Line Upon Line

2011-11-25T11:43:00.001-06:00

I have received a number of emails from pastors around the country expressing concerns about the Integrated Family Movement. Although I find that many things they say are true, I also greatly disagree with the way they force a philosophy of the family upon local churches claiming that any form of age divided or gender divided Bible study classes, even a nursery or Cry Room in a local church, is intent up dividing the family. The following article by Pastor Rench presents a biblical answer to the accusations of the Integrated Family Movement.

Mrs. Doris Aikens Sunday School Class 1957

Is Sunday School Biblical?

W.M. Rench

Calvary BaptistChurch

Temecula,California

“Is Sunday school biblical?” Usually such a question means: “Is it right,or should it be practiced? Should weparticipate in it? Is it the will ofGod? Should it be supported, promoted andencouraged as an essential part of the ministry of a church?”

There has arisen in recent days aconcerted effort by some groups in our country to cast aspersions on theministry of the Sunday school. Thismovement was, in part at least, inspired by some very real and legitimateconcerns about what passes for “youth ministry” across the “evangelical” world.Much of what is called youth ministry is about as far from a biblicaldefinition of ministry as one can get. Young people do not need more entertainment with a pinch of religionthrown in for accent, they need to be challenged to step up, take up the crossand follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

The biblical format for a Sunday schoolministry is one that seeks to reinforce and encourage whatever biblicaltraining is taking place in the homes of the children and young people. We parents are charged with theresponsibility of teaching the Bible to our children, but a careful study of theWord of God will reveal that God raises up teachers in the church. He calls andequips them to teach others. He usesthem to be a blessing and help to children, young people and adults alike.

Certain groups, some with good intentionsand some with wrong motives, have attempted to denigrate Sunday schools usingcarefully chosen wording to provoke negative connotations for graded Sundayschool classes. Their charges are thatthe church seeks to divide the family and to drive a wedge between parents andchildren. They will frequently repeatterms like age segregated and family division. They make the charge that graded classes,secular or Sunday school, are a recent creation of secular humanists. Further, they charge that classes tend topromote the institutionalization of children and the goal of humanists that theybecome wards of the State. They insistthat there is no support for the idea of such classes or schools in the Bibleor in the record of history. Just sayingit loudly, angrily and often does not make it so. They happen to be wrong on all theaforementioned counts.

New Testament characters make mention ofschooling back through Old Testament history. In Acts 7:22, Stephen refers to Moses’ schooling, saying he was “learnedin all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” Evenin the time of our Lord’s sojourn on earth there were such schools and they didminister to age related groups. In fact,the religious component in these schools was more prevalent than the othereducational disciplines.

Historian H.H. Meyer, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,said;

“Synagogues withattached schools for the young were to be found in every important Jewishcommunity. Public elementary schools,other than those connected with the synagogues were of slower growth and do notseem to have been common until sometime after Joshua Ben Gamala, (high priestfrom 63-65 A.D.), ordered teachers to be appointed in every province and city toinstruct children having attained the age of 6-7 years. In the synagogue schools the hazzan, or attendant, not infrequentlyserved as schoolmaster.”

We find this well known office,schoolmaster, recognized in Scripture in the book of Galatians, where it isused as an analogy for the work that the Law of God does to guide men toChrist. Webster’s Dictionary defines theword as follows; 1.“The man who presides over and teaches a school; a teacher,instructor, or preceptor of a school. 2.He or that which disciplines, instructs and leads.

Fred H. Wrightin his book, Manners and Customs in BibleTimes, wrote, “The archaeological expedition conducted by Sir Charles L.Woolley at Ur of the Chaldees, from 1922 to 1934 has proven there were schoolsin the city of Abraham’s youth.” Wrightgoes on to mention biblical and historical references to the school of theprophets formed by Samuel. He alsowrites of the synagogue schools that were prevalent at the time of Jesus’childhood. He writes, “When Jesus grewup as a boy in the village of Nazareth he no doubt attended the synagogueschool. The Jewish child was sent toschool in the fifth or sixth year of life.” And then he points out, “Until the children were 10 years of age, theBible was the one textbook. From 10 to15 the traditional law was the main subject dealt with, and the study oftheology as taught in the Talmud was taken up with those over 15 years of age.” Wright later makes reference to theRabbinical Schools common in Paul’s day. He states, “As a young man of thirteen years of age, Saul of Tarsus cameto Jerusalem to begin his training under the great leader, Gamaliel.”

Paul even makes reference to thisinfluential teacher he had in the days of his youth: Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born inTarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet ofGamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of thefathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. I trust that it is becoming evident to thereader that the charge that there is no precedent for age related schools inthe Bible or in the historical record is unfounded.

“Wright goes onin his account, quoting from Camden Cobern in The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on the NewTestament, “It is now known that there were 20 grammar schools in the greatcity of Rome when the Apostle Paul first visited the city. Girls as well as boys were allowed to go toschool, but there is evidence that more boys than girls availed themselves ofthe privilege.”

Wright explains that Paul’s reference toa “schoolmaster” in Galatians came from a commonly known position in theseschools. Among the schoolmaster’sresponsibilities according to references in several ancient papyri, was thetask of getting those children under his care to and from school. Archeological discoveries in Ephesus indicatethat the school of Tyrannus Paul mentions using as a meeting place for thechurch established there, was an elementary school.

The eminent historian Alfred Edersheimin The Life and Times Of Jesus TheMessiah, gives us a portrait of the education of children in the Hebrewculture at the time of Christ:

“The regularinstruction commenced in the fifth or sixth year (according to strength), whenevery child was sent to school. Therecan be no reasonable doubt that such schools existed throughout the land. We find references to them in almost everyperiod; indeed the existence of higher schools and Academies would not havebeen possible without such primary instruction.” He wrote, “It was deemed unlawful to live ina place where there was no school.”

He went on tosay, “For a long time it was not uncommon to teach in the open air; but thismust have been chiefly in connection with theological discussions, and theinstruction of youths. But the childrenwere gathered in the synagogues, or in School-houses, where at first theyeither stood, teacher and pupils alike, or else sat on the ground in a semicircle, facing theteacher, as it were, literally to carry into practice the prophetic saying,‘Thine eyes shall see thy teachers.’”

He added, “Thusencircled by his pupils,…the teacher should impart to them the preciousknowledge of the Law, with constant adaptation to their capacity, withunwearied patience, intense earnestness, strictness tempered by kindness, but,above all, with the highest object of their training ever in view. To keep children from all contact with vise;to train them to gentleness, even when bitterest wrong had been received; toshow sin in its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify by its consequences; to train to strict truthfulness; to avoid all that might lead to disagreeableor indelicate thoughts; and do this without showing partiality, without eitherundo severity, or laxity of discipline, with judicious increase of study andwork, with careful attention to thoroughness in acquiring knowledge—all thisand more constituted the ideal set before the teacher, and made his office ofsuch high esteem in Israel.”

Concerning the particulars of classstructure in the Biblical era Edersheim writes;

“Up to ten yearsof age, the Bible exclusively would be the textbook…The Talmud was taught inthe Academies, to which access could not be gained till after the age offifteen. Care was taken not to send achild too early to school, nor to overwork him when there. For this purpose the school hours were fixed,and attendance shortened during the summer months. Teaching in school would of course be greatlyaided by the services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of homelife.” He adds, “Besides, a school forBible study was attached to every academy, in which copies of the HolyScriptures would be kept.” He said, “Certainsections were copied for the instruction of children. Among them, the history of the creation tothat of the flood; Lev. 1-9; and Numbers 1-10:35, are specificallymentioned. It was in such circumstancesand under such influences, that the early years of Jesus passed.”

John Stambaugh and David Balch point outthe following in their book, The NewTestament in Its Social Environment, “The synagogue was a place of prayer,where the congregation gathered on the Sabbath and on holy days. It was also a school, where the Torah wasstudied; some of the excavated synagogues included separate rooms for instruction.”(It sounds a lot like Sunday school doesn’t it?)

Ample evidence for the Biblical basis ofa Sunday School ministry is provided in the above citations. In addition, any diligent researcher canproduce a ponderous volume of such evidence for the following facts; thatschools have long existed; that Sunday schools, or Sabbath schools in variousforms have long existed; that these schools gave attention to distinctions inages of pupils; and that having classes with children in them was not viewed asan attempt to divide families.

Some 20 different terms in the Scriptureshow a distinction in age and indicatediffering levels of maturity, development and understanding. Searching the Scripture you will find at leastthe following age related terms: a suckling, an infant, a babe, a weaned child, a little child, a child, boysand girls, a little lad, a lad, a stripling, a youth, a young man, a man, a man of full age, an old man, an aged man, a very aged man, aman well stricken in years andfinally, a man as good as dead. Thecontention by some that the Bible does not use age based distinctions isclearly groundless. Age graded Sunday schoolclasses simply recognize these distinctions in an organized fashion.

Parents who teach their children theScriptures do well. Parents who teachtheir children the scriptures andgive them the opportunity to grow up in Sunday school classes do better. Parents who provide a biblical example fortheir children to follow are wise. Parents who provide that example andallow their children to experience the example of godly Sunday school teachersdemonstrate the greater wisdom. Adultswho faithfully attend the church preaching services do well. Adults who also are found faithful to theirattendance in an Adult Sunday school class do better.

When the Psalmist declared he had moreunderstanding than all his teachers, (Psalm119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies aremy meditation.), he stated two truths that have been missed by thoseadministering the recent blows to the Sunday school ministry.

1. The Psalmisthad many teachers.

2. That fact provided him the great opportunityof receiving the combined wisdom of all his teachers.

The production of an airliner is thecombined understanding of many minds rather than the wisdom of one mind. The best equipped for life and ministry are thosewhose training is the result of many godly influences from the lives ofpreachers and teachers.

Cliff Schimmels, in his book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned InSunday School, wrote of going to speak at a small country church on an icyblustery winter’s day. He was surprisedto find it crowded full even on such a bad weather day. He reflected on his own upbringing in Sundayschool as he watched the children going to their classes. After the services he sat visiting with anelderly man. He told Mr. Schimmelsfondly of his seventy plus years in that very Sunday school and of his blessedmemories of many Sunday school teachers. Then Mr. Schimmels wrote, “I asked him why, after seventy years of beingin this Sunday school, he had chosen to risk life and limb to come out on atreacherous morning like this. Surely hehad heard all the lessons by now and wasn’t expecting anything new. ‘Paul told me to come,’” he told me.” Schimmels tried to recall someone named Paulwho would have spoken so highly of him as a guest speaker that this man wouldcome out in such inclement weather. Schimmels asked, “Paul who?” With that the old man took out his well worn Bible and began to read, “But continue thou in the things which thouhast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able tomake thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” 2 Timothy 3:14-15. He closed his Bible and said, “I learnedthose verses in Sunday school before I learned to read.” We do right as parents when we allow theinfluence and instruction of godly Sunday school teachers to come alongside ourown training of our children as we raise them up to love, honor and serve theLord Jesus Christ.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Crossing Guards for the Doctrine of Separation

2011-10-27T17:07:00.000-05:00

We have all kinds of new guidelinesbeing established for the practice of separation. Things are certainly looking a lot differentin practice than they did just a decade ago. Biblical “fellowship” is now being defined by degrees and on levels oftenwithout any criteria of biblicalexegesis. Theology has moved into the helter-skelter world of rationalism andthe fluid constructionism of the Post-modernview of truth as a commodity that is constantly evolving to be relevant to theculture in which it seeks to co-exist. Wewould expect this praxis withinLiberalism. We might even expect itwithin Emergent Evangelicalism with its constant quest for culturalrelevancy. We have seen this happenwithin Evangelicalism as they spend more time asking questions than they doproviding answers. However, we wouldexpect Fundamentalists to be above such nonsense.

The guidelines and boundaries forbiblical separation are not complex issues. We establish these guidelines and boundaries for biblical separation byanswering one simple question according to the exegesis of Ephesians 4:1-7. Whataction, attitude, or false doctrine on my part will cause me to lose thesupernatural enabling of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God and break “the unityof the Spirit”?

“¹Itherefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of thevocation wherewith ye are called,² With all lowliness and meekness,with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;³ Endeavouringto keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.⁴ There isone body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;⁵ One Lord, one faith, one baptism,⁶ One God and Father ofall, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.⁷ Butunto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift ofChrist” (Ephesians 4:1-7).

The emphasis of this text isbasic. The tri-unity of God between thethree Persons of the Godhead is perfect. In the tri-unity of the Godhead, there is unity in essence, doctrine,purpose, and practice. The only time ineternity that the tri-unity of the Godhead was ever broken was during the threehours of darkness (Luke 23:44-47) when Jesus, the eternal Son of God incarnate,bore the wrath of God for the “sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). That was the true agony of the Cross and allPersons of the Godhead suffered during those three hours due to that brokenfellowship.

Is there a practicum for separation inEphesians 4:1-7? I think the answer tothat question is obvious since a central purpose of the text is about “unity ofthe Spirit.” The only distinction notdefined in the text is the breadth of this “unity of the Spirit.” Herein lays the difficulty in the practicumof separation. Is the text referring to “unityof the Spirit” within the context of all the ambiguity of Christianity? Is the textreferring to the “unity of the Spirit” within the context of individuals withinindividual local churches? Or, is thetext referring merely to individual “unity of the Spirit”? Again, I think the obvious answer isindividual “unity of the Spirit.” If thepriority of my life is to pursue perfect unity with the Godhead it must bewithin their own perfect unity in essence, doctrine, purpose, and practice. Therefore, my goal as a Christian is topursue the communicable attributes of God, the mind of God through doctrinalpurity, heart of God in loving people in the depth of self-sacrifice defined byChrist at Calvary, and a walk that is completely separate from any degree ofworldliness and separate unto perfect righteousness. That must be my personal answer to thequestion regarding what is involved in seeking “the unity of the Spirit.”

Secondly, I must take into considerationany other partnerships I will join myself to in that pursuit of the “unity ofthe Spirit.” My primary partnership inministry is with Jesus Christ (John 15:1-5). Therefore, my primary responsibility in the practicum of separation isto insure that I do nothing or align myself with anyone that might cause me tobreak my “unity of the Spirit” with Jesus. The practicum of this is found in answering the question of Amos 3:3 - “Cantwo walk together, except they be agreed?” It is a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. – no! If I join myself to another who teaches “otherdoctrine” (I Timothy 1:3; heterodidaskaleo - het-er-od-id-as-kal-eh'-o), willthat cause me to break fellowship with God and lose the “unity of the Spirit”? The answer is again obvious-yes! Decisions regarding these other partnershipsmust include other individuals and other associations. When there are a large number involved inthis association, such as a local church or group of local churches, there mustbe consensus. If the primaryconsideration is to insure that my fellowship with God is never broken, myobvious consideration of any consensus is that it is narrowly defined, notbroadly defined. In other words, I amnot going to align myself with individuals, a local church, group of localchurches, or associations of pastors who hold to any theological positions thatI believe are unbiblical. I am not goingto risk breaking my fellowship with God over some frivolous fellowship with someone I think is leading peopleastray. I am going to make sure I sounda certain trumpet. Equally, I am going to make sure I do not soundan uncertain trumpet (I Corinthians14:8). God and His Word becomes my Crossing Guard when it comes to makingthese kinds of fellowship decisions. Irefuse to cross until I have God’spermission through a Scriptural mandate.

If a spiritual leader understands thatanything he does outside of the “unity of the Spirit,” or the filling of theSpirit, is nothing more than a work of the flesh, why would he be willing tocompromise that spiritual dynamic for anything. This is certainly true of sharing a platform at a Bible Conference withsomeone who obviously is practicing things you consider to be sin. We might justify such an action if theConference was in the form of a debate and the individual participants arepresented as coming to represent certain defined arguments. In such a format, there is point and counter-point. I have foundthese formats to be counterproductive. In other words, the sides have already beenformed and each side simply Amens theperson postulating their position. Also,simply because one person does better in the debate does not mean that theposition he postulates is correct or his arguments valid according toScripture.

However, in the justification for platform fellowship with those holdingto false doctrine or involved in sinful practices, there certainly appears tobe a manifestation of misunderstanding of what is necessary to maintainfellowship with God. The point issimple. Can I in anyway enter into fellowshipwith someone out of fellowship with God because of false doctrine, or sinfulpractices, and not become out of fellowship with God myself? Answering this question becomes the crossing guard to my practice of separation. If I care about my fellowship with God, Iwill be very careful how I answer that question. I certainly would lean towards taking a more stringentposition rather than a more lenient position. This is certainly not an area for arguing for liberty when we have so much Scripture defining doctrinal parameters.

Inventing such terms as Platform Fellowship and Table Fellowship do not help in thisdiscussion when these practices are not really fellowship at all. I can be the friend of a heretic and have acup of coffee or meal with him to discuss truth without entering into any kindof ministry partnership with him. I mustbe careful that my public appearances with him are not construed as any kind ofendorsement of his views. Therefore, Iwould favor meeting with such a person in the privacy of my home rather than inpublic places. I want to be careful thatI never give another Christian a wrong impression. I must especially be careful about publicappearances in preaching/teaching/speaking engagements. I have made some bad decisions about suchthings in the past and constantly regret them.

Christians do not understand the griefthat our broken fellowship with God causes Him. If we did, perhaps we would give much greater consideration to the flippantway we make ministry decisions and join hands with infidels to God’struths. Secondly, in an area in whichGod constantly rebukes me, we would be more careful to insure we act instead of react when it comes to all decisions in life. I find myself often taking personal offense againstthings I think are offensive to God. Iknow He is perfectly capable of dealing with those situations Himself. Instead, I see the potential corruption ofpeople, and the love that God has given me for those people, reactingprotectively rather than through loving warnings. Then, I become a corruptor in a different waythan the infidels. In such reactionarybehavior, I too can grieve God.

“⁴⁰Howoft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in thedesert!⁴¹ Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited theHoly One of Israel” (Psalm 78:40-41).

“³⁰Andgrieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day ofredemption.³¹ Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, andclamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:³²And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even asGod for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:30-32).

It certainly is difficult to maintaina balance in practice between Ephesians 4:30 and the following two verses. This is the struggle in dealing withtheological diversities. Trying tomaintain a sweet and godly spirit when discussing Bible truths with people withwhich you completely disagree is very difficult. Sometimes you want to just grab them andshake them into submission. Of course,such actions would just drive the dissenting parties farther apart. More importantly, such actions would grievethe Holy Spirit and cause Him to break fellowship with you. In other words, such actions would cause theone practicing them to lose the filling of the Spirit. In such cases, a believer’s carnality corruptsthe potential for God to work supernaturally through that situation.

Then there are those that givepriority to what Ephesians 4:31-32 says without giving the priority of the textto verse thirty. Although both aspectsmust be balanced, there is a higher priority established in verse thirty. This priority removes every excuse forcompromising God’s truths or for giving a precedent for maintaining fellowshipwith an infidel (unbeliever or unfaithfulbeliever) above our fellowship with God. Herein there must be the most careful examination of our associations withthose holding to false doctrines. Wemust carefully consider a number of things in both our association andidentification with someone we believe holds to false doctrines.

1. How will my association oridentification with someone holding to false doctrine be construed by those wholook to me for leadership?

2. Will my association or identificationwith someone holding to false doctrine give an immature believer a falseimpression regarding the quest for doctrinal purity?

3. Will my association or identificationwith someone holding to false doctrine give an immature believer incentive toaccept the writings or statements of the person I associate with even though Icompletely disagree with that associate?

4. How might my association oridentification with someone holding to false doctrine harm an immature believer?

5. What would I have to do to insure that myleadership influence, on whatever extent my influence might exist, might notharm another man’s ministry or lead another person astray by my association withsomeone holding to false doctrines or involved in worldly practices?

I believe those in pastoralleadership, and those holding influential positions in Christianity, ought to beanswering questions rather than raising more questions. God has appointed me His Crossing Guard only for the local church over which He hasappointed me Bishop. However, I am goingto be very careful with whom I associate lest they begin to give God’s sheep permission to walk where God hasforbidden.

