JOHN G. REISINGER
YOU AND I WORSHIP A DIFFERENT GOD!
John G. Reisinger
"You and I worship a different God!" These were not the words of a Moslem, a Hindu, or a pagan African. Nor
were they spoken in jest, ignorance, or in haste. The man who made that statement to me was the chairman of
the Deacon's board and a respected and intelligent Christian business man. He had sat under my ministry for
about four months, and his remark was made on the basis of my sermons, especially a series on the book of
Habakkuk. On several prior occasions, we had eaten lunch together and then discussed the Scriptures in his
office.
"Pastor," the man would say, "if you only understood the nature of God, you would never represent Him as you did
last week. If you could only see that God is a God of love."
I drew a wheel and left the center hub open.
"What do you think should be put in the center to show the basic or central attribute of God?" I asked.
Without a moment's hesitation, he replied, "I say love and you say wrath. Right?"
I smiled at the "straw dummy" he had erected and said, "No, that is not right. You say love and then you put
words in my mouth. You say love, but I say that the Bible says holy."
At this point the man closed the conversation, in dead earnestness, by saying, "You and I worship different
Gods."
Now before you say, "That man cannot be a Christian," let me assure you that I feel he was a very sincere
Christian. I think he is a perfect illustration of those so graphically described by J. C. Ryle in his comments on
John 13:6-9:
We should notice firstly, the hasty ignorance of the apostle peter. One moment we find him refusing to allow his
Master to do such a servile work as He is about to do:-"Dost thou wash my feet?" "Thou shalt never wash my
feet:" Another moment we find him rushing with characteristic impetuosity into the other extreme:-"Lord, wash not
my feet only, but my hands and my head." But throughout the transaction we find him unable to take in the real
meaning of what his eyes behold. He sees, but he does not understand.
Let us gather from Peter's conduct that man may have plenty of faith and love, and yet be sadly destitute of clear
knowledge. We must not set down men as graceless and godless because they are dull and stupid, and
blundering in their religion. [Doctrinally speaking. JGR] The heart may often be quite right when the head is quite
wrong. We must make allowance for the corruption of the understanding as well as of the will. We must not be
surprised to find that the brains as well as the affections of Adam's children have been hurt by the fall. It is a
humbling lesson, and one seldom fully learned except by long experience. But the longer we live the more true
shall we find it, that a believer, like Peter, may make many mistakes and lack understanding, and yet, like Peter,
have a heart right before God, and get to heaven at last. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels. Vol. 4, page
235.
We wholeheartedly agree with Bishop Ryle. God forbid that we should ever make understanding and accepting the
"five points of Calvinism" essential to salvation or picture John Calvin as heaven's gate keeper judging men out of
the Institutes of the Christian Religion. However, we must still be zealous for truth and at times strongly refute,
both privately and publicly, the false and anti-Biblical doctrines of those who have "plenty of faith and love, and yet
are sadly destitute of clear knowledge." A man cannot pass on to others his faith and love, but alas, his poor
knowledge of truth can be sown in many minds. Good men, like good farmers, may sincerely and zealously sow
bad seed without knowing it is bad, but their ignorance will not keep back the bad results of the poor seed.
One of the worst theological blunders a man can make is to build a system of faith and practice around the
concept that "the fundamental attribute of God is love." It is tragic, but none the less true, that some good and
godly men have sincerely made this terrible mistake. The fact that some of these people are zealous and Godly
Christians compounds the problem and makes it more difficult to expose the error. Some folks may say, "What is
there to expose? If believing that God is (essentially) love has produced good and Godly men, what can be wrong
with a belief that shows such fruits?" We did not say that this belief "produced" good and Godly Christians, but
rather we said "some good and Godly men have accepted this error." If the overall effect of this theological belief
could be shown to have produced people and churches that walk in the fear and love of God, then the many other
"good and Godly" men who have, down through church History, sought to expose this error would have had no
cause for their concern. It is because the "God is (essentially) love" theology does not produce good and lasting
results that it must be shown to be wrong. Let me list some of the things I have observed among all of the "God is
Love" people I know. These things can be shown to be the direct results of believing and preaching that God's
fundamental attribute is love.
