your health, wealth, whatever is gonna be all beachy. But it's like all of those commands are like you gotta do this or else it's gonna go really poorly. That's right. That's right. And again, that's why it's called the Book of Worship. It's really kind of like a worship manual for those seven churches in Asia, right? It's Christ as the object of worship tells you what, how he will be worshiped, right? What is the proper mode of worship? He tells you what it is, and therefore the church is told to fall in line, or like he tells the Ephesian church, if you don't, perhaps I will take my lampstand from you. That means I will take my light, my presence from you, and you will no longer be worshiping the God of the scriptures, right? You will not be worshiping Jesus Christ. How many churches today have abandoned what God has said, faithful worship, Orthodox worship like in these liberal circles, their lampstand has been removed. They are not worshiping the God of the Bible. It's an empty building filled with empty people, right? Empty people because they have not been filled with the Holy Spirit. Now in terms of the first century context, we also forget that the disciples and the first Christians were Jewish monotheists. So they would not have readily offered worship to just anyone or anything, right? So with the disciples, we think, you know, why do they just worship them? Because they thought he was God, right? They thought he was God. It wasn't just a willy-nilly act that they did. These were testimonies of who he was. They knew the Old Testament scriptures. They knew what it said. And here is Jesus Christ fulfilling those things. He is the son of man from Daniel who was to come, right? So again, they just deny all these factors, all these accounts that occurred. You can see why they are blind. Right? You can see why they have to be utterly blind to deny this. The reason being is that they continue, again, like we've said, to retain the name Christian. Right? The most puzzling thing in the world to me. How you're able to maintain that name and yet reject everything that defines that name. Right? But then Kruger makes a great point as well, that Jesus' moral example, he says, okay, let's follow this moral example road, okay? But it's only binding if what? If Jesus is Lord, right? Why should we care to look at Jesus as a moral example if he was merely a man? Why not look to someone else? Why not look to a bum on the street? Why not look to maybe someone that you revere, right? Why look at Jesus? But further, liberals are infamous for saying that morality is relative, right? It's ever-changing and culturally conditioned. So how are they able to get away with this? Why does morality matter? Why does goodness matter, right? This is where their inconsistency comes into play. And to take Ronald Nash's example about philosophy, and I'll repurpose it for the purpose of orthodoxy, he said, this is where they have to steal the car of orthodoxy so that they can crash it into the wall. In other words, they have to use the terms that Christians use in order to try to create a mess of their own, right? They don't have anything on their own, right? They have to steal from the Christian worldview in order to make it work. Now, some liberals will argue, well, that he was not divine. He was a prophet. That's ridiculous. How do you know he was a prophet, right? What basis do you derive that from? It's a scripture, right? It's from the other New Testament writings, but liberals have already rejected, as we've seen, the authority of scripture, right? We've listed all the places where Jesus said He's God. No, we can't accept that, right? You know, a lot of these things, it's exactly what Islam says about Christ. He was a man, he was a deity, he was a teacher, a prophet. That's right. He didn't really die, that death on the cross, because God would never make a prophet and a holy man. That's right. There's a lot of similarities with what Islam says. Oh, absolutely. Because what this is, is a religion of our own making. One that makes sense to them, right? Again, that's what, as we looked in the past, at some of these, like Schleiermacher, for instance, this is a Christianity that you can believe in, right? Anytime you hear that slogan, that's what it is, by the way, it's a slogan, you should run away. Because guess what, guys? Christianity is opposing to the flesh. It should grate on you in your sinful nature, right? It should oppose you at every turn. That's why Ultimately, thank God, it leads to repentance. You see you are living in a certain way, and then you should turn away from that way, right? Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of Scripture at all? But let's just say for a moment we accept that Jesus is a good and moral teacher. You also have to ask, which morals of Jesus do you accept? Do you accept all of them? For example, And Matthew chapter 19, Jesus defines marriage as what? Between one man and one woman. Will you accept this morality as good and right, my progressive friend? Right, will you? Or what about his explicit statement? I'm sorry, let me go back up there. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. He's offering an exclusive statement of salvation. Is that morally acceptable to you, my progressive friend? Right? I think it's also notable that Jesus himself refers to the scenario that's in Genesis as morally correct. Right. That's exactly right. And so for those who say, well, Jesus never spoke to homosexuality, yes, he did. Yes, he did. Because he defines marriage right there. I think one of the things we've said before is that Back then they had enough sense to where you didn't have to say, you know, a man and a man and a woman. He just defines it this way. That did, because who was he talking to? Who was his audience? Jews thought homosexuality is an abomination. Jesus didn't have to address that. But guess who did? The Apostle Paul, because who's he dealing with? He's dealing with Gentile pagans who thought that it was a regular practice. So