“³Andhereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. ⁴Hethat saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and thetruth is not in him.⁵But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily isthe love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.⁶ Hethat saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked”(I John 2:3-6).

Has God Changed the “Old Paths” for a new "radical center"?

2011-10-22T12:50:00.000-05:00

From the beginning of time, Satan andhis forces of evil have sought to obfuscate the narrow way that defines perfect holiness. With each new generation, there are new offeringsin the nuances of obfuscation, even though these nuances are often in tinyincrements of deviation from the pathway of righteousness. They are often subtle deviations and they areoffered as the true pathway. Thesesubtle deviations from the true pathway of righteousness usually carry a more anthropocentricemphasis. They exalt love for our fellowmanabove our love for the truths of doctrinal purity. It is one of Satan’s age-old tools ofobfuscation. When someone refuses to be acceptableto various degrees of deviation from the pathway of righteousness or fromdoctrinal purity, he is immediately accused of being unloving.

Apparently, there are now certainacceptable deviations from the pathway of righteousness and doctrinalpurity. These new degrees of acceptabledeviations are not based upon an accusation regarding the fallibility ofScripture, but the fallibility of theological dogmatism. Apparently, we can never be certain aboutanything any longer. Oh yes, there arecertainly theological absolutes, but they fall into a very narrow category wewill call the fundamentals. Apparently, now the only real fundamental worth separating over is theGospel. Of course, this Gospel Only view must be very broadly defined to include LordshipSalvation, Easy Believism, Only Believism, Monergism, and even the Pentecostal Full Gospel. These NewCentrists are no longer going to separate over unimportant doctrines suchas false Ecclesiology, false Eschatology, false Cessationism, or even over whatdefines acceptable spiritual music inthe worship of God.

When a person has somehow justified hisactions, he will hear no other point of view even if it comes from hispeers. When he is corrected or criticizedby his peers for an obvious deviationfrom his previous practices, he justifies his new practice by condemning hisold practice along with everyone that still walks in that old way. The historic pattern is that the newgeneration rising to power must always be willing to kill the giants of the previous generation in order to establish anew monarchy of leadership. Every newgeneration is willing to accept the new leadership especially if they comeoffering a governance of lower expectations. That new leadership will always find a way tojustify those lower expectations and do so without shame. There really is “nothing new under the sun.”

“¹⁵Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not atall ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among themthat fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saiththe LORD.¹⁶ Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, andask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and yeshall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.¹⁷ Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound ofthe trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken” (Jeremiah 6:15-17).

As each new generation accepts these new pathways of acceptability, therewill also be those still trumpetingthe “old paths.” Once the new generationhas accepted these new pathways of acceptability, they also MUST reject those trumpeting the “old paths.” Those still trumpeting the “old paths” must be labeled as extremists and hypers. Granted, there are always extremists and hypers in every generation. Therefore, it is easy for those promising to refine the pathway ofrighteousness simply to push everyone to the right of them into various categoriesof extremism. After all, they canjustify this because they are the newright. This is just morejustification. They “will not hearken.”

Apparently, there is no allowable degreeof tension in the spiritual dynamic of theological discussion. Apparently, all forms of experimentation intheological dialogue must be allowed if we want our voice heard by those thatdisagree with us. Apparently, there arethose who think they will be able to convince those who have deviated from thepath of righteousness, even though all of their arguments have already historicallybeen cast aside. Those proclaiming topossess a more noble degree of truebiblical love argue that obviously those arguments were cast aside becausethey were offered in an unloving way and with a too dogmatic voice. The outcome of this philosophy is that thediscussion with heretics (those dividing the pathway of righteousness) never comesto an end. God’s command regarding thisis simple – “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonitionreject” (Titus 3:10).

Those that claim to possess this higherand nobler degree of true biblical lovedo not see themselves as deviating from the narrow pathway ofrighteousness. They simply believe thatthe narrow pathway of righteousness is narrower than God intended. They see themselves redefining the pathway ofrighteousness. For them, the pathway ofrighteousness is really much broader than hitherto allowed. For them, there is room for broad acceptance ofnumerous theological views because man is fallible in his interpretation ofScripture. In fact, they tell us, thosewho hold to the old narrow pathway of righteousness are actually in the ditch somewhere. They tell us that they in fact are pursuing aradical center of a new broaderway.

It is amazing how Inclusivism always comeswrapped in such wonderfully intellectual and rational packages. Amiabilityis the new word for theological toleration. Amiability is the new word forbiblical love. I come from Old School Fundamentalism. We believe in theological absolutes and webelieve those theological absolutes are black and white issues. We believe if you study the Word of God diligentlythat you can actually find dogmatic answers to every important question aboutGod, life, and the biblical practice thereof. Old School Fundamentalistswere taught about social engineeringthrough the processes of the Hegelian Dialectic and Centrism. Therefore, we talked in the language of right and wrong, not right and left. Centrism is the language of culturally acceptable norms. Rightand wrong is the language of the God of the Word. There is no acceptable deviation in thelanguage of right and wrong when it comes to the pathway ofrighteousness. There is just turning aside or straight on. Today, we needmore men who are willing to obey God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:31- “But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all thecommandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them,that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.”

“²⁹Othat there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all mycommandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their childrenfor ever!³⁰ Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.³¹But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all thecommandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them,that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.³²Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you:ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.³³ Yeshall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that yemay live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye mayprolong your days in the land which ye shall possess” (Deuteronomy5:29-33).

I do not understand how knowledgeablemen can so easily be led into the ditch of philosophical compromise. I do not understand how knowledgeable men canjustify using the language of Centrism when they must know it is the language ofcultural manipulation. I think they mustunderstand their methodology and have adapted certain agreed upon talking points. If they are right (and their argument is thatthey are right), then everything to the right of them is wrong and everything tothe left of them is wrong. Yet, they arewilling to label everyone they say is to the right of them as Hyper,while labeling select individuals to the leftof them as friends. Then they separatefrom those to the right of them (which means all those unwilling to accepttheir new center) and maintain fellowshipwith those they admittedly understand to be to the left of them. It does not seem too difficult to discern thedirection in which they are moving, even though they claim they have not moved. This obviously tells us something aboutthem. Either they never were where theyonce professed to be, or they have moved. Either of those two possibilities is unacceptable.

2011-10-05T16:40:00.000-05:00

Nine Characteristics of Hypo-Fundamentalism

The prefix hypo is derived from a Greek word meaning under, defective, or inadequate.

1. Hypo-fundamentalism abdicates biblical dogmatism and promotes an ever-growing Inclusivism in theological issues. Although Hypo-fundamentalism may not accept false doctrines as true, they are tolerant and accepting of those holding various degrees of false doctrine. Therefore, they seek to redefine biblical Separatism. This was the sin of Peter and Barnabas at Galatia (Acts 15:1-6 and Galatians 2:11-12).

2. Hypo-fundamentalism has a corrupted view of Ecclesiology. Failing to make distinctions regarding dispensational transitions, they adopt the Kingdom Age view of the Church and adapt that view into the Church Age. This corrupts such texts as Ephesians 4:1-16 from a local view of the Church (Ecclesiology) to a universal or mystical view of Ecclesiology within all of the ambiguity of what defines modern day Christianity. Hypo-fundamentalism increasingly accepts varying degrees of Reformed Theology often beginning with Calvin’s Soteriology and the willingness to accept, or tolerate, Reformed views of Eschatology and Ecclesiology.

3. Hypo-fundamentalism rejects the preservation of God’s inspired words and accepts and adopts Eclectic Textual Criticism as their model of Eclectic Reconstructionism of the Bible. Although they claim to believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the autographs, they do not believe they have the preservation of those inspired words in any apograph or group of apographs. Although they usually reject Dynamic Inspiration of the Originals, in their view of preservation, they then practically can only accept Dynamic Preservation because they can never be confident their reconstructed texts have the exact preserved words from the originals.

4. Hypo-fundamentalism rejects militant opposition against doctrinal heretics and promotes an ongoing dialogue with them as opposed to separation from them - apposition rather than opposition. In apposition there are varying degrees of allowed “fellowship” (ambiguously defined) so as to gender ongoing discussion rather than following the biblical mandate: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10).

5. Hypo-fundamentalism accepts ever-increasing degrees of Soteriological Inclusivism and Soteriological Reductionism. These varying degrees extend into Lordship Salvation, Monergism, Predestinationism or Predeterminism, Easy Believism, Only Believism, even into the Crossless Gospel extremes. Although there is ongoing discussion regarding these variations, they continue in varying degrees of cooperative ministry within the dialogue.

6. Hypo-fundamentalism seeks cultural relevancy above personal sanctity. This exists on numerous levels. However, on whatever level it exists it is sacrificing God’s supernatural and enabling grace for the world’s “friendship” (acceptance). This is another level of apposition – the belief that ministry to a culture is done as part of that culture rather than separation from that culture by establishing a local church counter-culture within the culture. Hypo-fundamentalists seek to obfuscate the line of demarcation that separates the believer in his being “in the world” (John 17:11), rather than “of the world” (John 15:18-19 and 17:14).

7. Hypo-fundamentalism seeks to avoid being viewed as religious fanatics at almost any sacrifice to true Biblicism. This is manifested in the extreme by introducing contemporary Christian Rock Music into worship services and the toleration of practices such as Contemplative Prayer, tongues speaking, social drinking, pre-marital sex, and general worldliness in dress and entertainment. Many hypo-fundamental churches no longer require abstinence from the use of alcohol and refuse to make social drinking a test of fellowship. Sin is spoken of in generalities rather than specifics. Their common word expressing distaste for these tests of fellowship is the word Legalism as defined contrary to biblical norms

8. Hypo-fundamentalism adopts the Right and Left terminology of Centrism while always viewing themselves as being the Center. Their word for this is balanced - meaning only their defined allowances of deviations from their center. All to the right of them are dogmatic hypers, and therefore rejected as unmovable. Everyone to left of them are potential friends. True Biblicists see no right or left when referring to biblical Truth. True Biblicists see only right and wrong.

9. Hypo-fundamentalism favors varying degrees of multiplicity of elder rule that leans more towards Presbyterian Polity in Board administrated churches rather than Congregation Polity administrated under the leadership of a godly Pastor/Elder/Bishop. In many cases, this is theological reaction against the apparent abuses of ungodly Pastors/Elders/Bishops, who “lord over” God’s people. Abuses give no mandate to abandon established biblical precedents. Rather, true Congregational Polity should biblically correct these abuses through confrontation and reproof. Hypo-fundamentalists think they have a better way than God’s way.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Convergent Evangelicalism

2011-06-09T13:17:00.001-05:00

New wave Neutralism

I can barely stomach preachers who are willing to compromise God’s truth for purposes of self-promotion or pragmatic church growth philosophies. Once a man begins to move in that direction, it appears that he will be able to justify just about anything he does. Perhaps there is an even more detestable character than this within the circles of compromise. This even more detestable character is the person who professes privately to be faithful to the Old Paths, but who takes a neutral position publicly. That type of character is nauseating.

Perhaps no one better defined New Evangelicalism than Dr. William. A. Ashbrook, the pastor of Calvary Bible Church in Columbus, Ohio. He wrote two books on the subject entitled New Evangelicalism-The New Neutralism and New Neutralism II. Ashbrook[1] wrote:

“Lest there be any doubt as to the direction of its sympathies one only needs to evaluate the barbs which it levels at the fundamentalists. ‘Fundamentalism,’ say its traducers, ‘has degenerated into a cat and dog fight.’ Fundamentalism is held up ‘as an ignorant, contentious approach to the Christian Faith as outdated as high button shoes.’ It could well discard ‘a lot of unnecessary traditional baggage in the forms of customs, practices and lingo beloved through the generations but now obstacles to preaching the gospel to the unsaved.’ . . .

Neutralism is a position difficult to maintain in any age, but in a day like ours when the battle is pitched between Christ and anti-Christ it is an impossible position. In the sphere of things moral and spiritual a man must be either right or wrong. The showdown will come in realms of black or white, not in the fog of immaterial grey. There is no middle ground on which the neutralist can complacently stand for long and pronounce his anathemas or his benedictions as the case may be upon both of the conflicting sides. He is bound to wind up in one camp or other and in a day when God is judging compromise in no uncertain terms, he is very likely to wind up in the wrong camp.

There can be no middle ground for Bible-believing Christians. One of the Scottish evangelists of a former day used to say, ‘Joshua had trouble with the Amorites and the Hittites outside Israel, but he had far more trouble with the Betweenites inside Israel.’”

If New Evangelicalism is New Neutralism, that Convergent Evangelicalism is nothing more than a new wave of the same old thing. Convergent Evangelicalism can certainly be characterized as another wave of Neutralism since its headline position is a radical departure from the Old Path practices of separation. Therefore, Convergent Evangelicalism is just a new wave of New Evangelicalism characterized by different degrees of Neutralism regarding issues of separation or levels of separation.

Convergent Evangelicals argue they are refining rather than redefining the lines of demarcation for separation. They are in fact reducing the historical theological boundaries for those they include in their cooperation in Kingdom building. In my opinion, they are more concerned about their own kingdoms, than they are about Christ’s Kingdom. This new wave of Neutralism follows upon New Evangelism’s past Soteriological Reductionism. This new wave of Neutralism now focuses upon broadening the view of Ecclesiology to a Big View Christianity beyond the local church view where separation issues are reduced to extreme inclusivity regarding the Gospel at the exclusion of those separating over errors in Eschatology, Pneumatology, Bibliology, and Ecclesiology. The new wave of Neutralism labels those separating over errors in Eschatology, Pneumatology, Bibliology, and Ecclesiology as extremists and radicals.

Scripturally, Neutralism is an anathema to Christ. Neutralism in any form, or in any degree, is the “lukewarm” Laodicean church of Revelation 3:14-22. In the last one-hundred years, we have seen wave upon wave of Neutralism wash away the shoreline of theological orthodoxy. Central to the ongoing theological erosion problem is the fact that the vast majority of fundamentalists censor themselves and never speak out against the erosion. Yet, they do not see their own Neutralism of silence as part of the problem. The fact is that their Neutralism is the main reason why the new waves of Neutralism advance so deeply into the shorelines of theological orthodoxy. Sadly, they defend their own Neutralism of silence beyond the point where the theological shoreline has become so critically eroded that they find the foundations of their local churches completely undermined. They are allowing the local churches, of which they have been appointed guardians, to be captured by their own compromise of silence.

[1] Askbrook, William A., The New Evangelicalism-The New Neutralism, Central Bible Quarterly, CENQ 02-2 (Summer 1959)

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Unholy Alliances

2011-06-02T08:26:00.000-05:00

THE ABBERATIONS OF

CONVERGENT & EMERGENT EVANGELICALISM

“⁸ And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. ⁹ Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. ¹⁰ And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. ¹¹ And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. ¹² And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:8-12)?

In the historical scene of Luke chapter twenty-three, we see an unholy alliance formed from three groups that hitherto were sworn enemies.

1. There was the Idumean King of Israel in long standing reign of the corrupt, cutthroat, debauch Herodian Dynasty in Israel. Their reign marked the final pages in the downfall of Israel culminating in the Roman overthrow in 70 A.D.

2. There was the tyrant Pilate, the Roman procurator in the province of Judea, who came into power by political appointment in 26 A.D. His only true loyalty was to his own political career, which selfish motives led him to have the righteous Jesus crucified merely to avoid political problems for himself.

3. There were the “chief priests and scribes” of Israel, who were corrupt in protecting their own powerful positions inherent in the Mosaic Covenant to them by the nature of God’s ordained Levitical priesthood. Christ righteously and repeatedly condemned their corruption and hypocrisy, for which they unjustly condemned Him, thereby publicly manifesting their corruption and hypocrisy.

All of these men had something in common – self-promotion. The circumstances of life promoted them to positions of power that were greater than their character. The extreme degree to which they were willing to go in their pursuit of fame, power, and position is manifested by their willingness to sacrifice the innocent Christ to advance their own personal ambitions.

I believe there is a common denominator in Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelism. Both are willing to sacrifice true Christianity to expand their levels of influence in order get the ears of a larger audience of people. They have in fact stated this in their discussion regarding cultural relevancy. The only difference between Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelicalism is the difference in their degrees of compromise.

This would certainly appear to be the outcome of a faulty Ecclesiology in seeing Christianity and the Church as synonymous entities. When the Church is viewed as some mystical organism, rather than a local organization, then all Scripture instruction to the “church” becomes practically vapid. Ecclesiological orthodoxy is forced into a distortionist’s act, warping and distorting itself to fit into a form to which it was never designed. The point I seek to make is that this distortion actually postulates an Ecclesiological heterodoxy and sacrifices true Christianity for something that is undefined. The Christianity (dare we call it that) of both Convergent and Emergent Evangelism is evolving and fluid – constantly changing. We do not know where it is going because we do not know where it is. However, the one word that describes both Convergent and Emergent Evangelicalism is the word DEPARTURE.

An old Arabian proverb says, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The proverb sounds good and certainly becomes the practice in the lives of many people. However, we should question the moral validity of the pragmatism of such a statement and its correctness according to the Word of God. Can true Christians unite with the enemies of God simply because we might be combating similar foes? Can true Christians unite with other professing Christians who deny cardinal doctrines of “the faith” simply because we seek to resist a common enemy in the influences of evil upon a mutual society?

In these last days, before the rapture of the Church Age believers, we see the forces of evil advancing their agenda of death, corruption, and Antichristism on almost every front of what is right and holy before God. We see the right to murder forces uniting in the realms of abortion (the murder of unwanted babies) and euthanasia (the murder of the elderly, terminally ill, and mentally ill or retarded). We see the gay/lesbian forces uniting to force society to accept their alternative lifestyles while even requiring that they be accepted without any condemnation of those lifestyles as sinful. Public nudity and public profanity must also be accepted under the guise of free expression and freedom of speech. Gay marriage must be accepted by society and we must not even put a hint of moral anathema upon it. We must give religious liberty to everyone and everything, and are required to exclude from that liberty any discussion or condemnation of heresy. Religious liberty must be given without question or challenge to the credibility of varying and opposing religious beliefs, and Pluralism must become the norm under the threat of adjudication for hate speech. Proselytizing must become a social anathema in this new culture of moral relativism and self-actualization. The declaration of independence from biblical values in this new culture is the paradoxical statement - “There are absolutely no absolutes!”

Although the above scenario at the ending of the Church Age is undoubtedly wicked and antichrist, uniquely it is not a great deal different than the era in which Christ lived and into which Christianity was first introduced by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Sadly, the world’s moral scene has returned to this morbidity because the Church of Jesus Christ has been corrupted and believers have forgotten that they were saved to serve the Lord Jesus, win souls, and make disciples to His glory. Today, the lukewarm church is confronted with a situation they have allowed to come to fruition because of their own apathy and, just like Israel, God will use the very situation we have created by that apathy to chastise us (Luke 23:31). We have cut our own rod by abusing the mercy and grace of God requiring Him then to come forth with a rod of iron.

The test of Christian fellowship must not be separated from the test of Christian character. Christian character is simply measured by what we are willing to compromise in order to protect ourselves or advance ourselves in public opinion. Probably most of the men in Convergent and Emergent Evangelicalism are “born again” men who have trusted in Jesus Christ. Many of them are very inclusive as to what a person must believe to be saved and about what a person cannot believe. Many of them are Soteriological Reductionists and many are Lordship Salvationists. Most of them are willing to fellowship with other men and local churches/denominations holding to a wide diversity of Soteriological positions. This is the outcome of their Big View Christianity. Their Big View Christianity then extends itself into Inclusivism in the arena of fellowship in the areas of Ecclesiology, Christology, Pneumatology, and Eschatology. This Inclusivism is necessary because without it their Big View Christianity very rapidly reduces itself into a local church view Christianity.