SENTIMENTALISM VERSUS SCRIPTURE
Every "God is love" advocate I have ever met has always been forced to down grade the authority of Scripture. I did
not say "inspiration," I said "authority." It is not their intention to do so, but these people are forced to this very
position when they are confronted with the God of the Bible. That God simply does not fit their sentimental ideas
about God. It is impossible to study the character of God as He has revealed Himself in the pages of Holy
Scripture and come to the conclusion that the fundamental attribute of God is love, but this does not bother a
person who "just knows that God is love." How often have you heard men and women say, "I just know God is
love. Everything in me tells me that He is love. Nothing could ever convince me that God's nature is not
essentially love." Now these people may not be willing to admit it, but when they say "nothing could convince"
them, they really mean nothing, including the Word of God itself. A militant apostle of this error heard me
preach the sermon "God is Holy", he would not consider the Biblical arguments presented, made no attempt to
show where any of them were wrong, but immediately, with pious assurance, said, "I still say God is love." (He is
the same man who said I worship a different God.)
A belief that lets "everything in me" dictate what God is like is bound to give us a different picture than God's own
revelation of Himself. Men may be ever so sincere when they "just know God is love," and they may be ever so
convinced when they "feel inside me that I just must believe God is love," but they are both wrong and dangerous.
Wrong because they base their concept of God on their feelings, and dangerous because they contradict the Word
of God and misrepresent the Holy God Who is its author. I have yet to meet a "God is love" man who will even
attempt to explain the ninth chapter of Romans. I suppose these people are unconsciously angry with the Holy
Spirit for putting such "horrible ideas" in the Sacred Record, and I am certain they are consciously angry at us for
reminding them that the Holy Spirit did indeed put that chapter into the Book. At any rate, I know from personal
experience that sentiment often replaces Scripture as the source of authority, and when it does its fruits are
always rotten. This is true even when the individual is a "good and Godly man."
DISTASTEFUL DOCTRINES
The second thing I have always found true among the "God is Love" people is a dislike of doctrine in general and
hard and "distasteful" doctrines in particular. God's wrath abiding upon sinners (John 3:36) and the certainty of
eternal punishment for all unbelievers is either neglected, rejected, despised, or ridiculed in proportion to how long
and how firmly the person has accepted the false concept that God's fundamental attribute is love. It is difficult to
think of God as essentially love and still believe there is a place where the fire is not quenched. It just does not
make sense, and somehow "doesn't seem right" that a God of love would ever maintain such a place. It "seems"
so out of character for a God of love to exact punishment from poor frail creatures simply because they don't
believe the right things about Jesus Christ. I wholeheartedly agree with this conclusion if the premise is correct
that God's fundamental attribute is love. If God is essentially love then I cannot believe in eternal punishment. The
same "everything in me" that would say God is love would also say with equal force that "there can be no eternal
hell."
One dear fellow told me he pictured Jesus as "kind and loving, needing and wanting our help in this world." I
agreed that Jesus was certainly loving and kind toward every sinner seeking mercy and grace, but I asked,
"How do you understand those portions where Christ denounced the Pharisees and pronounced judgement upon
unbelievers? How do you account for the fact that Christ spoke more about hell than He did about heaven?" He
smiled and replied, "I confess I don't understand those things so I just refuse to think about them. I always try to
think about the nice things." Now if that man was really pressed into a corner, I am sure he would admit the Bible
taught God had a wrath and some people would go to hell. However, for all practical purposes, he accepts half the
Bible, has half a Christ, and witnesses half a gospel. His idea of what the gospel is and why lost sinners so
desperately need to believe it has lost all urgency and been reduced to sentimentalism. He frankly admitted to me
that he could not bring himself to even think about, let alone try to honestly understand, any portion of Scripture
that spoke of either God's sovereignty or His wrath. Again, let me emphasize that I am not saying that this
particular man was not a true Christian (nor can I say he was), but I must say that his feelings, sentiments, and
outlook will silence Biblical evangelism and fill his church with "nice moral religious" people who have never been
stripped by Holy Spirit conviction until they cried out "God be merciful to me a poor hell deserving sinner."
AFFINITY TO LIBERALISM
Another dangerous fruit of the "God is (essentially) love" gospel is its affinity to modernism. Now please do not
accuse me of saying that every person who believes that God's basic or fundamental attribute is love is therefore a
liberal and an unbeliever. I am saying that the more "God is love" is emphasized and the more God's holiness is
neglected or denied, the closer you come to modernism and the faster you close the gap between Biblical
Christianity and its apostate counterfeit. When man's wickedness and depravity are neglected, then the need for a
radical change called the new birth will soon be forgotten. When God's wrath against our sin is ignored or denied,
then a blood bath in Calvary's cross will be unnecessary. The "turn or burn" message is just as embarrassing to
the "God is Love" evangelical as it is to the modernist. It will soon become obvious that the "nice sincere"
preacher in that liberal church is really more in harmony with your "God is love" gospel than those "hard" preachers
who keep insisting that hell is real, death is sure, and without true repentance and faith you must perish in your
sins and taste the fire that never will be quenched.