yeah, you better bet your life that he was going to address that. So again, we misunderstand the point of scripture. The point of scripture, they're speaking for a specific purpose. It's not a catch-all. He's not going to say everything. He's not going to smatter everything there is to say under the sun. He is doing things for a purpose. So we need to rethink the way that we read scripture. But finally, as Kruger summarizes the first tenet, He says, by removing the person of Jesus from the equation as an object of worship, it essentially makes Christianity a religion of moralism. What matters most, we are told, is not doctrine or theology, but behavior, deeds over creeds, right? This is the case. We just gotta love one another. We just gotta do well with one another, right? The golden rule is the ultimate, right? rather than what God says, you shall love me above all else, right? It's not the golden rule, folks. It is loving God first and foremost. That's what they fail to recognize. But as we know, the scripture is emphatic. It's not about what we've done, right? It's not about treating one another, but what Christ has done, right? As John so aptly states in his epistle, And this is love. Not that we have loved God, but that he has loved us and sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins. That is the definition of love, folks. So whenever liberals try to tell you it's something different, point them to what scripture says, right? That's right. Exactly right. That is the definition of love. Again, As we mentioned time and time, no greater love is this than he should lay down his life for his friends, right? And it's not just to do what you want, it is that you be a redeemed people, to live unto him, to be a holy people as he is holy, right? Now commandment number two, as we'll look this evening, affirming people's potential is more important than reminding them of their brokenness. Now, besides denying Christ deity, perhaps no other issue separates progressives from real Christians more than what Machen pointed out 100 years ago. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin. The second tenet begs the question, are people sinners? And if so, is sin really that big of a deal? Or do we need to let people know that they're sinners? Does this affect them and their potential as images of God? Now, again, like all the tenants, there's a partial truth here as well. The Christian doctrine of sin, as we know, is not just about telling us about our sin and brokenness, is it, right? That's one part of the gospel, right? We have to know that we're sinners, obviously, right? But Christ does not save us from sin just to save us from sin. He does what? He does so that we begin living differently, to no longer sin, right? This is the process of sanctification. This is the good part, right? The good part of the gospel, the good news of the gospel, that because he has died for us, that guess what? We get to be new creatures in Christ. We get to be new creations in which we are no longer in bondage to sin. So in this way, you could say that we have potential, people have potential. However, the lie from the progressive message is that potential, they think, resides in everyone, right? So you don't necessarily even have to be a Christian to arrive at that potential, according to the progressive Christian. Of course, we know this to be the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, right? And what Pelagius said, that every man has within him the ability to be morally good, right? And that was condemned as heresy, right? Because we know, what does Paul say? None are good. No, not one, right? There's not a lick of good in us. The only reason why we're able to do any good is because of God's grace. For the believer, we have been saved to do good works, and then apparent good works that unbelievers do is merely God's common grace. It's a restraint. It is not due to any goodness within them. It is a marred reflection of God's image in them. Yeah, and Christ had to come, like Christ did not descend from heaven as a man and immediately go to the cross and shed his blood. He had to not only, in order to atone for our sins, he had to fulfill the law of God perfectly. That's right. And have a life that was obedient to God. That's exactly right. And that is required, because guess what? We don't have that potential. That potential is given to us by who? The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives us that potential. And even at that, we don't live up to that potential very well, do we? I mean, that's what the Christian life is about, is trying to live up to that potential. And we know we never will in this life, right? That's why glorification is gonna be so great, right? When we finally arrive in the new heavens, new earth, that's when we will achieve our potential, right? And so as Kruger aptly points out, he says, we must affirm both our deep depravity and the amazing potential we have as God's image bearers. The two belong together, right? There must be an acknowledgement, yes, you are a sinner, but yet, If God has redeemed you, has saved you, you do have potential, but it's not due to your own self, it's due because of the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. Now, while we must reject the idea of just pointing out sin, we must not reject the reality that sin exists and that one cannot break from that bondage of their sin nature unless the Holy Spirit allows them to. So it's not an either-or proposition, is it? We must both acknowledge sin and acknowledge that change can only take place if the Holy Spirit grants it. Now, one might object that not all progressives reject the sinfulness of humanity. I mean, as we talked about Brian McLaren, he likes talking about all the bad things that Christians have done in the past. I mean, look at the Crusades, right? So we know that some of them readily admit man's brokenness, even though it seems to be kind of geared towards Christians, which is kind of odd. But anyway, as they said, look at all