Big View Christianity naturally propagates theological syncretism. This combining, merging, melding, converging, amalgamating view of Christianity ultimately evolves into some kind of aberration none of the original participants might have, or could have imagined. Since it begins by loosening its theological moorings, is it any wonder that it has set itself adrift to be carried about hither and thither by the ever-changing sea of cultural evolution with which it seeks relevancy? Throughout the Church Age Dispensation, the local church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” The role of our High Priest Jesus Christ throughout the Church Age is to keep His local churches pure of doctrinal error, worldly compromise, and involved in His original missional command. When any man, whether it be pastor, evangelist, Bible College President, or Seminary professor seeks to propagate theological syncretism amongst Jesus’ local churches, that man declares himself an opponent to our High Priest’s purpose and an enemy of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Flies in the Ointment

2011-05-17T10:56:00.002-05:00

“Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour” (Ecclesiastes 10:1).

With “reputation” comes overwhelming responsibilities. As a man of God becomes a man of “reputation,” he must carefully consider everything he does and everything he says lest he misrepresent the truth of God’s Word and lead thousands astray. When a man influences thousands, he influences the hundreds of thousands that those thousands influence. The man of God understands that he will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and be held accountable for every word that comes from his mouth.

The “ointment of the apothecary” was intended to mask the stench of a corpse in preparation for burial and during the time of mourning. The “ointment of the apothecary” had noble purpose intent upon making the inevitable time of death less unpleasant. The dead bodies attracted flies and the flies laid eggs that soon turned into maggots. These flies came to be known as death flies. These death flies tended to corrupt the “ointment of the apothecary” fermenting it and causing it to stink.

God connects the death flies metaphorically to “a little folly in the second part of the verse. God connects “the ointment of the apothecary” metaphorically to “him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.” The point is that it does not take much “folly” for “reputation” to be perverted. The paradox is between the words “folly” and “wisdom and honour.” “Wisdom” is to know the truth. “Honour” is given to people of reputation. When “wisdom” is perverted by “folly,” the “honour” given to people of “reputation” because of “wisdom” is no longer deserved.

The Words of God are the Words of “life” (John 6:63). When God’s Words are warped or distorted to any degree, what those Words mean are distorted and perverted. Any distortion or perversion of the Word of God takes the power of “life” from those Words. The man of God who loves the Words of God is careful with his interpretation of God’s Words and with what he says about God’s Word.

There are men of “reputation” today who are telling us that the things that have been important to fundamental Christianity are no longer as important as they used to be. They are telling us that there are certain doctrinal errors over which we used to separate that are no longer fundamental to Christianity. They are telling us that differences in doctrine in the areas of Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, and Eschatology are non-essentials to Christian “fellowship.” They seek to redefine orthodoxy on a much broader scale of theological toleration. Yes, they still consider Liberalism outside of the main stream of their broader definition of fundamental Christianity. However, they do want to include almost all degrees of what they view as Reformed orthodoxy within their definition of fundamental Christianity.

The point is that there is no such thing as Reformed orthodoxy. Reformed orthodoxy is an oxymoron (but we are not supposed to be able to say such divisive things). All true Reformed Theologians are wrong about their Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, and Eschatology (although there are variants who call themselves Reformed who may be correct in varying degrees of these areas of theology). The vast majority of Reformed Theology is also wrong on their Soteriological, i.e., Calvinism (even though we are told that we are not allowed to make that distinction). Clearly, those proposing this broadening of acceptable orthodoxy are really redefining orthodoxy. They say they are trying to redefine separation, but that is not what is going on. That is a smokescreen.

These men of reputation, who are trying to redefine orthodoxy, are flies in the ointment. They have compromised their professed orthodoxy. Compromise always brings death to true fundamentalism. What they are doing is “folly.” Although they have a “reputation” for “wisdom” and have been given “honour” for years of faithfulness, apparently there has always been fly eggs of compromise and Inclusivism within their theology. Those fly eggs are now hatching and revealing their presence as maggots in fundamentalism. There is not enough perfume in the world to cover the stench created by such folly.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Did Jesus Teach Lordship Salvation?

2011-05-16T11:25:00.001-05:00

Expanding the Bubble of Our Existence

“²³And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. ²⁴For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. ²⁵For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? ²⁶ For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:23-26).

As we look at the text before us, the first question we must answer is whether the text is a salvation text or a text that lays out the qualifications for becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ. If the text is a salvation text, we have before us a very strong evidence of what is known as Lordship Salvation. In fact, most of the proponents of Lordship Salvation would tell us this is indeed a salvation text. Of course, to make this a salvation text, those purporting a Lordship Salvation position must inject their presupposition on the text and take the text completely out its context. Clearly, Jesus is addressing the text to His disciples. Clearly, Jesus is defining the difference between salvation and discipleship.

There are many who receive the gift of salvation “by grace through faith,” but who never become disciples of Jesus Christ. We have the same pattern in most of our local churches today. A very small percentage of “born again” people ever become true disciples of Jesus Christ as defined by the criteria of Luke 9:23-26. To force Lordship Salvation upon this text, and others like it, is to make the gift of salvation conditioned upon works, rather than mere faith.

How do you begin your day? What is your normal morning routine? Get out of bed, shower, brush teeth, comb hair, shave unwanted hair from your body, eat breakfast, drive to work, . . . and etc? Where does our relationship with Christ fit into our morning and daily routine? Answering this last question defines what we believe to be Christianity. It certainly defines our Christian life and whatever expectations we have about God’s involvement in our lives on a daily basis. The fact is, most professing Christians do not think about these things at all, let alone consistently.

The common word for a person who is a disciple of Jesus is the word Christian. Christianity that is not Christ-centered is not Christianity. If your life is mostly about you and little about Christ, what you have is better described as You-ianity. Christ gives a threefold command to anyone wanting to be His disciple (a Christian). Unless all three of these commands are your daily objectives in life, you are not a disciple of Jesus. You may be saved, but you are not a Christian!

1. “let him deny himself”

2. “take up his cross daily”

3. “follow me”

Trusting Christ for the gift of salvation “by grace through faith” is not the same as becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ. These are two separate decisions in a believer’s life. The vast majority of people who trust in Christ and receive the gift of salvation never become disciples. Those who never become disciples do not deserve to be called Christians. A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. The reality of the name Christian is defined by the reality of the three commands of Christ in Luke 9:23. If those three commands are not part of your reality, you may be saved, but you are not a Christian.

“¹⁹Now they {this does not refer to the Apostles, but to those that were saved in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and the next eight years following the stoning of Stephen under the increasing persecution by the Jews} which were scattered abroad {the Diaspora} upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice {150 miles West to a 20 mile wide by 120 mile long stretch along the Mediterranean coast}, and {250 miles West to the island of} Cyprus, and Antioch {about 300 miles North of Jerusalem}, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. ²⁰And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.²¹ And the hand of the Lord was with them {they manifested the power of God through their lives and ministry}: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord {pagans became believers with radical changes in the way they began to live their lives}.²² Then tidings {the news or spoken reports} of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.²³Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God {the evidence of God’s grace in the fruit of those won to Christ and who became disciples of Christ}, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.²⁴ For he {Barnabas} was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.²⁵ Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:²⁶ And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians {the Greek term for the followers of Christ, not for a religion called Christianity} first in Antioch” (Acts 11:19-26).

As we read Acts 11:19-26, we should ask ourselves a simple question. Why were “the disciples . . . called Christians first in Antioch”? The nomenclature Christians carries much greater significance than merely believing in the teachings of a man named Jesus. It also carries a higher significance than merely following Jesus as in the sense of loyalty to Him as a person with political loyalty to a leader or a great teacher. To be a follower of Jesus, and therefore a Christian, was to think, live, and do what Jesus did. To be a follower of Jesus involved COMPLETE self-denial, COMPLETE self-sacrifice to the point of willing to die for Him and His mission, and an attempt towards COMPLETE obedience to doing everything He commanded His disciples to do missionally. These three qualities of commitment are what define the word Christian. Therefore, these three criteria of commitment also define Christianity. We do NOT define Christianity as merely orthodoxy of beliefs. Although there must be orthodoxy in beliefs, we define Christianity by the reality of practicing what Jesus practiced. Christianity, as a practical reality, cannot be separated from its missional purpose. The three criteria of Luke 9:23 are the fundamentals of true discipleship.

There is no doubt that the Word of God establishes these three fundamental criteria for defining a person as a true disciple of Jesus Christ. Secondly, there is no doubt that the word Christian was only used of those who manifested the reality of these three fundamental criteria in their lives. Since these two things are historical facts, how have the terms disciple and Christian come to carry such watered-down meaning? The terms disciple and Christian have come to carry such watered-down meaning because the abnormal has become the normal. It is almost like calling the fans in the football stadium players because they are faithful to every game and cheer with great enthusiasm.

When a baby is conceived in the womb, his first nine months of existence, growth, and experience comes from that little bubble of existence. He knows no other existence and can imagine nothing beyond it. As far as he is concerned, the womb is the only existence there is and he is the only thing in that existence.

When a baby is born, he is born into his own little bubble of existence. He sees everything else in life as existing outside of his little bubble of existence. Naturally, he sees himself as the center of the universe with everything else existing merely to serve him and meet his needs. The world gathers around his little bubble of existence and looks at him with oohs and aahs. He need only cry or whimper and someone immediately comes to meet his every desire. Even though he is unable to communicate in words, those outside of his bubble seem to be able to read his mind. They know when he is hungry, when his diapers need changing, and when he is not feeling well. What a life!

Few people ever escape this view of their existence even if they believe in God or even after they are “born again.” Those who continue with this self-centered view of existence live every moment of life to protect their existence and to make their lives easier. Christ calls His disciples to step out of the center of their existence and put Him and His missional purpose as the new reason for existence. That is the threefold call to discipleship:

1. “let him deny himself” – death to selfish ambitions

Paul explains this statement with considerable expansion in numerous epistles. There must be a practical reality to this. Practical means a change in practice, not just a change in perspective.

“¹¹For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,¹² Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;¹³ Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;¹⁴ Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

“²⁴And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.²⁵ If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.²⁶ Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another” (Galatians 5:24).

“¹Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;² That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God” (I Peter 4:1-2).

2. “take up his cross daily” – a daily willingness to die for the missional purpose of Christ

So often, this statement is taken completely out of its historical context. The historical context is that of a person condemned to die. On the morning of his crucifixion, he was flogged with thirty-nine stripes. Then, the cross upon which he was to be crucified was put upon his back and he carried it to the place of his death. The phrase “take up his cross daily” does not mean to carry the burdens of life. The phrase “take up his cross daily” means the willingness to face each day with the resolve that you may be killed that day for your witness for Christ. We must remember this command follows in the context of Christ’s statement, “Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day” (Luke 9:22).

Again, there must be a practical reality to this and we cannot separate this practical reality from the previous criterion, “let him deny himself.” You cannot have one without the other. The practical objective of these two criteria is advancing the Kingdom of God by taking any risk necessary to win souls and make disciples.

“³¹I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.³² If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.³³ Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.³⁴ Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame” (I Corinthians 15:31-34).

“¹⁹For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.²⁰ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:19-20).

3. “follow {present, active, imperative - continually following or keep following} me” – live what Jesus taught, live like Jesus lived, do what Jesus did

The emphasis in salvation is not upon Christ merely giving a believing sinner new birth. The emphasis of Christ giving a believer new birth is the New Life that begins the moment we are saved. The New Life is the Christ-life. To “follow” Christ is to replace your life with His life. To “follow” Christ is total, absolute, complete surrender of your will to His divine imperatives.

“⁷For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.⁸ For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.⁹ For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living” (Romans 14:7-9).

“¹⁴For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:¹⁵ And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again” (II Corinthians 5:14-15).

“⁶Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.⁷ For he that is dead is freed from sin.⁸ Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:⁹ Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.¹⁰ For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.¹¹ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.¹³ Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Romans 6:6-13).

These verses of Scripture are three portions that give us the fundamental basics defining what it means to “follow” Christ. Obviously, the practice goes far beyond being faithful to Sunday School, preaching services, and prayer services. We scarcely see the practical reality of true discipleship that defines true Christianity. The practical reality of these three criteria of discipleship define fundamental Christianity. It order to “follow” Christ, correct doctrine is presumed. However, correct doctrine is only the springboard for correct practice. Even God cannot bless something you never do. “And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23). There is no such thing as marginal Christianity!

“²⁴For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. ²⁵For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? ²⁶ For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:24-26).

Once the three fundamentals defining true discipleship are established, Christ begins His explanation of purpose for these three fundamental necessities. Each of the three sentences following Luke 9:23 begin with the word “for.” “For” is translated from the Greek word gar and assigns a reason or intensification of the connecting statement. Why do you think additional explanation is necessary? Why is it that Christ must explain and apply the three fundamentals of discipleship to people professing complete dedicated to Him? The reason for this extended explanation is because the vast majority of dedicated people are dedicated only philosophically, not practically. Christ reveals this to us in the example of Peter right after the Last Passover and just before His betrayal and crucifixion.

“³¹Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.³² But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.³³ Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.³⁴ Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.³⁵ Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples” (Matthew 26:31-35).

Platitudinal promises are mere words until they are tried by the crucible of persecution. Until our statements of faith are proven by application in the reality of life, they are nothing but words. The Phoenix of true faith arises from the fires of real testing. There are few professing Christians today willing to walk into the fire like Peter did in Acts chapter two and like Stephen did in Acts chapter seven. If you are going to walk into that fire, you better realize that you are going to live in that fire the rest of your life. You are going to die in that fire one day.

“²⁰Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.²¹ And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.²² But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.²³ And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father” (Matthew 20:20-23).

The first statement of explanation or intensification is vs. 24. “For whosoever will save {deliver or protect his earthly} his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” Jesus is not speaking about the salvation of the soul here. He is speaking about the salvation of a life. This is what Paul refers to as “redeeming the time” (Ephesians 5:16 and Colossians 4:5). Jesus is speaking here about the difference in outcome between a life of selfishness or sacrifice; a life lived for self or a life lived to God’s glory fulfilling God’s missional purpose. Anyone who keeps his life for selfish purposes will lose that life. In other words, that life will be wasted. That life and its accomplishments will be nothing more than garbage. There will be no eternal blessings or fruit from a life kept for one’s self.

Is Jesus your Lord? If Jesus is your Lord, He has a plan for your life. Jesus has planned certain spiritual accomplishments through your life. Those accomplishments will never be realized until you are fully yielded to Him in every decision of your life. That is what Jesus means by the words “whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” There is a saying, “Of all the words of tongue or pen, the saddest of these are ‘it might have been.’” Life is short, brutal, and filled with pain, sickness, and death. “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again” (II Corinthians 5:15). This is how you escape a wasted life. Sadly, the vast majority of professing Christians think their lives are dedicated to the Lord. The vast majority of professing Christians think they are living for Jesus. They are not trying to bring their friends and neighbors to Christ, but they think they are living for Jesus. They are building their own little empires on earth rather than the Kingdom of God, but they think they are living for Jesus.

Every choice in life is a choice between a life saved from waste and a life lost to waste. Every moment of life that is not lived with God’s missional purpose in view intent upon advancing the Kingdom of God is a wasted moment that we can never recover.

The next explanation or intensification is vs. 25, “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away” (Luke 9:25)? To what spiritual benefit is it if we use our life to get wealth, fame, or position in this world? The idea here is the investment of our time on earth. We must see our lives as drops of water in the ocean of eternity. Can we afford to waste any of our lives on selfish, carnal pursuits? This is a hard saying when it is spoken to the vast majority of professing Christianity who think that they are dedicated Christians. There are two primary things in view in the statement “gain the whole world.” There is the pursuit of pleasure and the pursuit of wealth. A preoccupation with these pursuits in life will lead to the disastrous outcomes listed - “lose himself, or be cast away.” Is there any radical distinction between professing Christianity and the world in the priorities of pursuit?

It is easy to lose your purpose in life. I have seen many men gain great wealth only to be lost in their wealth. I have seen other gain great positions in life only to lose themselves in those positions. The intent in comparison here is exchanging life, which in its very essence is spiritual, for mere material gain. I do not believe the intent of the comparison is salvational, although there are some who would reject Christ because they will not accept what comes along with being a Christian. I think the intent of comparison here is between spiritual riches and material riches. This is the lesson it too Solomon a lifetime of waste and carnality to learn. If you want to learn Solomon’s lesson, read Ecclesiastes chapter two. He wasted his life. He got everything he wanted and lost everything that was valuable. That is a wasted life. It took him a lifetime to find out what was really of value.

“¹I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.² I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?³ I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.⁴ I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:⁵ I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:⁶ I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:⁷ I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:⁸ I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.⁹ So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.¹⁰ And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.¹¹Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11).

The next explanation or intensification is vs. 26, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). There will be many professing Christians of whom Jesus will be ashamed at His second coming. The word shame is directly connected to pride of reputation. The idea here is pride of reputation in the world taking precedent over our relationship with Christ and our responsibility to His teachings.

When what men think of us is more important to us than what God thinks of us, we have moved to a place that is almost beyond hope for recovery. When what men think of us is more important to us than what God thinks of us, we have already denied everything we profess to believe. The “words” of Christ define Christianity. To be ashamed of Christ and His words is to be ashamed of everything that is Christian. Should we even consider that somehow Jesus would not be ashamed of such contrary behavior? Can we even imagine such a person professing to be a Christian while denying and being ashamed of everything that is Christian? The point is simple. Such a person is delusional.

“¹And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.² And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.³ And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3).

“¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.¹⁷ For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).

“⁶Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.⁷ For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.⁸ Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;⁹ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,¹⁰ But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:¹¹ Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.¹² For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.¹³ Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us” (II Timothy 1:6-14).

The Appeasement Policy of Convergent Evangelicalism

2011-05-12T11:38:00.000-05:00

Many in Fundamentalism today are having difficulty with the dialogue going on between professing Fundamentalists and obvious New Evangelicals and Convergent Evangelicals. There are three reasons I believe why true Fundamentalists are having these problems with these professing Fundamentalists:

1. Those professing to be Fundamentalists are spending more time criticizing the Old Fundamentalists while praising New Evangelicals.

2. There is an increasing amount of toleration of certain Theological aberrations of which the Fundamentalists of just a decade ago warned about. The New Fundamentalists are criticizing the Old Fundamentalist for separating over theological aberrations that the New Fundamentalists no longer see as important enough to separate over.

3. The professing New Fundamentalists are changing the way they practice separation from New Evangelicals even to the place they no longer consider them New Evangelicals any longer. They are redefining Fundamentalism in terms that allows for more inclusive fellowship with those holding diverse doctrinal positions. At the same time, the New Fundamentalists are separating from the Old Fundamentalist while accusing the Old Fundamentalists of being divisive.

These dividing factors are very similar to the original issues of the birth of New Evangelicalism. New Fundamentalism has a lot of the same characteristics of old New Evangelicalism. Maybe a more appropriate term for these New Fundamentalists would simply be New-New Evangelicals. Since the New or Young Fundamentalist movement seems to be coming from a few Baptist academic institutions, perhaps we should refer to them as the Nu Nu Fraternity.

There are new terms being bantered around for these new Neo-evangelicals. We hear terms like Young Fundamentalists, New Fundamentalism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and Convergent Evangelicals. Although they started their movement by looking for a new name that would distinguish them from the Old Fundamentalism, they have not been able to settle on anything they like. The reason I refer to them as New-New Evangelicals is because they really do not want to be identified with independent, Baptist Fundamentalism and its practices of militancy and separatism. In fact, it is apparent that many of these people hate independent, fundamental Baptists. In about 1967-68, Dr. Richard Clearwaters wrote regarding New Evangelicalism and the progressive development of New Evangelism’s theological Inclusivism:

“‘Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of evil.’ We have here a progressive development and logical sequence of beginning with compromise. God’s Word is ever full of warnings about appeasement of evil. We are living in a day when men will declare themselves as believing in the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and plenary inspiration of the Word of God and at the same time argue and vote against a confession of faith that includes these things for fear it might offend some unbeliever. There are many today who believe in the premillennial coming of our Lord but argue and vote against it because they want to appease the evil of unbelief in the same manner. They are not convicted men. Because of their intellectual pride they vote their appeasement policy instead of the convicted principles.