I know many believers who think they abhor liberalism but who, in actual fact, have accepted its diluted gospel.
Many of these dear souls know that a "conversion experience" is necessary, but that experience, as they talk
about it, is completely different than that recorded in the book of Acts. Starting with a tragic wrong view of God,
sin, and repentance, they have reduced Holy Ghost regeneration to a mere psychological adjustment to life and its
problems. Reconciliation to a Holy God by the blood of the cross that displays the wisdom, love, power, and
justice of God is not the theme of their preaching and rejoicing. These pious souls declare a gospel that pictures
unbelief as a misfortune rather than a crime against God. Sin is more a disease than rebellion, and its only real
evil is the unhappiness that it causes the sinner. A God of love can't be hurt or affected by sin and unbelief and is
able to bear all abuse and maltreatment with no feelings of anger or revenge, but man has been deeply wounded by
sin and needs pity and help. Man's state in sin and unbelief is shown to be more foolish than dangerous. There is
little, if any, eternal consequences if Christ is rejected as Lord and Savior. True, in this life you miss peace of
mind and purpose in life, but then, this is entirely "your choice." When the sin and misery of this life becomes our
hell, it is not long before the material blessings of this life become our heaven, and the gospel loses its content,
relevance, and urgency.
LAWLESS LOVE
Lastly, that "white devil of antinomianism" Spurgeon talked about is almost always a prominent doctrine in a
system built on God is love. "Jesus did away with the law and message of the prophets. The Old Testament gives
us a stern view of God, but Jesus shows us that God is love." There is little difference between the Methodist
bishop who said, "The God of the Old Testament is a big bully," and the thoughts and sentiments of many
evangelical Christians. If any preacher doubts this truth, let him begin a series of messages on one of the minor
prophets and give a true exposition and application to our generation.
The cry today is "All we need is the Holy Spirit, not the law. We need to be filled with love not with fear." Now I
am not about to criticize the idea that we need the Holy Spirit and need to be filled with love. However, most of the
"God is love" people are so filled with love that they tolerate any and every doctrinal error or worldly practice among
their followers. No one is ever rebuked, challenged, or disciplined for either heresy or practice. After all, if we are
to be loving, we must never judge or condemn." These dear misguided people actually believe it is wrong to preach
or use any of God's moral absolutes in either evangelism or instructing God's people in how to live.
It is easy to see why the converts of this "God is love" theology are usually very "nice" people. However, their
loving temperaments are more natural than they are the products of spiritual truth. This is what makes the "God is
love" idea so appealing to this certain type of temperament. The same thing is true of Christian Science (which is
the God is love theology taken to its extreme.) I have never met a Christian Scientist that was not a very "nice"
person. In fact, most of them are extremely lovely people. How can such a gross error of mind like Christian
Science produce such good fruit? Like the Evangelical God is love theology, it does not produce them. These
nice people were always nice and merely discovered that Christian Science suited their natural temperament.
"Everything in them" witnesses to the "truth" of its teaching. The same is true of the God is love evangelical.
I may not be very loving, and I may seem to be judging, but I solemnly declare again that the most tragic
theological error you can make is starting with the idea that God's fundamental attribute is love. I further declare
that my limited knowledge and experience agrees with the verdict of history, and this theology will produce the
fruits I have mentioned. I am not pleading that we quit preaching the love of God. I am saying that we must not
equate God and love. We must preach the love of God. God, Who is holy, just, and righteous, has loved poor
sinners like us. God, Who hates and punished sin, has poured out His wrath on His only begotten Son and has
shown His love to guilty rebels like us. It was not Love that loved the world, but it was God. It was the same God
that spoke the universe into existence and wrote on the Tables of Stone at Sinai. He is the God Who
demonstrated both his wrath and His love by putting His Son on the cross. The cross was necessary only
because God is holy. Once you lose the truth that He is essentially Holy, you will soon lose sight of the nature of
sin and its awful guilt. Lose the Biblical view of sin, and you no longer need a Savior from hell and damnation.
.