the bad in the world and how people treat each other with such animosity. but they don't acknowledge sin. If you take a closer look, you'll discover that while they acknowledge people do bad things, they reject the most important aspect of the doctrine of sin, namely that the existence of a sin nature inherited from Adam. In other words, they deny original sin. Now, Goli denies that original sin is possible, he says, because he denies the fact that Adam and Eve were real people. He was a great teacher of Christ. Yes. Again, very selective in the words he chooses to adhere with Jesus Christ. Again, as well, we might look at that one time, but the Jesus Seminar, where they basically, all these scholars, kind of gather together and determine what were the actual sayings of Jesus, and is actually a very few amount. You can see what they're doing. They're redacting to the Bible in such a way that it's a religion that they can adhere to, a Christian that they can believe. The Jesus Seminar. Basically, it was this group, huge group of scholars, who came together and analyzed the writings or the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels. And they determined, OK, this one's not an actual saying. This one is. So that's the red and black pills. Yes, exactly. And again, just basically taking a Sharpie to whatever they want to and redacting, basically, what that is. But he himself denies this, to be certain. because again, he doesn't take many of the biblical narratives as factional anyway. And so the problem of denying the event that led to the advent of original sin ever occurring is no problem for him. So he argues that we should therefore stop viewing ourselves as wretched sinners deserving of damnation. And he goes even further. Goliath says that we should stop singing hymns like Amazing Grace because it speaks of God saving sinners, right? A wretch like me, right? He denies this. He denies this emphatically. But behind the progressive Christian's rejection of sin lies an even more heinous rejection. That is a denial that Jesus came and died for our sins. But if sin isn't that big of a deal, That means that Christ didn't die for our sins. But if he didn't die for our sins, then what did he die for? Right? Well, Gully has an explanation. He says, the church has typically understood salvation as being rescued from sin and going to heaven when we die. But what if we believe salvation was our lifelong journey towards maturity love, and wholeness. Were that the case, Jesus would not be the one who saves humanity by his sacrifice of blood, but the one who exemplifies this maturity, love, and wholeness, the one to whom Christians can look and say, we can be like him. Steve. Wholeness implies you're not complete, you're broken, you're lacking. Yes. Yeah, it's contradictory. It's contradictory. And of course, they would point to the fact that, again, it's Pelagian, that by going down this road of enlightenment, basically, that you're on the road. You can get yourself there to a to a place of wholeness, right? Again, this is completely Pelagian, completely a system of morals, moralism, in which we can achieve our best life now. Again, this is the best life now in its most extreme form, where you make it happen. You make the world a better place. You make utopia. And again, this is why many of these, as we had mentioned, This is a realized eschatology. This means that they reject the fact of a literal heaven and hell and say, heaven is if you make your life great and grand and good for others, and hell is if you make life hell for others, literally. Right, Steve? Yeah, we read this morning, but all I can hear is Christ saying, woe to you, Pharisees. Yes. You hypocrites, you external, you know, you don't, you know, you tithe and so forth. but your heart is not clean. That's right. And he says you should do the things you're doing but first, you know, have a clean heart. And then he's, then one of the lawyers says, you're offending us. And he says, woe to you lawyers. That's right. Who put a, who burden the people. That's right. With the law that they can't, and then he says you don't even attempt yourself and you burden the people with it. That's right. So he would tell these people, woe unto you. Oh yes. Again, they're trying to lower the bar in such a way that they think they can achieve it. Again, that's what the Pharisees did too, to your point, is they made the law seem as just a means of keeping external things, right? Again, but as we looked in that sermon series in Matthew on the six antitheses, what did Jesus say? He said, well, you look at a woman and you lust to her in your heart, even though you have not committed physical adultery with her, you have committed adultery. Why? Because sin begins in the heart. So guess what? External things don't matter if you're corrupt in here. If you're corrupt in there, you're going to be just as damned as someone else who does the act themselves, right? So for them, the Christian faith has been reduced to a moralism whose goal is nothing more than to do good to others. But is this the historical Christian faith once for all delivered to the saints? No, it's not, is it? The faith once for all delivered to the saints is the one that acknowledges that we are sinners and need a salvation, not just a motivational talk to do better. The faith once for all delivered to the saints is one that affirms that Christ died on the cross for our sins, not that Christ died as a mere example of sacrificial love for us to emulate. So this is why progressive Christianity is not just a horse of a different color, but not a horse at all. Or as Machen put it, not Christian at all, right? So as we close, instead I think it's safer to side with the clear message of the Apostle Paul, and what does he say in 1 Timothy? The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. That should close the book on the entire discussion, shouldn't it? But again, their hearts are darkened, they don't believe the scriptures, And again, that is why, first and