The great Louis A. Banks is responsible for the following paragraph on ‘Destroying the Signal Light’: ‘The engineer of a fast train on the Pennsylvania Railroad discovered a man one night at the top of a signal-pole at an important junction where three railroads crossed. With his fist he was destroying the signal lamps. The poor man was insane, and was doing it simply to enjoy the excitement that he would experience in witnessing a wreck. No man except an insane man, or a demon, would destroy the signal light that has kept generations from going to disaster and ruin, and leave no warning in its place. God has put the signal lights of danger too surely in His Truth to have them destroyed by reckless hands. The great truths of God’s Word are eternal verities that cannot be thrust aside by a sensationalist.’”[1]

The toleration of Theological aberrations is an evil. Like Evangelicalism and New Evangelicalism, New-New Evangelicalism is not a back-to-the Bible movement.[2] It is a back to the Reformation movement. For the New-New Evangelicals, any Theological issue that was not part of the Reformation discussion should not be an issue over which to separate. Perhaps this is the greatest danger in the development of this New-New Evangelicalism.

As these professing Fundamentalists praise the New Evangelicals and Convergent Evangelicals, they are carelessly and haphazardly destroying the old “signal lights” by criticizing the Old Fundamentalists. The New Fundamentalists do not want to stand on the shoulders of the battle-scarred Old Fundamentalists who fought the fights. Instead, they stand upon their graves and in their pulpits and criticize them to the next generation of the descendants that the Old Fundamentalist won to Christ and discipled. What unmitigated arrogance?

The New Fundamentalists capture. They do not build. The New-New Fundamentalists come out of Bible College and Seminary to take established churches. They then steal those churches by contemporizing them. They steal the real estate and they steal the sheep. They look backward in history to what God did supernaturally 50 years ago, but have seen nothing like it in their lives. They never will. They try to copy the accomplishments of the Old Fundamentalists, but theirs is plastic, manufactured, and superficial rather than supernatural. Everything produces after “its kind.”

No fruit can grow on plastic trees. When the torch of Fundamentalism was passed on to the next generation by the Old Fundamentalists, many of those receiving it thought that the fire from the Old Fundamentalists came with it. Although the torch was provided by the Old Fundamentalists, the New Fundamentalists did not realize that they had to get their own fire. Denying the supernatural issues of revivalism, the New Fundamentalists just attached artificial lights to the torches they received. They redefined evangelism as leaving the lights on in the church house so the elect can find their way home.

[1] Clearwaters, Richard V.: The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise (Minneapolis, MN) Central Seminary Press, page 112

[2] Ibid., page 88-89, quoting Bernard Ramm in his definition of Evangelicalism: “Evangelicalism as used in this book means the historic Christian faith as reflected in the great creeds of the ancient Church, and in the spirit and writings of the Reformers.”

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

The Fallacies of Inclusive “Judge Not” Abnormalities

2011-05-06T13:05:00.001-05:00

“¹Judge not, that ye be not judged.² For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.³ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?⁴ Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?⁵ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.⁶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matthew 7:1-6).

It is difficult for us to understand how much God hates the hypocrisy of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is an absolute oxymoron. Only a moron would consider himself SELF-righteous. The failure lies in the inadequate way that certain people define righteousness. Most people define righteousness as a person who regularly and habitually does what is right. Others define righteousness as a person who always does what is right. However, we must enter another factor into all of this. What is the standard by which we establish what is right? Do we establish righteousness merely by the laws of the land? Can something be righteous and immoral at the same time? This is what cultures do. They seek to define morality through legislation of laws. Then, the cultural norm for determining morality becomes whatever is legal. There are many things that are now legal that are still immoral. Homosexuality, adultery, and fornication may be legal and culturally acceptable to most of society, but they are all still immoral. All of these practices or lifestyles are unchristian. Are these kinds of things the things Jesus is talking about when He says, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”?

If this is how we establish the standards by which we determine righteousness, then righteousness is constantly evolving and fluid in nature. This is exactly what is going on it the post-modern culture of the United States of America. This is even happening within most of Evangelical Christianity. With every new generation of theologians, they must constantly question and move the ancient landmarks to new culturally acceptable positions. After all, they argue, Christianity must stay in step with the culture lest the culture considers us irrelevant. The new wave of Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelism will accept no definition of righteousness that is not culturally fluid and constantly evolving. These forms of Evangelicalism have wrapped themselves in their own death shroud of cultural relativism in their unending quest for cultural relevancy. They seem almost blinded to the fact that they are rapidly moving toward a form of Inclusivism that is destined to the heresies of Pluralism and Universalism. This destiny is predetermined because when you choose the beginning of a way, you choose the end of that way.

The Word of God clearly tells us, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). God warns about forgetting and failing to learn from the past failures of others. “¹⁰Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.¹¹There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after” (Ecclesiastes 1:10-11).

This is why we must be very careful about understanding what Jesus means by the statement, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” It is completely inappropriate to make this statement means that we are not to be discerning between what is right and wrong or between what is righteous and what is sin. Nor is it appropriate to make Christ’s statement mean that we are to be tolerant of such lifestyles of sin or of false doctrines. The point of Christ’s statement is that we are not to approach people involved in such lifestyle practices as if we are somehow above them or that we are somehow sinless ourselves. No matter how much God has cleaned up our lives, we all keep dirtying ourselves on regular occasions.

Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelicalism take Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:1 and completely warp it into another dimension never intended. Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelicalism move toleration into the realm of complete acceptance regardless of lifestyle practices or doctrinal orthodoxy. Yes, true Christianity always receives a sinner at an entrance level of wherever he is in his life. That does not mean true Christianity should continue to allow or tolerate a lifestyle that lives in unrepentance of known sin. In fact, we have numerous commands in Scripture telling us that unrepentant professing Christians are to be removed from formal membership of local churches. The issue before us is not a discontinuation of contact, but a discontinuation of cooperation in ministry. The communion or “fellowship” in ministry has already been spiritually breached by ongoing and unrepentant sin or false doctrine. Therefore, that spiritual reality MUST become a practical reality in obedience to Christ’s commands. This is the substance of Paul’s admonition to the Church at Corinth.

“¹It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.² And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.³ For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,⁴ In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,⁵ To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.⁶ Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?⁷ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new {a fresh or regenerate} lump, as ye are unleavened {with defiling impurities removed}. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: ⁸Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.⁹ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company {get mixed-up or comingled} with fornicators:¹⁰ Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.¹¹But now I have written unto you not to keep company {get mixed-up or comingled}, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat {the idea is to let the world know that true Christianity is completely intolerant of Christians who live like the Devil}.¹² For what have I to do to judge them also that are without {outside of formal membership of a local church of professing, obedient believers}? do not ye judge them that are within {inside of formal membership of a local church of professing, obedient believers}?¹³ But them that are without {outside of formal membership of a local church of professing, obedient believers} God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person {so that God can judge them and chastise them accordingly}” (I Corinthians 5:1-13).

Convergent and Emergent philosophies are nothing new. They are simply new terms for age-old theological integrationism. Theological integrationism always exists on innumerable levels. However, on whatever level it exists, it is always the outcome of some degree of either theological compromise or theological toleration. Theological compromise takes place when cooperation or “fellowship” continues when there are major differences in positions regarding any main body of systematic theology. Since no two believers will agree exactly on everything the Bible says there must be some degree of toleration if there is going to be any kind of “fellowship” in the “work of the ministry.” The difficulty is in defining at what point toleration becomes compromise.

Obviously, God expects a certain degree of toleration while any degree of compromise is unacceptable. We define the line of demarcation between theological toleration and theological compromise by the word heresy. Heresy takes place when those who are compromising divide forming a new sect. The new sect is what defines the word heresy. The new sect has adopted a doctrine, or doctrines, that are unacceptable to true Christianity. The false doctrine means they are no longer following the teachings of Christ in that area and that they are therefore no longer truly Christian. The false doctrine is the heresy that divides and those holding to the false doctrine are heretics who are divided and dividing.

“⁹But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject {the idea is separate him from you and him from influence in the local church while leaving his judgment to God}; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:9-11).

Even though heretics may be correct in all other doctrines, any single false doctrine divides them from true Christianity in that the false doctrine defines Christ and His will in a false way. In obedience, the body of true Christianity separates this group from them and labels them as heretics. In almost every historical case, even though the heretics objected vehemently, the true body of Christianity still separated from them because of their false doctrine. They then called the main body of Christianity unloving and intolerant. Nonetheless, true Christianity was unmoved by the pleas of the heretics even when the heretics became predominant in numbers such as Roman Catholicism. True Christians refused to call evil good or good evil. True Christians maintained the lines of demarcation, often at the cost of their own lives. This was certainly true of the ancient Anabaptists who refused to accept infant baptism as an acceptable form of biblical baptism. Thousands of them died at the hands of the heretics because they would not tolerate this false doctrine. There are no circumstances under which it is ever righteous to call light darkness or darkness light. Yet this has been the historical pattern of compromise.

“¹⁸Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:¹⁹ That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!²⁰ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!²¹Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!²² Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:²³ Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him” (Isaiah 5:18-23)!

God pronounces six woes or curses upon those that misrepresent His truths by endorsing corrupted life styles in Isaiah chapter five. God gives us four of those six woes in Isaiah 5:18-23. A woe is God’s promise of judgment or chastisement with the severity determined according to God’s evaluation of the harm done in the distortion of His definition of righteousness. When God’s definition of righteousness is distorted, God’s righteous character is distorted as well. This is the opposite of glorifying God. To glorify God means we accurately reveal Him in all of His wondrous character and marvelous attributes. To distort the character and attributes of God in any way is to de-glorify Him. This is the heretical crime of Convergent Evangelicalism and Emergent Evangelicalism. These two theological movements may be different in the sense of the degree of their departure from biblical Christianity, but they have nonetheless departed. Although they stand outside of the body of true Christianity demanding that they not be considered heretics, the fact remains, they are. The voice of true Christianity should be unbending towards them. The message should be clear. They are welcome back, but they must leave their false doctrines and the false alliances behind. In other words, the admonition is simple: REPENT!

The objection of the pragmatists is that when true Christianity continually practices biblical separation, Christianity fractionalizes and marginalizes itself to the place of obscurity in being relevant to the culture in which it exists. God answers this silly idea with what I refer to as the Gideon Factor. The Gideon Factor is God’s design for the way He is most effectively glorified in two specific groups of people:

1. To the unbelieving world

2. In the midst of His children

Basically, the Gideon Factor is that God is best glorified by doing miraculous things through the lives of a faithful few and with insignificant numbers. This is what we see God doing repeatedly in the Old Testament Scriptures. We see Him doing this with the nation of Israel for forty years in the wilderness. In those forty years, God purged out unbelief from the nation of Israel to the degree that they saw no army or fortress greater than their God. With that faith vision, the nation of Israel crossed the Jordon with God going before them and they following close behind.

The Gideon Factor is rarely seen and soon forgotten by almost every succeeding generation. In every case that we find the Gideon Factor in Scripture, God created it in the lives of people through His supernatural intervention in the life of an individual or individuals. This is the substance of the historical record of Gideon’s call and lifetime of ministry to God beginning in Judges chapter six going through Judges chapter eight. God supernaturally intervened in the life of an individual named Gideon to create a man that could trust Him and believe Him for anything. Only God can create those kinds of leaders. They are forged and shaped by the Hands of the Creator. The last few verses of Judges chapter eight record what happens when great spiritual leaders like Gideon die and there is no one to replace them.

“³³And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god.³⁴ And the children of Israel remembered not the LORD their God, who had delivered them out of the hands of all their enemies on every side:³⁵ Neither shewed they kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, namely, Gideon, according to all the goodness which he had shewed unto Israel” (Judges 8:33-35).

Great men of God are unbending. They are unbending because they and their faith in God are forged into an amalgamation of Divine, impregnable truths. They know that as soon as they compromise any of those truths that they will crumble into mere dust. Without the truths that bind them to the power of God, they become nothing more than dried out clay. They understand that it is their union and unity with God from which their power comes. These people focus so intensely on their union and unity with God that they would never even consider compromising that union and unity for mere human fellowships. Those who possess the Gideon Factor in their lives know that their sole responsibility is to maintain their relevancy to God regardless of how irrelevant that makes them to the world. They understand their power comes from God. They know power does not come from the world or from joining themselves to the masses in unholy alliances!

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Has Converging With Evangelicals Been a Dangerous and Failed Experiment?

2011-03-14T12:31:00.000-05:00

A good article by Lou Martuneac

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/03/has-converging-with-evangelicals-been.html

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

II.The Primacy of Preaching

2011-03-07T09:57:00.000-06:00

Preaching with Unction

We are living in another time of drastic change within Baptist fundamentalism. There are those seeking to redefine a new normal while declaring the old normal to be abnormal. When I got saved, it was in a fundamental Bible believing church. I immediately became a fundamental Christian.

1. I accepted the 66 books of Scripture as the inspired, inerrant Words of God.
2. I accepted the autonomy of the local church and abandoned any connection to any form of denominational hierarchy.
3. I understood that with my gift of salvation, God made me a priest before him and that along with that position came certain obligations.
4. I accepted the fact that I was given individual soul liberty as to my personal decisions of faith and practice, but with that liberty came accountability to the Great Sovereign God.

As Christians, we become so preoccupied with being blessed by God that we forget that the priority of the Christian life is to be a blessing to God. In being that blessing to God, His blessings flow to us. Every Christian should get into a blessing contest with God and then look forward to being a looser.

I often hear Christians pray for God to reveal Himself to them. That is a prayer of unbelief. God has given us 66 books of inspired Scripture. How much more revelation of God do we need? I say stop praying that God will reveal Himself TO you and start praying that God will reveal Himself THROUGH you. These are the things that define an anointed Christian life. These are things that define living in the “unction” of the Spirit of God.

Our understanding of God’s ordained purpose in preaching is critical to defining who we fellowship with both individually and ecclesiastically. There are two issues that must be considered regarding cooperative ministry with other individuals and other local churches so as not to interfere with God’s anointing:

1. Spiritual defilement before God due to false associations

2. Spiritual defilement before men due to careless identification

“10 In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying, 11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, 12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. 13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. 14 Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean” (Haggai 2:10-14; OT sacrifices were never salvational; they were intended to restore broken fellowship with God).

GOD PRIMARILY USES HUMAN AGENTS:
NO FRUIT FROM PLASTIC TREES

Human beings cannot manufacture the supernatural. The word “fellowship” in the Bible is a word that refers to a partnership in work. The work is the supernatural “work of the ministry” (Ephesians 4:12) in fulfilling and obeying the threefold command of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). God has called us TO DO things we are absolutely powerless to do (John 15:5; “without me ye can do nothing”). The word “fellowship” describes a supernatural relationship with God that is supernaturally created by two connecting links to the Holy Spirit of God:
1. Spiritual union with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
2. Spiritual unity with God through the filling of the Holy Spirit
Both of these two realities must exist before “fellowship” with God can exist and before God releases His supernatural enabling through any believer’s ministry. Living in habitual “fellowship” with God is referred to by Jesus as abiding in Him (John 15:1-8). Spiritual union and spiritual unity together are referred to in I John 2:20 as “unction” and in I John 2:27 as “anointing.” Both words are translated from the same Greek word (chrisma; khris’-mah).
“18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him” (I John 2:18-27).
There are those who define spiritual growth as merely growing in the knowledge of the Word of God. Certainly this is part of spiritual growth in that knowing God’s will is necessary to obedience. However, true spiritual growth is a supernatural operation of the Spirit of God in the progressive transfiguration of an individual’s life as that individual yields to the indwelling Holy Spirit progressively through the renewing of his mind through incremental decisions of faith and acceptance of God’s will.

There is a spiritual dynamic in preaching that is directly related to being filled with the Spirit of God. This is what I John 2:20 refers to as unction. This is Spirit anointed study, proclamation, and explanation of the Word of God. There is a moving of the heart by the Spirit of God in all three levels of study, proclamation, and explanation. However, this spiritual dynamic in the life of the Spirit filled preacher begins long before the actual delivery of God’s message through the explanation of God’s Word.

A preacher cannot merely be Spirit-filled during the preaching moment. The preacher must be Spirit-filled in His moment-by-moment daily walk with God; in the study, in his meditation, in every aspect of his daily routine, in his relationship with his wife, children, neighbors and friends. It is through all of these daily events that God builds the preacher and builds a sermon to be delivered through the preacher. The actual deliverance of the sermon is merely the supernatural overflow of that moment-by-moment Spirit-filled walk with God. Revival and spiritual decisions are naturally produced through Spirit-filled preaching that is the overflow of a revived preacher’s life. This spiritual dynamic in preaching with unction cannot be over emphasized.

Let me deal with a radical departure from what defines preaching with unction. There are those today who are proposing a kind of teaching, we dare not call it preaching, that is little more than another form of Gnosticism. This is a Neo-Gnosticism that speaks of saving knowledge and spiritual growth through various levels of merely knowing truth. This Neo-Gnosticism removes the necessity of incremental decisions and various degrees of commitment to obedience to God’s Word. I believe this Neo-Gnosticism is an outcome of an extreme view of Theistic causation in the Sovereign Grace movement of hyper-Calvinism.
“Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.”[1]
It is in synergism/fellowship with the supernatural operations of the Holy Spirit of God that preacher discovers the primacy of preaching.

“12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed {present, passive; i.e., are being changed} into the same image from glory to glory {from varying degrees of partial transfiguration to final and complete transfiguration/glorification}, even as by the Spirit of the Lord {in an ongoing work of creation}” (II Corinthians 3:1-18).
The word “changed” in II Corinthians 3:18 is from the Greek word metamorphoo (met-am-or-fo'-o). This is the same word translated “transfigured” in Mark 9:2. In Romans 12:2, this same Greek word is translated “transformed.” The word in Romans 12:2 should also be translated transfigured as it is used in the same context as it is used in II Corinthians 3:18.

In Romans 12:2, the Greek word metamorphoo (met-am-or-fo'-o) is a present, passive, imperative. The important aspect of the use of this word in Romans 12:2 and II Corinthians 3:18 is that the uses are in the present passive; i.e., are being transfigured. The passive aspect of the verb conveys the absolute dependency upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to accomplish this progressive transfiguration in our lives as we yield our wills to Him. We cannot transfigure ourselves. This is a supernatural work of God. Yet, In Romans 12:2, the verb is used as an Imperative; i.e., a command. Although we cannot accomplish this progressive transfiguration, we are commanded to be transfigured. This dynamic defines the primacy of preaching. Take away this dynamic and your teaching of the knowledge of the Word of God results in mere legalism.
“1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace {referring to the supernatural energizing through complete yieldedness to the indwelling Spirit} given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Romans 12:1-3).
Chafer’s Systematic Theology[2] gives us some great insight into defining God’s intent in the believer’s progressive transfiguration through progressive sanctification and the primacy of preaching.
“It is evident that a thing is transformed by influences from without while a thing is transfigured by the outshining of a light or vitality which is resident within. Christ’s essential glory was veiled while here upon the earth, but in the moment of transfiguration His intrinsic Shekinah glory was allowed to break forth. He was not merely assuming a glory or standing in the radiance of an outward glory which fell upon Him. The glory was His own, and originated in Him and emanated from Him. It is a truth which lends so much importance to the two passages wherein transfiguration is related to believers – Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18. The believer is subject to transfiguration and not to mere transformation. The divine Presence within is as a light, and this is to have its normal outshining and will work great changes within the heart where that Nature dwells.” (Bolding added)
The significance of this is that the indwelling Holy Spirit is doing a progressive work of creation within us as we habitually yield our wills to Him. This progressive work of creation that progressively transfigures us is the supernatural empowerment that takes place when the Tripartite of Power exists within the believer’s life. In this Tripartite of Power the glory of God within the believer is released and the believer manifests a partial transfiguration (i.e., “light” shines; Matthew 5:16). (Full transfiguration does occur until the believer’s ultimate and final glorification.)

On the Day of Pentecost, the Shekinah of God descended from Heaven and indwelled every individual that was trusting in Jesus and His finished work of redemption. The Shekinah is the indwelling glory of God in the Person of the Holy Spirit; the omnipotence of God. Every Christian is commanded to let their light shine. This happens through the filling of the Spirit of God. Can we possibly comprehend what we have in our new birth in Christ?

A BROKEN BALLOF CLAY

My life was just a ball of clay,
Tightly packed with diverse sin.
One day I turned things all around
When I asked the Saviour in.

Once saved, I was told to yield to Him
And through my life He’d shine,
This ball of clay was so tightly packed,
His “light” was trapped inside.

I prayed and said, “What ere it takes,
Any trial, struggle or scrape,
Make me Lord, break me Lord,
And let your light escape.

The trials came in a steady flow,
I wrestled with Divine,
Then God, He finally broke my heart,
Now through the cracks, He shines.

[1] Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, ETHOS STATEMENT ON FUNDAMENTALISM & EVANGELICALISM;http://centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy/241-ethos-statement-on-fundamentalism-a-evangelicalism

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer; Systematic Theology, Volume V, Page 86; Dallas Seminary Press, Dallas, Texas, Thirteenth Printing, June, 1976

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

I. The Primacy of Preaching

2011-03-03T08:06:00.001-06:00

Preaching for Decisions and Revival

If you are a pastor and getting a little discouraged, remember that the world loves the race horse, but God loves the plow horse. Do not envy the glory given to the race horse. The plow horse loves to give all the glory to the Master. The primary goal of preaching is what I refer to as the redirection of priorities. As worldly and carnal people, we are all prone to worldly and carnal priorities. The preaching of the Word of God ALWAYS redirects the importance of any decision in life to ask one simple question; how will/can what I am doing, or what I am thinking about doing, bring glory to God? Therefore, the primary purpose in preaching within the redirection of priorities is also a redirection of focus. The world of unbelief considers all of this a mere waste of time or “foolishness.” However, God has ordained this “foolishness.” Whenever a preacher redirects the focus of a life priority with the Word of God, such redirection ends with an appeal for a decision to act upon what God’s Word says. Preaching that merely conveys knowledge, without including an appeal for a decision, is not preaching at all. This is the difference between preaching and mere teaching.

“17 For Christ sent me not to baptize {because Paul was an Evangelist}, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent {through preaching}. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise {fishermen, publicans, and common people; Paul was the only trained theologian in the bunch and God had to take him into the wilderness for three years to fix him}; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord {what God does through men, not giving glory to the men; cp I Corinthians chapter 3}:” (I Corinthians 1:17-30).

Spirit-filled preaching is defined by a prerogative, at least three definitive parameters, and at least four purposes/objectives.

Prerogatives; an exclusive right, privilege, etc., exercised by virtue of rank or office. Although all believers are to preach the Gospel, the Word of God explicitly commands that preaching (as a calling) is to be limited to qualified individuals. These specially called and gifted men are required to possess certain definitive character qualities (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

“8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Ephesians 4:8 is quoting from Psalm 68:18. We must understand what Paul is saying from the context of that text. “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.” When Christ “ascended on high,” He ascended to the position as a new High Priest of a new priesthood. Upon His ascension, God gave Him “gifts for men.” According to Ephesians 4:11, these “gifts for men” of Psalm 68:18 are especially God-gifted men. In other words, they have a special vocational calling and special supernatural enabling for that calling. According to Ephesians 4:12, these specially gifted men are given “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The only two continuing gifts of men throughout the Church Age are “evangelists” and “pastors/teachers.”

Parameters: what is the primacy in preaching? This is defined by the parameters of preaching. Parameters are the limits/boundaries of preaching. A parameter is a characteristic factor that both limits and determines the genuine viability of something.

1. “Preach the Word;” preaching is the interpretation, proclamation, explanation, and application of what God has said in His inspired Word.

“1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (II Timothy 4:1-2, cp. Neh. 8:1-8).

2. Preaching is Christ centered (Christocentric) as opposed to people-centered (anthropocentric). At any time a text of Scripture is avoided, or the explanation of the message of a text is reduced, generalized, or purposefully neglected so as to avoid division or to avoid confronting anyone about anything that Scripture condemns, but culture condones, that preaching ceases to be Christocentric. People-centered preaching is what the Word of God refers to as respecting persons. This is certainly true of the damnable philosophy known as Positivism.

“1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial {discriminating} in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts {the idea is making a prejudicial or bias judgment that is contrary to what is right}” (James 2:1-4)?

3. Preaching is God glorifying in its focus; perhaps the greatest danger to any preacher is the desire for the praise of men for by this one fault all the rest of his motivations will soon be corrupted.

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

Everything we do should be done with a finger pointing to God. As soon as someone begins to point their finger of praise to us, we should immediately correct them and redirect them to glorify God. In order to insure that we do not perform for the praise of men, every Christian needs to consider “his precepts, and the propriety, expediency, appearance, and tendency[1]” for receiving, or even wanting, the praise of men for our actions.

Anything that generates applause for the performance to the performer is false spirituality. That which brings glory to God and directs all glory to God is true spirituality.

There is a great but simple truth here. If you want or perform for man’s praise you will lose God’s blessing. Now think about this for a moment. Are you willing to settle for a meager few seconds of applause or praise from men or do you believe that our loving heavenly Father might possibly be able to give you a spiritual blessing so great that it is beyond your imagination? Do you want a handful of peanuts or do you want the peanut farm? You answer these questions by where you want the glory to go and by the degree you act to insure the directing of that glory to God.

Purposes/Objectives: an objective is something that one’s efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; a purpose or goal. The preacher must always remember that “fruit” production is God’s work accomplished through the Spirit filled preacher as the preacher interprets, explains, and proclaims God’s expectations.

1. To persuade people to make spiritual decisions especially regarding the issues of faith or trusting God. The very first decision is to accept the sixty-six books of the Bible as the Word of God. Until the Bible is accepted as the Word of God, there are no dogmatic foundations for faith. Apart from the inerrant, inspiration of Scripture all faith in God is reduced to Empiricism and Relativism in that all doctrine becomes relative to empirical evidences.

A. Autopisticism: accepts the Bible’s claims of inerrancy and inspiration by faith.
B. Axiopisticism: accepts the Bible as the Word of God only to the degree it can be proven accurate by history, science, and external evidences. This is the primary purpose and methodology of Apologetics.

2. To lead people to an understanding of their sinfulness before God and their condemnation by God. To lead people to understand God’s loving promise and provision of redemption “by grace through faith and to understand the Gospel of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. This understanding must include His resurrection/glorification in fulfilling God’s promise of redemption for “whosoever will.” This ends with an appeal to people to “obey the Gospel” by repenting of sin, believing/resting in the objective facts of the Gospel, confessing Jesus as Jehovah, calling on the Name of Jesus for salvation, and receiving the Lord Jesus in the Person of the indwelling Spirit Holy Spirit.

3. Once people have been led to trust in Christ and are “born again,” these people are to be led to formally unite with the living organism of a local church through water baptism. This is a physical testimony that they understand that they are committing to die daily to the “old man” and daily walk in the “newness of life” through yielding to the indwelling Holy Spirit and being habitually filled with the Spirit. This is the initial decision and commitment to begin their discipleship process in progressive transfiguration (Romans 12:2).

4. To teach God’s Word to believers so that they can be equipped with the tools necessary to the “work of the ministry.” This is the third phase of the Great Commission (“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” Matthew 28:20). This is the goal of discipleship through progressive levels of spiritual decisions in practical sanctification. No one can said to be evangelized until all three phases of the Great Commission have been accomplished in a life.

[1] Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, SwordSearcher Software 6.1, comments on I Corinthians 10:31

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part VI

2011-01-26T13:27:00.002-06:00

Hyper-Fundamentalism - Really?

Theological Off-Roading

The irresponsibility and divisiveness that comes out of the Neo-fundamentalism that calls itself Conservative Evangelicalism never cease to amaze me. One such irresponsible and divisive term being bantered around on the blogosphere is the term Hyper-fundamentalists. I can understand why those who are not independent Baptists use this term. They define Fundamentalism as a movement that began out of the Modernist Controversy of the early 1900’s. They define Fundamentalism as a list of cardinal doctrines.

Fundamentalism, as a Movement, was born out of the battle against Liberalism and Liberalism’s denial of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and the cardinal doctrines of the Faith (the results of German Rationalism and Higher Criticism). However, Fundamentalism as a theology existed long before this. Independent Baptists have never limited their fundamentals to the very basic, but inclusivistic, list of cardinal doctrines that defines the Fundamentalist Movement. Therefore, in the redefining of Fundamentalism within the main stream of independent Baptist churches, this is another form of reductionism regarding what defines fundamental or New Testament Christianity. As far as what defines an independent Baptist, this is Theological Off-Roading.

The Fundamentalist Movement has always been interdenominational and broadly more inclusivistic regarding what is tolerated theologically in the definition of true Christianity than what fundamental Baptists have ever allowed. Therefore, we must conclude that those who call themselves independent Baptists, and who are trying to redefine Fundamentalism more inclusivistically according to the list of cardinal doctrines of the Fundamentalist Movement, are really no longer fundamental Baptists. If that is the direction they want to go, so be it. As Baptists, we believe in Individual Soul Liberty. Therefore, we say Bon Voyage! However, as you leave the dock, please remove the word Baptist from the side of your ship. At least Northland International University was honest regarding this in their name change. Let me suggest that Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary consider doing the same thing. Can I get an Amen?

In reading the little, four volume set entitled The Fundamentals issued by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917; “edited by R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon and Others” (later reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan), we find the articles dealing mainly with the arguments of Higher Criticism and the resulting denial of various cardinal doctrines. A basic reading of the Table of Contents on the opening pages of these four volumes should reveal to us that the unity of the authors of each of the chapters centered more on their disagreement with their opposition than it did with theological unity on many important theological arenas of discussion.

Volume One deals mainly with Higher Criticism

Volume Two deals mainly with the inspiration of the Bible and the Deity of Christ

Volume Three deals with Anthropology and Soteriological (the most doctrinally definitive articles are “Is Romanism Christianity?” by T.W. Medhurst and “Rome, The Antagonist of the Nation” by Rev. J.M. Foster)

Volume Four deals with various “modern” Philosophies and the Cults (“ISMS”)

Although most fundamental Baptists would agree with a great deal of what is written in these four volumes, they would not fellowship with the vast majority of the authors. The vast majority of the authors of the various articles in this publication are Reformed/Covenant in their theology and from diverse denominational backgrounds. This also is a defining factor of what is happening among professing Baptists trying to redefine Fundamentalism. They want to fellowship with men and churches who hold to a wide diversity of doctrines that are part of Reformed Theology.

The great difficulty in defining Fundamentalism is due to the attempt to define a theological position with one word. However, the difficulty is in the presumption of agreement on all areas of theology. The central and uniting area of agreement within the Fundamentalist Movement has never been much more than its agreement on the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible and, perhaps, a literal interpretation of the Bible (even though interpretation is often influenced by suppositions that are imposed upon the text; i.e. eisegesis).

There were peripheral areas of agreement on certain cardinal doctrines, but these were expected areas of agreement and even that agreement was not total. These would include such basic things as Creation as opposed to evolution (even though there was considerable diversity here such as the Gap Theory of the Scofield Reference Bible and a few who held to Theistic Evolution), the Deity of Christ and the Trinity of God (although there was considerable diversity in regards to the ministry of the Holy Spirit between the Holiness/Keswickian people, Pentecostals, and Dispensationalists), salvation/justification by grace through faith (although considerable diversity about what these terms mean between such SYSTEMS of theology such as Calvinism/Arminianism and some that practiced paedo-baptism, such as the fundamentalist Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians), and their opposition to Roman Catholicism (primarily Papalism). Conservative Evangelicalism wants to establish criteria for inclusivistic fellowship that would include the wide diversity of positions listed above.

Therefore, the ambiguity of the term Fundamentalism that defines the Fundamentalist Movement stems from a lack of theological definitiveness regarding the fundamental doctrines of “the faith.” There was really no specific agreement on those fundamentals of the faith within the movement. I believe that the result of this was that the movement was pre-programmed to be inclusivistic. New Evangelicalism was intrinsic to the Fundamentalist Movement and, without the theological definitiveness necessary from keeping this ingrained New Evangelicalism from coming forth, every new generation of the Fundamentalist Movement gives birth to new New Evangelicals. The new New Evangelicals of our generation call themselves Young Fundamentalists or Conservative Evangelicals.

By the very nature of the doctrinal statements of independent Baptists, they have ALWAYS been exclusivistic. Our doctrinal statements have always been more definitive regarding what defines true Christianity. Independent Baptists have always separated from those who held to aberrant views of Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, and Eschatology. In most part, independent Baptists have historically held to the inspiration and the preservation of Scripture only in the original languages and in the Traditional Greek Text and Masoretic Hebrew Text. However, now we have men who call themselves Baptists, who are redefining Fundamentalism according to the list of cardinal doctrines from the inclusivistic and interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement.

These same men are calling independent Baptists, who continue to hold to their ancient and exclusivistic definitions of fundamental Christianity, Hyper-fundamentalists. Although they are telling us they are reclaiming authentic fundamentalism (where have I heard that phrase before), they are really telling us they are no longer independent Baptists. I say let’s listen to their message and agree with it. They are saying, WE ARE NO LONGER INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS. They have abandoned their Baptist’ militancy and have decided to join the singing of Kum-Ba-Yah around the camp fire of the more inclusivistic Fundamentalist Movement.

In the Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, they have included what they have entitled; Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism. We might refer to this Position Statement as the Imprimatur of Conservative Evangelicalism that embodies a Reformed Position Statement regarding the purpose of the Church and especially how the methodology of preaching is to be defined (actually redefined). This is very much a major aspect of redefining Fundamentalism. As you read this statement, notice the broad-brush it paints with and the divisiveness of the statement. In this broad and sweeping statement, the vast majority of the world’s greatest preachers are repudiated in their methodology and denigrated in their motivation including the Lord Jesus Christ and all the Apostles as revealed by the Epistles.

“Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.”[1]

First of all, the statement is false. “Revivalistic and decisionistic” Fundamentalism does not typically reject expository preaching. The statement that “revivalistic and decisionistic” preaching is nothing more than “manipulative exhortation” is an insult against every preacher who believes that true preaching of the Word of God is intent upon persuading people through the preaching of Spirit filled men. This statement is essentially a denigration of Synergism in God’s use of the human agent (Rom. 10:14-21 & II Cor. 5:11-21) in the “foolishness of preaching.” The denigration is necessary in order to establish Monergism as the standard by which all preaching is to be measured.

I have just finished reading Dr. Tom Farrell’s new book, Preaching That Pleases God. (I highly recommend the book.) I would conclude that the vast majority of everything in Brother Farrell’s book would be denigrated by the above Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. In fact, the vast majority of what is written in about 20 other books I have in my library on Homiletics would be denigrated by this Position Statement.

Apparently, according to Conservative Evangelicalism, if you opposed Calvinism today you are “a threat to biblical Christianity.” Therefore, we can only conclude that such a broad, sweeping statement must mean that Calvinism defines “biblical Christianity.” Apparently, this is something we are just not allowed to talk about any longer. I guess, if we are going to talk about it, we should at least not be allowed be dogmatic about it. As long as we agree to be inclusivistic and accepting, we can talk about Calvinism. This comes from the silly notion that if we talk about Calvinism, this talk will divide our fellowships and associations of churches. This is silly because it already divides our fellowships. In fact, the above Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary tells us that they are the very ones making the division and doing the dividing.

Well, I think we should talk about it! I know a lot of Baptists who think we should talk about it. This is the Central issue (pun intended) that is defining Conservative Evangelicalism and the one point that no one is willing to talk about. Within Conservative Evangelicalism, we hear the phrase Gospel Driven Separation. In most cases, this Gospel Driven Separation is really defined as Calvinism or Calvinistic Soteriology (the reason why I say Calvinistic is because a number of these men do not want to be identified with all of Calvin’s Soteriology and certainly not with his Eschatology, Ecclesiology, or Replacement Theology). Although the first evaluation regarding a working cooperation with another local church must be an agreement upon the message of salvation and the Biblical accepted response to the Gospel in order to receive God’s gift of salvation, there are a number of equally important factors that must be considered as well. Without these other equally important areas of agreement, a Gospel Driven Separation is little more than Theological Off-Roading.

Let me state up front; I do not believe Calvinists are evil. In fact, I have a number of friends who are Calvinistic and with whom I fellowship. I am not “vitriolic” against Calvinists. Yet in many cases, Calvinists have separated from me because I am not a Calvinist and because I oppose Calvinism as a Systematic Theology. In fact, a number of years ago, after a discussion with Dr. Dave Doran about his positions on Calvinism at the Heart Conference at the then Northland Baptist Bible College, he told me that because of our differences we would not be able to fellowship together. I would have been willing to have limited fellowship with him even with our differences. He stated his separation from me because of our differences. I do not hold that against him. It was his choice and I accept it. That same scenario has been repeated with a number of Calvinists since then. They are separating over this issue and Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Position Statement is the criterion for that separation. However, they just do not want anyone to separate from them over this issue.

We do not need to look much further than the list of speakers at conferences like the T4G Conference 2010[2], the Ligonier 2011 National Conference[3], the Gospel Centered Church Conference[4], and Preserving the Truth Conference[5] to find our common denominator. What is the common denominator in all of these conferences? The common denominator is the Imprimatur of Conservative Evangelicalism as stated in Central Baptist Seminary’s Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism. Although this is very apparent, we are being told not to point it out or not to talk about it. Let’s talk about it!

[1] Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, ETHOS STATEMENT ON FUNDAMENTALISM & EVANGELICALISM;

http://centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy/241-ethos-statement-on-fundamentalism-a-evangelicalism

[2] http://t4g.org/conference/t4g-2010/

[3]http://www.ligonier.org/events/2011-national-conference/speakers/

[4]http://www.truechurchconference.org/preachers/and http://www.truechurchconference.org/distinctives/ listing the New Hampshire Confession of Faith as their foundational doctrinal statement

[5] http://truthconference.org/resources/

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part V

2011-01-03T12:40:00.000-06:00

A New Christian Ignominy[1]

Beware of anyone promoting Christian love above holiness. Beware also of anyone speaking of toleration without considering the appearance of any endorsement of doctrinal error. Disregard anyone purporting Christian unity apart from doctrinal unity for any such proposition is an oxymoron.

A distinguishing attribute of God is His transcendency. The transcendency of God means that He is above, other than, and distinct from anything that He has created. In this sense God is really unknowable except through His interactions with His creatures and by His revelation to His creatures. Apart from God nothing exists or can exists. God is self-existent and anything that is other than God exists because of His existence. God is therefore unique, distinct, and separate from all that which He has created; the Cosmos.

Another distinguishing attribute of God is His immanence. Immanence signifies that, although God is separate and distinct from His created Cosmos, He has chosen to be active and present within that Cosmos in various ways and in various levels of influence. His actions and presence within the Cosmos in no way defiles Him in that He remains separate from all sin, consequences of sin, and influences of sin while working to combat all consequences and influences of sin. The whole of the Cosmos has been cursed by God. Yet, God is immanently working within the fallen Cosmos to redeem every lost soul of humanity and purify those He redeems. This immanent work of God is what defines the word missional.

Transcendency describes God’s separation and distinctiveness from any and every corruption while immanency describes His operations within His created Cosmos in His Missional Purpose to which He calls all believers to fellowship with Him in that Missional Purpose. Therefore, the transcendency of God and the immanency of God are to be emulated by all believers in separation from any worldly corruption of sin or false doctrine and separation to the immanency of God in syncretism with Him in His Missional Purpose. Failure in any area of separation from the corruptions of the fallen Cosmos and in any area of separation to the Missional Purpose of God defiles any individual believer or any local church from God’s immanent supernatural operations through His redeemed. It is to this vocational Missional Purpose all believers are elected (Eph. 4:1) and the unity in purpose to which all believers are called (Eph. 4:2-32) and to which they are being perfected (Eph. 4:11-12).