foremost, they should reject the label Christianity. They should give it up because this is what Christianity is, not what they say. Jesse. It's like when Christ said to the Pharisees that God doesn't accept sacrifice but obedience to his word. That's right. He said, that's exactly right. What did he tell them? He said, I no longer accept the blood of bulls and goats. The same reason why Cain's offering, as the writer of Hebrews says, rejected his offering. Because why? It wasn't offered in faith. If it's not offered in faith, it doesn't matter what good works you do, they are rejected by God. God will reject your filthy rags, as Isaiah says, right? Because that's all they are. The reason why our works are gonna be accepted, that they've been prepared beforehand, as Paul says in Ephesians chapter two, is because, guess what? Christ accomplished those. He sanctifies our wicked works. Our wicked worship, right? We're only acceptable because of the work of Jesus Christ and Christ alone. Only through the blood of Jesus Christ will we be accepted into God's kingdom. That's right. Because Jesus is between us and God. And if he sees the Holy Spirit, his righteousness, then he accepts us. Amen. Amen. Christ himself said, if you reject me, you reject the Father. That's right. Because he is sent from the Father, and only says what the Father tells him to say. Right. And so if you reject me, you reject the Father. That's right. If you would have believed, or you said, you would accept me if you believe the Father and what He says, but you reject what the Father has already said. What is He talking about? He taught the testimony of Scripture. He taught the testimony of Scripture. And that is why that as Jesus, well, the Lord said the same, we'll actually have a sermon on this a week from Sunday on the road to Emmaus. All of this was pointing to Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is the paradigm by which we need to read the entire scriptures. And the Pharisees had the benefit. They had the benefit. They knew the Old Testament scriptures. But again, just because you know something intellectually doesn't mean you know it here. Because you know the gift of the Holy Spirit is the only reason why you're able to understand it here. Amen? for anything else. Yeah, David. which becomes obvious if you try to give a hot dog to a vegan and they get offended. All of a sudden, you've offended your own version of the golden rule, which then boils down to just yielding to Nietzschean sort of attitudes. People, like, if someone would bully me about it, I need to yield to them. Whereas, like, doing something kind that would offend someone, a kindness that offends, that requires a standard. Right. Yeah, and what people often miss about the Golden Rule is the fact that the Golden Rule is based on the second table of the commandments, the second half. But you can't do good to men and first do what? You do right by God, right? If you look at all the other commandments on the second table, They're based on the commandments to love God himself first. And then, guess what? From that flows your love for other people. So if you're rejecting the God part, you can't properly love your neighbor, can you? You have no idea what it means to love your neighbor unless you know what it means to love God. Right? Yeah, and that's why you'll hear people say now they reject the golden rule as it's written, and they say you're supposed to do unto others as they would want you to do to them. Right. But there's no standard now. No, there's no standard now. Like you said, if we have our relationship right and we understand God and who He is, then we know, all of us, by the Word of God and the standard of God, we know how to treat others. That's right. They detach that, and they say we should understand everybody regardless of what God's Word says, and we should relate to them on their terms. That's right. Otherwise, we offend them. That's right. They don't even believe that, though. Because if I say, I'm offended, you haven't offered me your wallet yet, they will say, I'm not going to do that in the first place. Right. They don't even believe that. Yeah, there's inconsistency all the way around. Because there has to be when everyone worships themselves, right? I mean, it really is amazing that mankind has not wiped itself from the face of the earth. Because we're all idolaters. We're all in it for ourselves first and foremost. And so we know it has to be the common grace of God that restrains that level of evil that we know we all have within us, right? In all the countries, not all of them, but most of them, they have the atomic bomb or the greater one, the nitrogen bomb. They all do. And all they have to do is shoot one, and then everybody shoots one. So we're gone. That's exactly right. That's God's common grace. Yeah, everyone's got him. But in that act, it's a self act of self-preservation, isn't it? Because they know if they do launch it, everyone else will launch it and they will die. So God, in his common grace, restrains that, makes that apparent to them, so they will not do that. That's why the likelihood of nuclear war ever happening is very unlikely for that fact alone. Even the most crazy Kim Jong-un or whatever his name is over in North Korea, he knows the moment he launches that, he's finished. He's gone. So he's not going to do that. So that's, but again, God's common grace, God's common grace prevents those kinds of things from happening. And we need to continue to ask God's common grace because guess what? That common grace is eroding in our society. More and more we are seeing levels of depravity and evil. And again, what has God done time after time? That is an act of judgment. where he left the children of Israel to themselves and that was their judgment. They would be then subject to the idols, right? The idols, they would become slaves to the idols. They become then slaves to others based on the fact that they loved their sin and he gave them over to it. And so that's what we're seeing today.