“13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (I Peter 1:13-16).

Holiness and purity are essentials to the supernatural operations of God through His redeemed human agents as they fellowship with Him in His Missional Purpose within the Cosmos. Holiness and purity must exist on the individual level before they can exist on the corporate level within a local church. Therefore separation from the sinful influences of the Cosmos and to the Missional Purpose of God within the Cosmos on the individual level and the corporate level are both equally essential to the supernatural operations of God through His redeemed human agents. It is the objective of the purity of local churches that our High Priest Jesus Christ ministers toward throughout the Church Age. This is portrayed by Christ in His seven epistles to seven local churches in Revelations chapters 2 and 3. Dr. Ernest Pickering[2] speaks to this issue:

“. . . Certainly we cannot achieve the purity that God alone possesses, nor can we even achieve perfect purity on a relative human scale; nevertheless, our goal and objective is purity. The seven letters to the Asian churches (Rev. 2-3) indicate God’s concern for church purity. He walks among His churches with eyes as ‘a flame of fire’ (Rev. 1:14). He searches out evil and demands purity.

Congregations are defiled by false teaching and false teachers. To allow them to continue on the plea (popularly used) that the official confessional statement of the denomination is evangelical in nature is whistling in the dark. Hymenaeus and Alexander ‘made shipwreck’ of the faith, and the apostle ‘delivered [them] to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim. 1:19, 20). Why was Paul concerned? Because such men, spreading their false teachings, defile the house of God and injure the occupants thereof. This is the effect of any denominational fellowship.

Thus the principle goes beyond the local congregation to fellowship between congregations. How can a congregation, continually existing in cooperative, interdependent association with other congregations, many of whom are led by false teachers, hope to be pleasing to God and to maintain a witness of holiness? Our holiness is defiled by unholy associations of the type required in denominational frameworks.”

What we see in the redefining of Biblical separation in application is a form of interdenominationalism that speaks using such terms as Table Fellowship or Coffee Fellowship, and Platform Fellowship. However, we have Scriptural instruction regarding all three of these variations of fellowship. In this interdenominationalism of the Fundamentalist Movement we see a new informal denomination being formed through mutual alliances of emphasis of commonality and de-emphasis, or ignoring of, areas of disagreement. There is an undercurrent of pragmatism in the arguments for justifying such practices.

The arguments center on the issue of cultural relevancy, which arguments are very similar to the origins of the Moral Majority back in 1976. Because Christianity was so fractionized by denominationalism it was easily marginalized by cultural Liberalism, which had already been joined by Theological Liberalism in the early 1900’s. The Moral Majority was formed to create a consensus for political resistance against the rapidly advancing Marxist Reconstructionism (Socialism and Liberalism).

The motive for most of those involved in the Moral Majority was undoubtedly Theonomic in nature, because few of those involved would have been considered Fundamentalists or Dispensationalists. Most of those involved were seeking to usher in a utopian kingdom on earth through political activism thereby creating a Theonomy. The few true Evangelicals within the Moral Majority soon discovered that they had created a them and us division in the populace with them lined up against us. The result was that the very people the Evangelicals sought to win to Christ now saw these Evangelicals as adversaries and the message of the gospel was never allowed beyond the dividing front lines of their political warfare. Thereby Evangelicalism cut its own Missional throat. The view of Evangelical Christianity was greatly marred by this unscriptural alliance and from that point forward in time all Evangelicals and Christian political activists have been viewed adversarially merely as the Religious Right.

The Moral Majority was led by Jerry Falwell and the vast majority of the rest of the leadership were constituents of Falwell from within the Baptist Bible Fellowship. Falwell insisted that leadership positions also be given to Catholics and Jews. The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989. However, Dr. Jerry Falwell had become an Ecumenicist (if he was not already there) and the Baptist Bible Fellowship was in a serious state of decay experiencing a rapid exodus of fellowshipping pastors along with the support of corresponding local churches.

Out of this dunghill of destruction created by the formation of the Moral Majority and the failure of Evangelical Christians to practice separation arose two new attempts to correct the Missional atrocities and cultural barricades to the Gospel created by the compromises of the Moral Majority. These two new movements have come to be known as the Emergent Church and Conservative Evangelicalism. Although they are radically different in their philosophies of ministry, they are also similar in other very damaging ways. The similarity is in the way they commingle doctrinal differences. The Emergent Church simply relegates all doctrinal difference into obscurity by marginalizing doctrine to the extreme. Conservative Evangelicalism minimalizes certain doctrines that they see as nonessentials in order to formulate a unity in devotion with unity in doctrine only in the areas that they view as essentials.

All of this creates an ecclesiastical convolution.[3] There is such lack of clarity in this whole discussion regarding redefining practices in separation interdenominationally that it creates all kinds of confusions and simply raises more questions. It erases the lines of demarcation from Truth and distorts theological distinctions in ways we could never have imagined. Douglas McLachlan makes the following statement regarding this convolution of confusion[4]:

“But if the first form of Biblical separation is to be found at a personal level, the second form is to be found at an ecclesiastical level. I define ecclesiastical separation as follows: Radical non-conformity to Babel; resolute conformity to the faith, i.e., the body of truth revealed in Scripture.

What does ‘Babel’ have to do with the matter of separation on an ecclesiastical level? Babel in Genesis 11 represents the formal institution of ‘the mystery of iniquity,’ the religion of Satan and Antichrist. Thereafter, throughout all the Scripture, Babylon becomes the code word for satanic religion, whatever form it takes. This would include liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, the Eastern religions, which are being popularized in the avalanche of New Age propaganda which has flooded our culture, all forms of the occult, cultists, false prophets, apostasy and unbelief in all of its forms.

The very word ‘babel’ (Genesis 11:9) comes from a Hebrew verb (balal) which means ‘to pour together or mingle together,’ with the result that confusion is forth-coming. Theologically, ‘babel’ means the distortion and perversion of truth by mixing or mingling it with error. On a linguistic basis in Genesis 11 it meant the end of unadulterated language. On a theological basis in both the ancient and modern world it means the end of unadulterated truth. The real subtlety of ‘babel’ is that it always has a trace of truth in what it says.

This is why authentic fundamentalists have always felt the necessity to be Biblical separatists. They have never felt the liberty to knowingly pour truth and error together, and the only alternative available to them was to separate the truth from error. That is what we call ‘ecclesiastical separation.’”

What Dr. McLachlan says here is certainly the way separation has been practiced by Baptists, at least in my life time and 200 plus years of American Baptist history. Anything less creates a convolution of confusion. Never before has this separation been limited to soteriological issues. It may have begun with the Gospel, but it certainly extended into every other division of theology as well. In many cases those creating this convolution of confusion are not even true to their primary unity regarding the Gospel, because there is a wide diversity of positions in even this area of theology including soteriological reductionism on various levels, Lordship salvation, disagreement regarding the necessity of repentance for salvation, Monergism, and etc, etc..

The interdenominationalism of Neo-fundamentalism within the Fundamentalist Movement seeks to remove the doctrinal distinctives that create barriers (separations) between denominations or sects. Sectarianism (“heresy”) is condemned in Scripture. Conservative Evangelicals seek to remove the doctrinal distinctives that create barriers (separations) between other professed Evangelicals. We know Sectarianism today by the term Denominationalism. By the very nature of the word “heresy,” it is a departure from “the faith” in such a way as to form a new Sect. Within these various Sects there are often further divisions creating additional Sects within Sects. How many sects of Lutherans do we have today? How many sects of Baptists do we have today? How many sects of Presbyterians do we have today? Interestingly every sect thinks that they are the Biblical norm of orthodoxy that defines New Testament Christianity. In almost every case before the rise of New Evangelicalism, it was those departing from the main body of a denomination due to the main body’s departure from orthodoxy. With Neo-orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Neo-fundamentalism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the Emergent Church, these all were/are departures from the main body of orthodox evangelicalism. Conservative Evangelicalism seeks to restore a unity in evangelical purpose within the interdenominationalism of the Fundamentalist Movement by simply ignoring the numerous and growing number of doctrinal diversities. This cannot happen if we enter the requirements of being unified with the Godhead in His immanency and Missional Purpose through syncretism with His human agents (Eph. 4:1-32).

Obviously, every one of these sects cannot be the Biblical norm of orthodoxy that defines New Testament Christianity. Obviously some, if not most of these sects, must be abnormal in their theological distinctives in one way or another. If each of these sects were true to their positions, they would abhor interdenominationalism and label it for its compromising nature. They do not do that. So in varying degrees of Ecumenicism they draw back into various degrees of fellowship/cooperation with one another. The hypocrisy is that they continue to maintain their individuality rather than merge their churches together in any locality. How can this so called interdenominational fellowship exist when there is a wide variance in what each deems to be “the faith”?

This pseudo-fellowship exists because love is emphasized above holiness. This compromise creates a pseudo-love. This pseudo-love is defined practically in varying degrees and levels of application by the word TOLERANCE. This new fellowship application is not Biblical fellowship at all. Even in the comments of those promoting this new fellowship application it is apparent that it is nothing more than tolerance with no real fellowship taking place. If Truth is compromised to create some kind of artificial unity it also creates a pseudo-love. This is like cough syrup without the cough medicine. It is just syrup. There is a sickening sweetness to it that offers no real hope for a cure. There is no practical synergism of “the work of the ministry” created except in appearances. The appearances are damaging because there is no disclaimer attached. It is a “trumpet” giving an “uncertain sound.” (I Cor. 14:8). God is not the “author of confusion” and this application of fellowship is confusing convolution. It exalts love or graciousness above Truth. It promotes unity around devotion to Christ above unity in the teachings (doctrines) of Christ.

In 1979 Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote:

“The holiness of God is that attribute which governs the exercise of all other attributes. God cannot do anything that would sully His holy character. It is extremely important to recognize the preeminence of God’s holiness. ‘Holiness occupies the first rank among the attributes of God.[5]’ Bancroft declares, ‘God’s holiness is His most exalted and emphasized attribute, expressing the majesty of His moral nature and character.[6]’

Many tend to emphasize the love of God in preference to His holiness. While they may accept the fact of His holiness, they see Him exercising His holiness in love rather than His love in holiness. This is a tendency not only among liberals but among evangelicals as well. They see God as softhearted and accommodating. The relationship between God’s holiness and His love must ever be kept in proper perspective.[7]” (bolding added)

Dr. Pickering[8] then goes on to quote Augustus H. Strong:

“That which lays down the norm or standard for love must be the superior of love. When we forget that ‘righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne’ (Ps. 97:2), we lose one of the chief landmarks of Christian doctrine and involve ourselves in a mist of error.[9]”

In the next paragraph Pickering[10] states:

“The question bears upon the subject at hand in this fashion. In the controversy between apostates and fundamentalists within a denomination, which should be the guiding principle for action – holiness or love? Should the emphasis be upon maintaining unity within the body (a so-called demonstration of love) or should it be upon either purifying the body from within or establishing a pure testimony by going without (a concern for holiness)? This is a watershed between Inclusivists and separatists. Inclusivists tend to emphasize love (we speak now of emphasis); separatists tend to emphasize purity or holiness. Why? Because separatists believe that a governing attribute of God is His holiness. Well not speaking as a separatist, Strong well states that ‘holy love is love controlled by holiness . . . . Love cannot direct itself; it is under bonds to holiness.’”

This leads us to the issue of identification with those holding to false doctrine in a conciliatory cooperation when doctrinal unity does not exist except at very basic levels. Usually a number of conciliations have to be made between parties even to achieve a basic level of cooperation such as Platform Fellowship. However, the problem comes when individuals in spiritual leadership positions are looked to as authority figures and, as authority figures, give an endorsement of error by association. This identification then gives permission to those who are not discerning to take the association to full fellowship because Dr. so and so did it. These kinds of identifications and associations are very dangerous to those that the Word of God refers to as the “simple.” These kinds of associations (using this word to distinguish something different than true fellowship) are not wise in that they have a high potential for leading ignorant people astray.

“1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4 To give subtilty {precaution} to the simple {the foolish or easily seduced person}, to the young man knowledge and discretion .5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings” (Proverbs 1:1-4).

Perhaps those involved in these duplicities and who call themselves Conservative Evangelicalism and the Emergent Church (for these are different degrees of the same error) have forgotten the horrors of allowing a mixed multitude to cohabitate together.

“37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:37-38).

Out of the influence of this mixed multitude came the influence to worship Jehovah in the form of a golden Calf and in the sexually licentious worship practices of the paganism of Egypt. It was this mixed multitude that was the source of most of the murmuring and complaining against God and Moses in the wilderness. It was the influence of this mixed multitude that influenced the children of Israel to make a decision of unbelief at Kadesh-Barnea that failed to enter the factor of God’s presence into the equation of conquering the Promised Land. God would spend the next 38 years purging out the mixed multitude. In the light of all of this, are wrong beliefs that lead to the commingling of orthodoxy with heterodoxy any different than unbelief?

[1] ig·no·min·y. pl ig·no·min·ies; 1. Great personal dishonor or humiliation; 2. Shameful or disgraceful action, conduct, or character.

[2] Pickering, Earnest D.; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, Illinois, 4th Printing 1983, pgs. 167-168

[3] a form or shape that is folded in curved or tortuous windings; something that is very complicated and difficult to understand

[4] Douglas R. McLachlan; Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, American Association of Christian Schools, Independence, Missouri, 1993; pgs 125-126

[5] Quoted from H.C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), pg. 129

[6] Quoted from Emery Bancroft, Elemental Theology, ed. Ronald Mayers (Grand Rapids: Zondervon Publishing House, 1977), p.89

[7] Ernest Pickering; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church; Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, ILL, 4th Printing 1983, pgs. 165-166

[8]Ibid., pg. 166

[9] Quoted from Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (New York: Fleming Revell, 1907), p. 272

[10] Ernest Pickering; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church; Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, ILL, 4th Printing 1983, pg. 166

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:

http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part IV

2010-12-27T14:16:00.000-06:00

An Interdenominational Amalgamation

ORTHODOXY ≠ ORTHOPRAXY = HETERODOXY

Conservative Evangelicalism is like the Curate’s egg. This British term dates from an 1895 Punch cartoon in which a deferential, diplomatic curate (a person serving under the superintendence of a Bishop who is entrusted with the care or cure of the souls of a parish church), unwilling to acknowledge before his bishop that he had been served a bad egg, insisted that “Parts of it are excellent!”[1] This is why I refer to Conservative Evangelicalism (Young Fundamentalism) as an amalgamation. Like the Curate’s egg, it is an amalgam of good and bad features; of assets and liabilities, of strengths and weaknesses, and of pros and cons. Those promoting Conservative Evangelicalism, or defending it, are very much like the Curate mentioned in the illustration.

A consolidation is the union of two different entities or organizations into a new entity or organization at which time the original constituent entities or organizations cease to exist. A merger is when one entity or organization absorbs another entity or organization. An amalgamation is used to designate the outcome of a consolidation or merger[2]. An amalgamation may or may not come into existence without changing the original purpose statement of the merged or consolidated entities or organizations if the original purpose statements of those entities or organizations are the same. However, that is seldom the case. Usually there are varying degrees of compromise and change as the outcome of the amalgamation.

Conservative Evangelicalism is an amalgamation of New Evangelicalism and compromising Fundamentalism to formulate a pseudo-unity around a redefinition of how separation is to be applied in real life situations and within interdenominationalism. As soon as separatist Baptists enter into this dialogue (dialogue is not mere discussion of issues, but is another word for Diaprax[3]), they cease to be separatist Baptists because they begin to cooperate within interdenominationalism thereby minimalizing or sacrificing their doctrinal distinctives.

I would not drink muddy water unless I was dying of thirst. I have a pretty good idea what is in muddy water. However, I would be more concerned about drinking water that I am not sure what might be in it or that I suspect has been purposely or haphazardly contaminated. That is my great concern with the New Neo-evangelicalism called Conservative Evangelicalism or Neo-fundamentalism. I really do not know what is in it, but I highly suspect it is contaminated with things not good for me spiritually and to which God does not approve. I certainly believe it is contaminated enough for me to warn others about it and to separate from those within it.

Some of this discussion regarding redefining separation is being done by men I have counted as friends and have respected. After listening to their discussions for about two years now, it seems to me they are a little like the guy who drove far too fast into his garage and is trying to back out slowly to avoid all the destruction and carnage created by his original haste. They entered into the discussion critical of what they viewed as extremes in separation (and some areas are extreme in my opinion), but ended up driving that discussion to another extreme and through the back wall of the garage. The automatic door closure of the Old Guard has begun to close the garage door on them locking them in with the carnage they have already created. The more they try to move around in their havoc, the more carnage they create. This is what Rationalism always does.

This discussion is being driven by leadership in what historically have been separatist Baptist higher education institutions. I would say this is unique, but of course it is not. It is merely a repeat of history in the praxis of the Hegelian Dialectic within theological dialogue. The dynamic of the Hegelian Dialectic in this dialogue takes place within the academic institutions when diverse theological positions are allowed to enter into public debate. The outcome is always that the majority of the hearers/listeners to the discussion are moved (or manipulated) to land theologically somewhere in the middle of the diverse positions being postulated. In the continuation of this discussion over a lengthy period of time, the middle or center is constantly evolving and changing. The more diverse the positions in the theological dialogue, the more the center moves. All during the discussion we hear the leadership of these educational institutions proclaim that their theological positions have not changed and that they are merely discussing or re-evaluating the application of those positions. This is the historical pattern in the moving of orthodoxy to heterodoxy by redefining orthopraxy. In other words, the position of the institution does not change, just the practice. THIS IS DOUBLESPEAK!

“Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., ‘downsizing’ for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war ‘peace’). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.”[4]

Things that are different are not the same. That is a Praxis Grammatica. However, things that are similar are not the same either. In theological dialogue, the emphasis is taken away from the things that are different and placed upon the things that are the same thereby creating an aberration to which God vehemently condemns by numerous metaphorical examples; “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19).

This theological discussion regarding separation is no new discussion. Many [5] before me have adequately laid these principles before us. Why then do they need to be restated? Simply, because there are those that are seeking to broaden and redefine the application of these principles. Usually when people seek to redefine truth, these Old Path issues need to be refined in their definitions and applications. Sadly this redefining is being presented as refining with an outcome that looks radically different than the Old Paths. They may be saying they are not abandoning the Old Paths. However, they are surely moving the road signage around considerably. The redefining of orthopraxy while promising not to change orthodoxy is heterodox doublespeak. Those listening to this kind of discussion should regularly evaluate if the ground they stand upon is still theologically and exegetically solid because there are no shifting sands in the realm of Absolute Truth. This should be of special concern if the vast majority of the discussion is absent of any real exegesis. If you find yourself standing on shifting theological sands, be sure it is not quicksand.

Practice (orthopraxy) does not define position (orthodoxy), but rather practice (orthopraxy) is determined by position (orthodoxy). To reverse this priory is heterodoxy. I am sure that there will be those in the discussion who will object to me even raising this point in that they would agree that it is a true statement. However, they would vehemently disagree that they are not defining their position by their practice when to any intelligent onlooker that is exactly what they are doing. Just as position is defined exegetically (Eph. chapters 1 through 3), practice is defined exegetically out from an already established exegetical position (Eph. chapters 4 through 6).

The exegesis of the commands of Leviticus 19:19 has been a major contributor in establishing the theological precedent for the doctrine and practice of Biblical separation. The three commands address the practice while the exegesis of the text discovers the position or the why of the commands. Uniquely, the commands regarding practice are focused upon the aberrations that the amalgamations of the three categories produce. The commands are to insure that the aberrant amalgamations are never produced in that the amalgamations gender extended aberrations. The three commands are collectively referred to in the Mishnah and Talmud by the Hebrew word Kil'ayim. The term literally means a mixture, but more than likely refers to the confusion that the forbidden mixture generates. The principle is that no one should commingle that which God has supernaturally separated in creation.

“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”

The word “cattle” is a general term for livestock or any species of large, four-legged dumb beasts. The word “gender” merely means to lie down together. The implication is that of breeding. The command is against breeding animals of different species together thereby creating an aberration of species like a mule from the crossbreeding of a horse and an ass/donkey. In almost every case of such crossbreeding, the aberration produced is sterile or impotent. The critical point in this application is when it is applied to spiritual power and evangelism when theological compromise produces some aberration that is inconsistent with doctrinal positions.

An essential point of reproduction is found in the very first chapters of Genesis; “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Genesis 1:11; see also 12, 21, 24, 25; 6:20; 7:14). In this application of separation, failure to obey the command creates an aberration that is impotent spiritually in power with God.

Perhaps this is why the modern Church Growth Movement must attempt to manufacture growth through adoption and assimilation of converts and through the seduction of the mixed-multitude rather than make their own converts. They have to steal sheep because they are impotent to produce their own. Someone has rightly said that most local churches today are simply being maintained (status quo) by a pacifist leadership that never fought the fights or made the sacrifices that built the churches of which they are now in leadership. Someone else built the flock that feeds them and they simply want to insure that the sheep and goats keep coming to the barn to give wool and milk.

“Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed”

Again, failure to obey this command creates an aberration in amalgamation. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary [6] deals well with the doctrinal intent of this text.

“ . . . those who have studied the diseases of land and vegetables tell us, that the practice of mingling seeds is injurious both to flowers and to grains. ‘If the various genera of the natural order Gramineæ, which includes the grains and the grasses, should be sown in the same field, and flower at the same time, so that the pollen of the two flowers mix, a spurious seed will be the consequence, called by the farmers chess. It is always inferior and unlike either of the two grains that produced it, in size, flavor, and nutritious principles. Independently of contributing to disease the soil, they never fail to produce the same in animals and men that feed on them’ [WHITLAW].”

Richard V. Clearwaters [7] makes an interesting comment on the theological ramifications of mixed seed theology:

“An ecclesiastical label does not prove one a prophet of Christ. Jeremiah and Hananiah were both ministers of the same day, and addressed themselves to the same people; but they represented mixed seeds, in the prophetic world the one God-sent and the other self-commissioned; one inspired of the Holy Spirit, the other aspiring to political popularity. . . When mixed seeds are sown together, separation becomes impossible.”

Dr. Clearwaters goes on to say:

“It is so difficult to discern between wheat and darnel (the thing we call ‘cheat’ in this country) that men from time to time have been deceived into supposing that they were the same, and some have claimed darnel was merely degenerate wheat! But it is scientifically certain that such is not the case; they are different species. Cheat is not a variety of wheat at all.”

Mixed seed theology has created an aberrant amalgamation of theological “cheat,” especially in the paradox of interdenominational fellowship in the breach of God’s separation commandments. Critical to the discussion regarding the application of separation is the obvious differences between separation among fundamental Baptists and other species of Christianity and the separation of the interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement. It is within this dialogue in this new kind of interdenominationalism that the waters are being muddied by educational institutions that were once solidly Baptists and who are now merely becoming baptistic (i.e., similar, but different than Baptists).

This interdenominationalism can certainly be traced to a faulty Ecclesiology. The manner sought to correct this faulty Ecclesiology was the creation of a more definitive denominationalism among Fundamentalists through local church conventions, associations, and fellowships such as the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.; now International), Bible Baptist Fellowship (B.B.F.I.), Baptist General Conference (B.G.C.) General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (G.A.R.B.C), North American Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist Convention, & ad infinitum; these in themselves merely generated a different faulty Ecclesiology.

It is within the ever broadening dynamic of commingled seed in interdenominationalism that the praxis of Biblical separation becomes untenable. This all hinges on our Ecclesiology and what defines the common nomenclature of like precious faith. This then extends to unity in purpose in the practicum of evangelism in the three phase commandment of Christ in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Until the orthodoxy of these three phases of the Great Commission is defined, there can be no agreement upon unity in praxis regarding how this is to be accomplished. Therefore, separation must focus both upon the purity of the gospel and the purity of the local church. People cannot be saved through the preaching of a corrupted Gospel and those that are genuinely saved cannot be discipled through a corrupted discipleship process. A Biblical discipleship process begins with the proper understanding of both the purpose and mode of the ordinance of water baptism in the uniting of that believer to God’s official organism for that discipleship process; the LOCAL CHURCH! Therefore, separation is centrally focused upon maintaining the purity of the local church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” Yes, the purity of the Gospel must be maintained as a primary emphasis as it is the foundation of all true conversion, but purity of “the faith” must also be maintained as it is the foundation of all true discipleship.

There is a confusion of “seed” in trying to maintain either the purity of the gospel or the purity of the local church when we have a faulty Ecclesiology that defines the Church interdenominationally as a general term referring to all Christianity. I believe it is from a faulty interdenominational Ecclesiology that this discussion regarding the application of separation finds its source of adulteration.

“[8]A true New Testament witness will always deny ‘Apostolic succession’ of individuals and will always affirm ‘Apostolic succession’ of the institution of the local church. Jesus said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ (Matt. 16:18).”

Therefore the praxis of separation must begin with a pure Ecclesiology that BEGINS with the local church as opposed to some invisible, intangible, non-entity that has never assembled and has no formal membership accountable to one another in any real way. This latter is just impractical theological nonsense (heteropraxy). How can anyone make practical sense out of separation when they begin with Ecclesiological nonsense? Anything less is an aberrant amalgamation of commingled seed. This aberrant amalgamation is the outcome of dialogue between people holding aberrant views of Ecclesiology. Aberrations can only produce different verities of aberrations. That is the practical essence in the command of the metaphor against commingled seeds.

“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee”

Although there are many explanations of why God makes this command, and most of them are tenable, understanding the application by interpreting Scripture with Scripture will get us the best results. “Woollen” garments were common wear. “Fine twined linen” and linen for priestly garments was sacred fabric. Although Jews could wear either linen garments or woolen garments in their daily routine, they were not to commingle the two. One of the reasons why purity of linen was commanded was simply that the production of body impurities (sweat) during work is increased when these two yarns are commingled. Linen was a refined yarn while woolen fabric was often rough and course. That which is forbidden is the commingling of the refined with the rough and course thereby portraying confusion in purpose or work. The refined should not be commingled with the unrefined. The sacred should not be commingled with the common. That which is sanctified should not be commingled with that which is unsanctified.

“17 And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. 18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat” Ezekiel 44:17-18).

Ezekiel 44:17-18 is for the Levites when they serve in the Millennial Kingdom Temple. We notice that they are not merely forbidden to wear fabric made from commingled yarns, but they are forbidden to wear commingled fabrics. Clearly the idea is intent upon avoiding confusion between the sacred and the common, between God’s norm and the abnorm. Perhaps in a similar text we can better see that the emphasis of this command about carefully avoiding confusing appearances. Here the issue is primarily that of identification. How we dress and who we associate with gives us identification. It can give a false identification. We need to be extremely careful about identification in our associations lest we give an improper endorsement or condone some error by that association. Although Deuteronomy 22:5 may seem like a departure from the threefold variations defining the principles behind practical separation, it is not. This is merely an extension of these same principles.

“5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. . . 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts {various kinds or blends}, as of {like} woollen and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:5 & 9-11).

The phrase “pertaineth unto a man” is critical to the application of the text. The word “pertaineth” is from the Hebrew word k@liy (kel-ee'), meaning the prepared apparatus or armor of warfare. The word “man” in this text is from the Hebrew word geber (gheh'-ber), which refers specifically to a valiant man or warrior. The text refers more to dressing women in men’s armor and with armaments, as was done in many of the pagan nations and religions, rather than an application to cross-dressing. Men and women were not distinguished so much by the clothing they wore, for their clothing was very similar. Yet, there is an application to gender confusion or gender role confusion. Certainly the second part of Deuteronomy 22:5, “neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment,” refers to men wearing feminine garb creating a gender confusion or gender permutation. Just like the commands against cross breeding different species of cattle, and the cross pollination in sowing together different grain seeds are to avoid the aberrations of permutations in these areas of God’s creation, there should be care taken in appearances in gender confusion, especially regarding sexuality, in order to avoid gender permutation that might lead to homosexuality or other cross-gender permutations. This then leads to the question, does what we are determine the way we think or does the way we think determine what we become? Can the way we think change the chemistry within our brains? Therefore, the subject of the command is intended to avoid the outcomes in gender confusion, which is permutation in sexuality.

The central way to distinguish between men and women was the hair on their heads. Mainly, men had long, unpolled beards and women had hairless faces. Men had polled hair, or hair cut short, while women never cut their hair. It was a disgrace for Jewish woman to have short hair (I Cor. 11:1-1). Pagan men polled their beards and shaved their heads. Both of these practices were forbidden to the Jews (Ezekiel 44:20). Pagans regularly confused gender roles in sexuality in their licentious worship practices thereby creating permutations in sexuality.

If we were to apply this to modern day culture, it would apply more to men with long hair who shave their faces than it does to women wearing pants. It would apply to women who cut their hair short and/or who dress in combat garb, or go into combat, in the confusion of gender roles. The application is appearances that confuse. Therefore, there is a mere appearance aspect in the command, but the focus is more upon the outcome that such confusion in appearance creates. This is true in the area of both personal and ecclesiastical separation as well.

The vast majority of the discussion regarding the application of separation is nothing more than Theological diaprax [9] intent upon formulating a majority consensus and then governing according to that consensus. The Latin proverb Vox populi, vox Dei (the voice of the people/majority is the voice of God) is certainly the impetus of that which calls itself Democracy, but it is also seldom true. However, be forewarned, diaprax almost always is a method of deception in the manipulation of the masses through dialogue. The confusion of the application of Biblical separation creates a permutation of practical Christianity. Any permutation of practical Christianity creates pseudo-Christianity because the word Christianity is more descriptive of orthopraxy than anything else. The word Christianity is more descriptive of our practical sanctification in our supernatural connection to the Christ-life through the filling of the Holy Spirit than it is descriptive of our filial connection “by grace through faith.”

What then is the message of God to those rethinking the applications of separation and who thereby are creating a permutation of Christianity? First of all, don’t think out loud. Don’t generate your theology through internet diaprax. And finally, once you take into consideration that all these new things you are discussing are just a new discussion with the same old arguments, admit you have been chasing the wrong rabbit. If you are part of educational institutions that fear cultural obscurity and fear that your voice is not being heard by your theological academic pears, maybe you should just recognize they are not your peers after all. If you are part of an educational institution that is seeking to broaden its enrollment base in order to increase its impact upon other species of so called Evangelical Christianity, you should probably take heed to the old proverb; He who chases two rabbits at the same time will never catch either! God’s solution is simple; return to the Old Paths of the “narrow way.”

“12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: 13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil” (Joel 2:12-13).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

[2] Justice Rodney on Kemos, Inc. v Bader, 545 f.2d 913 (1977), http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Amalgamation.aspx

[3] Diaprax it is simply another word for the Hegelian Dialectic or consensus process

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

[5] Clearwaters, Richard V., The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Central Seminary Press, MPLS, MN

Cook, Arnold L., Historical Drift: Must My Church Die?; Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

Dollar, George W., A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC

Pickering, Earnest D.:

1. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, Illinois, 4^th Printing 1983

2. The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC

Teachout, Raymond L., Breaking Down the Walls . . .and the Gospel: The Subversive Work of “Evangelical Inclusivism”, EBPA, Canada, 2^nd Printing

[6] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, SwordSearcher Software 4.8

[7] Clearwaters, Richard V., The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Central Seminary Press, MPLS, MN, page 70

[8] Richard V. Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament, Central Press, Mpls, MN, Forward, pg 1

[9] Diaprax it is simply another word for the Hegelian Dialectic or consensus process

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part III

2010-12-20T12:43:00.004-06:00

Illusion: Replacing Unity in Doctrine with Unity in Devotion

Inclusivism comes in many forms and degrees. However the subtle shift in Conservative Evangelism’s issues in separation seems to me to be based upon the same problem we saw originally in the early development of New Evangelicalism and which has now moved most of New Evangelicals into varying degrees of Emergent Church philosophy. This is the desire for cultural relevancy. This desire for cultural relevancy is carried forward by a deeper undercurrent of philosophy that I believe is even more subtle. This undercurrent is the erroneous basis for Christian fellowship through unity in devotion rather than unity in doctrine. I believe this undercurrent is also the practical foundation of the pseudo-unity of Conservative Evangelicalism. Unity in devotion is really non-definitive for devotion becomes ambiguous if what devotion is centered upon is not defined doctrinally. Perhaps this ambiguity is the very essence of the Fundamentalist Movement, New Evangelicalism, and now Conservative Evangelicalism. This is contrasted with fundamental Christianity (New Testament Christianity) that is doctrinally definitive and intent upon removing this ambiguity. Certainly this is the substance of all the New Covenant epistles.

These varying degrees of this doctrinal ambiguity led to various denominations (heresies or sects) within Christianity. Therefore, the promotion of unity in devotion over unity in doctrine is essentially interdenominational. This is the essence of various levels of Ecumenicism within Evangelical Christianity. We must then understand that this cooperation within this new interdenominationalism is really nothing more than various heresies agreeing to ignore their doctrinal differences in order to cooperate based upon some ambiguous unity in devotion. Of course, there is nothing definitive in the purpose of this pseudo-unity or what the outcome of this pseudo-unity might accomplish.

As I listen to the arguments being postulated in order to justify a departure from fundamental Christianity, or more appropriately to redefine what fundamental Christianity really is, it would appear that doctrinal inconsistencies among the constituency of Conservative Evangelicals (Young Fundamentalist) is really not important to them. What seems to be important to them is that they believe that they are formulating a new historical paradigm of interdenominationalism that will return Evangelical Christianity to cultural relevancy. My simple response to this postulation is: GET REAL!

What has been the history of the inclusivistic philosophy of unity in devotion within New Evangelicalism? The history of unity in devotion within New Evangelicalism has been an ever broadening Inclusivism. This is really just another form of Positivism. This Positivism of New Evangelicalism manifests itself in two forms of unscriptural acceptance: being TOLERANT and NON-JUDGEMENTAL. The word of God condemns both of these two compromising vices of pseudo-spirituality. Billy Graham became the spokesperson for this unity in devotion in its opposition to unity in doctrine.

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders, people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition; has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction” (Billy Graham, “I Can’t Play God Any More,” McCall’s magazine, Jan. 1978).

“I’m not a charismatic. However, I don’t feel it’s my calling to shoot great volleys of theological artillery at my charismatic brothers and sisters. . . More than ever we need grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind: Life beyond the letter of Scripture. . . absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing” (Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening, pp. 188, 233).

“At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an institution of ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or.’ We seek to be both Evangelical and ecumenical. . .” (David Allan Hubbard, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Christianity Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).

Notice the terminology that we find common between the unity in devotion philosophy of the ever increasing Inclusivism of New Evangelicalism and the lanquage of the Conservative Evangelicals (New Neo-evangelicals):

1. “tolerant of other kinds of Christians,” Graham; let me translate, “tolerant of divisive heresies”

2. “Life beyond the letter of Scripture . . . absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing,” Swindoll; let me translate, “Christian life beyond doctrinal unity by abrogating doctrinal dogmatism”

3. “characterized by balance in . . . ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or,’” Hubbard; let me translate, “characterized by theological Centrism rather than divisive theological dogmatism”

Harold Ockenga is reputed to be the man that coined the term New Evangelical. He defined it further in his forward to the book The Battle for the Bible by Dr. Harold Lindsell.

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. . . . It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”

There exists some major contradictions in his statement; “While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory.” The “theological view” of Fundamentalism CANNOT be separated from Biblical separation from apostasy or from Fundamentalism’s “social theory.” Fundamentalism did not invent these two commands. Yet, these two commands are part of what defines a Fundamentalist. To repudiate either of these Biblical commands is to reject both Biblical absolutism (dogmatism) and the “theological view of fundamentalism.” Notice the clear demarcation from Biblical commands in four areas.

Repudiation of Biblical ecclesiology (local churches are exchanged for the Universal Church; “body of Christ”). This distortion demands unity within Christendom. It demands unity among various local churches and denominations, rather than within the formal membership of a local church (Ephesians 4:1-7).

Repudiation of fundamentalism’s “social theory” (i.e., evangelism/discipleship is God’s intended methodology to change any society or culture)

Repudiation of Biblical ecclesiastical separatism (from apostasy and apostates) to gender theological dialogue

Adaptation of the “social gospel” and political activism as means to impact cultures and societies

It has been said that New Evangelicalism is the bastard child produced by a union between ecumenical Liberalism and compromising Evangelicalism. If that is true, and I believe that it is, Conservative Evangelicalism is the bastard child of the union of compromising Evangelicalism, known as New Evangelicalism, with compromising Fundamentalism from within the interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement. This is nothing more than New Neo-evangelicalism.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing With Conservative Evangelicalism Part II

2010-12-14T13:32:00.008-06:00

The Doctrine of Separation and the Priesthood of the Believer

“⁵Ye also, as lively {living} stones, are built up a spiritual house {a new Living Temple of Living Stones}, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ {the High Priest of the new Living Temple}. ⁶ Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone {of the new Living Temple}, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. ⁷Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, ⁸And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. ⁹But ye {Church Age saints collectively} are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (I Peter 2:5-9).

“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” (Revelation 1:6).

When most modern Evangelicals speak of Fundamentalism, they do so with an almost complete historical disconnect. They think of Fundamentalism as defined by the Fundamentalist Movement of the early 1900’s. Fundamentalism and the Fundamentalist Movement are not the same thing. Fundamentalism and the Fundamentalist Movement are based on two different definitions of the word fundamental.

1. Fundamental used as an adjective: that which serves as an original or generating source in the sense of something that is foundational to reality or that which serves as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function. In this sense the word fundamental is used merely as an adjective describing a noun as in fundamental Baptist or fundamental Presbyterian. The whole of “the faith” revealed by the inspired 66 books of Scripture would be considered fundamental under this definition. This is the definition of Fundamentalism existing prior to the Fundamentalist Movement (although divided in numerous sects and denominations all believing that their statement of faith as defining “the faith”). This is also the Fundamentalism that co-exists within the Fundamentalist Movement, yet separated in cooperation from many of the variations within the Fundamentalist Movement.

2. Fundamental as used as a noun: a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part. This is the way the word fundamental is used in the Fundamentalist Movement defining itself by a category of essential doctrines. These fundamental doctrines were essential for anyone, primarily individuals, to be included within the framework of the Fundamentalist Movement and be given a voice in speaking from their platforms or given an ear by official endorsement of their writings.

Fundamental Christianity (using the adjectival form and definition) is simply New Testament Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels and as extrapolated in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles. It is normal, Biblical Christianity. William Ward Ayer, in a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in April 1956 (as quoted in Louis Gasper’s book, The Fundamentalist Movement) gives what I believe is one of the best definitions of Fundamentalism I have ever read:

“Fundamentalism represents a resurgence of ancient practices, which began not with Martin Luther but at Pentecost. Fundamentalism is apostolic, and the doctrine of justification goes back to Paul. That branch from which the fundamentalist movement sprang lived obscurely through the ages and had never been completely silenced even in the Dark Ages . . . What fundamentalism did was awaken the slumbering apostolicism from lethargy.”

Note that Ward states that the “fundamentalist movement sprang” from the “Fundamentalism” that is “apostolic” Christianity. This is certainly true. I certainly do not agree that “fundamentalism” needed to be “awaken” from some “slumbering . . . lethargy.” For instance, most Baptists (those that had not succumbed to Liberalism, New Evangelicalism, and Reformed Theology) would quickly have asked the question, “What do you mean by ‘resurgence of ancient practices’? Baptists have always historically represented true apostolicism.”

This is really a point that seems to be ignored in the present day discussion regarding ecclesiastical separation among those in the Fundamentalist Movement and those that call themselves Conservative Evangelicals or Young Fundamentalists. These latter terms invariably refer to inter-denominationalism. All of these terms also refer to people or groups of people who are theologically inclusivistic by nature. In other words, they think inclusivistically because they view the Church as some disconnected mystical entity that must find unity somehow lest they be judged by God for failure in their disunity. Baptists historically have always been free-church (separation of Church and State) and their Ecclesiology has in most part been independent of any hierarchy and local church. Denominations of Baptists never really existed in history until the 1644 Baptist Confession was signed by 7 Particular Redemption (Reformed) Baptist Churches. The 1689 London Baptist Confession would add many more signatories and form the first real Baptist Convention/Association of Churches. It was this group that became the Baptist Union with which Spurgeon struggled in the Down-Grade Controversy about 200 years later. The stress of this struggle is thought by many to have led to the early death of Spurgeon. Although local churches maintained their independence in the Baptist Union (in most part), they were dominated from a top-down oligarchy formulated through denominational structuring. I think that the present controversy is very similar in nature, although the area of discussion is different.

The point is that true independent Baptists have always separated from other local churches or denominations over issues of what they think truly defines Sola Scriptura, what they think truly defines Sola Gracia, and what they think truly defines Sola Pistis. Baptists have historically separated from other churches over numerous theological issues outside of those listed in The Fundamentals[1]. They separated over the issues of Church polity and positions of error regarding Eschatology such as Preterism and Amillennialism. I know they have done so historically because I have been part of about a half century of that history and because I have seen it practiced by hundreds of local Baptist churches individually and within Associations of local churches on the State level in numerous states. Most of those State Associations require local churches to have the word Baptist in their name before they will allow them in the fellowship. They certainly have a definitive doctrinal statement to which any local church wanting to cooperate in the fellowship must adhere.

What we are seeing in the dynamic of the redefinition of Fundamentalism by redefining how separation is to be applied is really an example of the praxis of Social Constructionism[2]. Hermans writes on page viii of the introduction:

“All scholars working within the field of practical theology agree on the fact that their discipline cannot be defined as applied theology. This idea is clearly expressed in a recent volume by leading scholars within the International Academy of Practical Theology (Schweitzer & Van der Ven, 1999). According to Osmer three elements of practical theology set it apart from dogmatic theology and Christian ethics, namely:

(1) a performance orientation, based on this literature’s interest in how best to perform a particular practice or activity in concrete circumstances;

(2) a theory of formation and transformation guiding the praxis of the Christian life over time; and

(3) a practical theological hermeneutic of the field in which an action or practice takes place, locating the actors involved in moral time and space’ (Osmer, 1999, p 126)”

In the very first chapter by Kenneth J. Gergen entitled Social Construction and Practical Theology: The Dance Begins of the above quoted book, it seems apparent that Fluid Constructionism (the interpretation of Scripture according to evolving cultural mores rather than a grammatical/historical hermeneutic) as this relates to Modernism and Postmodernism will be the focus. Gergen states in his first paragraph:

“It is quite possible that the closing of the 20^th century represents the twilight of the modernist project of knowledge. This project – with deep roots in Enlightenment philosophy and subsequent installations in our institutions of democracy, public education, law, and public morality – casts individual knowledge as the critical benchmark of cultural achievement. In the modernist world, knowledge is defined as a condition of the individual mind. And, while the object of such knowledge can be mental or spiritual life, the modernist project has become increasingly identified with the individual’s knowledge of the ‘external’ or material world – objective as opposed to subjective. In this sense, scientific knowledge stands as the crowning achievement of Western culture, with individual scientists singled out for their individual accomplishments. In this desideratum of individual knowledge to which we can also trace the flourishing of the social sciences within this century, and the increasingly central place occupied by the natural sciences in society. And it is the conflation of individual knowledge with science that has functioned antagonistically with long standing beliefs in the knowledge of the sacred (subjective, mystical), and served within the 20^th century to recast religious studies as a social science.”

Note the statement “knowledge of the sacred” is defined in parenthesis as “subjective, mystical.” In other words “knowledge of the sacred” can no longer be determined by exegesis of the inspired objective Truths of the Holy Scriptures. This low view of Scripture is manifested in varying degrees by varying positions on inspiration and preservation of the Word of God. This is certainly manifested by those involved in, or accepting of, Textual Reconstructionism in their belief statement, “We do not believe that God has preserved His Word perfectly and miraculously in any manuscript or group of manuscripts, or in all manuscripts.”[3] If this statement is true, we have NO FOUNDATION FOR OBJECTIVE FAITH OR PRAXIS! If this statement is true, everything we have in any original language text or derivative translation of such texts must be in question and therefore subjective. Therefore, the only avenue left to moral praxis is rationalism.

It seems to me that much of the teaching on separation that we are seeing being propagated by the new sect that call themselves Conservative Evangelicals seems almost completely disconnected from Biblical exegesis, at least little is offered. There is really a very narrow line between the old arguments of New Evangelicals and the new arguments of Conservative Evangelicals. In both cases, the arguments are based more on cultural relativism than upon Biblical exegesis. At least I hear the same kind of language coming from the Conservative Evangelicals that we heard from the New Evangelicals 50 years ago. The one difference today is the way Conservative Evangelicals embrace Reformed and Covenant Theology. Interestingly they do this why calling the old Main Stream Fundamentalists unloving and extreme. Are they completely ignorant of Calvin’s Theonomic Model of government erected at Geneva beginning in 1536 A.D.? Are they completely ignorant of Luther’s hateful book The Jews and Their Lies? We need look no farther than these two examples of Reformed Theology’s praxis in exemplifying unloving and extreme. Yet, they wonder why we refuse their invitation to be called to their discussions around their Camp fire. Baptists have been there before.

It certainly appears to me that this new discussion regarding separation is disconnected from the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers “in Christ.” How can we understand the doctrine of separation if we disconnect it from the primary example in the Old Testament type in the Levitical priesthood? The Old Testament (Mosaic Covenant) Levitical Priesthood and High Priest are merely typical of the New Covenant Priesthood of all believers with Christ as our High Priest. However, the responsibilities regarding separation in the transition from type to actual remain.

Take separation away from sainthood and you reduce fellowship to boys in da hood. Separation and holiness are a collaboration. They co-exist like a married couple. Holiness is the outcome of separation. Without separation, we cannot have holiness. In the simplest sense holiness defines the peculiarity of a distinctive possession of God set apart to be used only to His glory and only for His purposes.

“¹ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ² Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD. ³ Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD. ⁴ What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him; ⁵ Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath; ⁶ The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water. ⁷ And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. ⁸ That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD. ⁹ They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them” (Leviticus 22:1-9).

Holiness is the practical responsibility of our position in Christ. Every truly “born again” believer is a “saint” before God. The word “saint” is from the Greek word hagios (hag'-ee-os). It is a word that describes a most holy, sacred thing. It refers to something or someone that has been set apart for God’s use and God’s use alone. As it refers to believers, it refers to their particular calling as servants of God. It refers to their position “in Christ.” It refers to the Priesthood of all believers. All “born again” believers from the Day of Pentecost forward makeup a new priesthood. We are to be faithful where the Levitical priesthood failed in the preservation and proclamation (discipleship and evangelism) of the Word of God.

The Priesthood of the believer refers to the ministry that is common to all believers. The word ministry defines God’s work. The word “priesthood” describes both the believer’s position in this world and his responsibility. The word “priesthood” is associated with a job description and the responsibilities of that job description. Any time a believer fails to fulfill his job description as a priest before God, in any way, that individual believer is living in sin.

Every true believer is a Sanctified One. All believers are God’s representatives before lost mankind. They are representatives of the character of God to restore His image and bring Him glory by being living embodiments of the Word of God. They are to represent God by working to replicate His character in their lives.

When the Word of God says “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), God is saying that we come short of replicating the character of God in our lives and therefore do not deserve His blessings or praise. The character of God is what distinguishes Him from every other being. The central and foremost responsibility of every Believer Priest is to replicate the character of God in our lives through the enabling power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Therefore, a major part of the “work of the ministry” relates to this issue of personal holiness. Again, we must remind ourselves that the word holy does not refer to moral perfection or personal piety. (Those realities may be achieved to some degree by personal holiness.) The twofold reality of personal holiness is defined on two spiritual battlefronts:

1. Separation from worldliness

2. Separation unto God

These two realities are essential to the “work of the ministry” of the Believer Priest. The “work of the ministry” refers to the “spiritual sacrifices” that the Believer Priest offers up to the Lord. In order for those “spiritual sacrifices” to be “acceptable” to the Lord, holiness is an absolute essential.

“¹⁰In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,¹¹Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,¹² If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.¹³ Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.¹⁴ Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean” (Haggai 2:10-14).

The “work of the ministry” is spiritual work. It is unlike any other kind of work. Spiritual work is a supernatural endeavor that brings the physical world into contact with the supernatural world. Anytime that happens, like metal in a microwave oven, sparks start to fly. The separated Believer Priest becomes the spiritual conduit through which God works. Before a Believer Priest can become that spiritual conduit, all that he is and can be must be absolutely and completely given to the Lord and separated from the world. In the Old Testament, this relationship was expressed by the words “perfect heart.” The idea is that there was no difference between the will and desires of a person and God. They were one.

“¹I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.² And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:1-2).

When a Believer Priest sins in any way, he defiles himself before God and makes himself “unclean.” What are some of things that defile the Priesthood of a believer? Any sin defiles the Priesthood of the believer. However, there are certain practices that are common that many Christians do not consider as defiling. Worldliness comes in many forms and is usually evidenced by the presence of any one of the “works of the flesh.”

“¹⁶This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.¹⁷ For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.¹⁸ But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. ¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,²⁰ Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,²¹ Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:16-21).

None of us would have any problem with identifying the first seven things listed (“adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred”) and understanding that they would defile a Believer Priest from being used of God. However, many Christians do not see that the next seven things listed are equally defiling (variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings).

The word “variance” is from the Greek word eris (er'-is). It refers to a spirit of contention and strife. It refers to the wrangling that goes on behind the scene when someone wants to get their way or force their opinion on others. Bitterness results from self focus and a high self opinion that believes a person does not get what he deserves. This contentious spirit is absolutely defiling and almost always generates factions and bitterness between believers.

“¹⁴Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:¹⁵ Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled” (Hebrews 12:14-15).

The word “emulations” in Galatians 5:20 is equally defiling. It is from the Greek word zelos (dzay'-los). It refers to an angry, contentious rivalry of a person or group of people that seek to punish or banish anyone that is not willing to bow down to their opinion. It refers to a selfish misdirected zeal. “Variance” and “emulation” are almost always the inseparable twin sisters of carnality. They are defiling sins.

The next defiling sin listed is the sin of “wrath.” It is from the Greek word thumos (thoo-mos'). It refers to the fierce kind of anger that blows up and vents itself against the person disagreed with. It comes from the Greek word thuo (thoo'-o), which means to sacrifice or slaughter. Although this wicked spirit may not seek to kill a person, it almost always seeks to sacrifice another person to get its way.

The word “strife” is from the Greek word eritheia (er-ith-i'-ah). It refers to the person who practices electioneering to gain power or position. It is almost always done through gossip and in secret. I call this politicking. It is probably one of the most destructive defiling practices that destroys more local churches and individual lives than any other sin. God condemns it on numerous occasions in Scripture.

“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3).

“¹³Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.¹⁴ But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.¹⁵ This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.¹⁶ For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work” (James 3:13-16).

The word “seditions” is from the Greek word dichostasia (dee-khos-tas-ee'-ah). It is from two Greek words. The word Dis (dece) means twice or again and stasis (stas'-is), which refers to insurrection. In other words, “seditions” is referring to an ongoing, standing insurrection against authority. “Seditions” refers to an ongoing, continuous work (not just a single act) of rebellion. Before God can use a Believer Priest, or a local church of Believer Priests, this spirit of insurrection must be rooted out.

The next defiling sin that destroys the usefulness of individual Believer Priests is that of “heresies.” “Heresies” is from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is). It refers to the act of taking a captive. Those promoting Conservative Evangelicalism are involved is this divisiveness in a major way. They are leading a whole generation of young believers away from theological Fundamentalism into a new sect (that is really not fundamental at all). A false teacher leads people astray from the right way (righteousness) by false teaching. A heresy is anything that generates wrong practices and divides into sects. That can come through the perversion of Biblical truth or through a practice of life. This type of person always tries to gather a following. He captures a person when that person follows him in doing what he is doing (usually sedition). Any one of the “works of the flesh” can generate “heresies.”

The last of these defiling sins we want to look at in this text is “envyings.” It is from the Greek word phthonos (fthon'-os). Although it simply means to envy, it probably relates more to its root word, which is phtheiro (fthi'-ro), which means to corrupt or to destroy. In the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or destroyed when anyone defiled it or damaged anything in it to the slightest degree. In the context of Galatians 5:21, it refers to a selfish, prideful attitude that results in leading a church away from the knowledge and holiness in which it ought to abide.

As Believer Priests, every Christian needs to regularly examine and cleanse his heart from these corrupting, defiling sins of “variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies and envyings.” We need to understand that God not only puts them in the same category as “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, murders, drunkenness and revellings, but that God presents them as equals. They render a Believer Priest unclean and useless to God.

Pride keeps a person from acknowledging the wickedness of these particular “works of the flesh.” Pride will keep a believer from even looking at his heart and seeing the corrupting influences of these sins in his own life and in the lives of others. Pride will keep a heart closed to the pointing finger of conviction as the Holy Spirit directs us all to repentance and commitment to change.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Pride not only produces the “works of the flesh,” pride keeps feeding them. Without pride they will die. But pride will also keep a person from seeing his sin, acknowledging it as sin and repenting.

[1] A four volume set of books entitled The Fundamentals issued by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917; “Edited by R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixion, and Others” (later reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan)

[2] C.A.M. Hermans, G. Immink, A.de Jong, & J. van der Lans; Social Construction and Theology, available on the web: http://books.google.com/books?id=5JRen1UxLkoC&lpg=PA63&ots=oPV9ExcChE&dq=Fluid%20Constructionism%20in%20Theology%20of%20Postmodernism&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

[3] W. Edward Glenny, Larry Pettegrew, and Roy Beacham, The Bible Version Debate, Central Baptist Seminary, Mpls., MN

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

The Gifts of God in Christ Jesus

2010-12-13T17:29:00.002-06:00

“¹ Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, ² Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. ³ When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. ⁵ And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, ⁶ And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. ⁷ Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. ⁸ And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. ⁹ When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. ¹⁰ When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. ¹¹ And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. ¹² And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way” (Matthew 2:1-12).

The baby Jesus was born into a hostile and wicked world. The historical backdrop for the birth of the Saviour was a particularly wicked time in Israel’s history. The King of Judea was Herod the Great (47-4 BC). He was a Gentile (Edomite or Idumaien) appointed to power by Rome. He began his political career as the governor of Galilee at the age of 25. He was appointed King of Judea because of his success in collecting taxes for Rome.

At the time of the birth of Christ, Herod the Great was in the declining years of his reign (about 14 to 4 BC). He had his two favorite sons (Alexander and Aristobulus) put into prison because he believed they were involved in plots to overthrow him. They were put to death by strangling after a trial (300 people considered to be their friends were executed as well). The last years of Herod’s life were lived in constant turmoil with his own sons in their attempts to overthrow him. It was into that historical turmoil of Herod’s life that Jesus was born.

Shortly before Herod’s death (4 BC), the Magi came to Judea searching for the new born King of the Jews. These “wise men from the east” carry further historical significance to Herod’s slaughter of the innocents (Matthew 2:16). The Magi were originally a hereditary priesthood who offered animal sacrifices to an un-named god. Although occultist in their practices of divination and such, they were essentially monotheistic and many of their beliefs and their religious practices paralleled those of the Jews. By the time these men appear on the pages of sacred history, the Magi had evolved into a powerful group. They held leading positions in a constitutional council known as the Megistanes whose duties included the election (or deposition) of a monarch. Therefore, they were considered to be divinely appointed king-makers.

Their coming in search of this new born King of the Jews must have struck fear into the heart of the corrupt, wicked and vile King Herod the Great who lived in constant fear of being overthrown. They would have come with all the pomp of their position, traveling with a large armed force to protect them. Had Herod tried to take them on, he would have risked war with Parthia. Instead he took his usual avenue. He just decided to eradicate the opposition by having all the children under two years old who had been born in Bethlehem slaughtered.

Apparently two years has gone by since Herod’s initial contact with the Magi (Matthew 2:16). That is why he had all the children 2 years old and under, according to the time” he had talked with the Magi. In Herod’s corrupt, arrogant heart lay the pride of power. He would do anything to protect that position of power, even to the extent of having his own sons killed. From Matthew 2:1-12 we see two extreme examples.

* We see Herod the Taker.

* We see God the Giver.

We are all Takers by nature. It is part of our fallen natures. From the degree of our corruption in this area of our character will flow the degree of our selfish demands. The idea that it is “more blessed to give then receive” (Acts 20:35) is foolishness to the corrupted mind of a Taker. The spirit of Christmas is giving, but that seems to degenerate more each year into a season of getting and taking.

Let’s focus on God’s example, the example of giving. Christmas is the time of the year we celebrate the birth of the Saviour. We cannot separate the word Saviour from the love of God and the giving of God out of that love.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

We cannot separate the word Saviour from the love of God and the provision of the free gift of salvation to “whosoever will.”

“⁸ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: ⁹ Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The spirit of Christmas is the spirit of extreme self sacrifice (love and giving). The spirit of Christmas is the desire to be a blessing to someone and is about being others-minded. The Magi brought their “treasures” to baby Jesus and gave Him “gifts” (Matthew 2:11). Before they gave, these powerful men (who caused kings to tremble) humbled themselves (“fell down”) and “worshipped Him.” They gave gifts as expression of their worship. They understood this little baby, lying in the animal’s feeding trough was God’s gift to the world, a Saviour.

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11).

The shepherds were told they would find their Christmas gift all wrapped up in “swaddling clothes” and lying in a manger.

“And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).

What a remarkable place to find the greatest gift ever given to anyone. The eternal Son of God was not only born into a hostile world intent on His death. He was born in humility and poverty. The God Who owns the cattle on a thousand hills and gave of the abundance of His love was born in humility and died in humility to give us salvation and to teach us a new way of life; giving of ourselves. Once we understand this, every believer should sing at the top of our lungs from the roof tops with the chorus of “heavenly host” to the glory of God.

“¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ¹⁴ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:13-14).

If we really understood the magnificence of the gift of God in Christ Jesus our song services would be filled with joy and rejoicing. We would shout out “glory to God in the highest” from the bottom of our hearts overflowing with gratitude. The songs of praise would burst forth from our hearts through our mouths directed to the glory of God.

Often we sing words put to music with little praise from our hearts and even less comprehension of the wonders of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. If we really understood our dilemma without God’s gift of a Saviour, we would better understand the wonders of that gift.

“⁶ For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. ⁸ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:6-8).

“While we were yet sinners,” prideful, hostile, God hating, takers of whatever we wanted without any consideration of the consequences, “Christ died for us.” The little baby boy, born in a manger, was born to die for us, to be our Saviour and to be God’s gift of salvation. In that gift are many gifts.

& In God’s gift of salvation, the sin penalty (death) is fully paid.

& In God’s gift of salvation, the believer is restored to a position of righteousness before God.

& In God’s gift of salvation, the believer is “born again” of the Spirit of God, removed from the condemned family of Adam and becomes a child of God.

& In God’s gift of salvation, He promises resurrection and glorification to all believers.

The key words here are gift and believe. Salvation is free to anyone willing to put their faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished in His death and resurrection and acknowledge His Lordship (Romans 10:9-10).

“²⁴ Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. ²⁵ Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: ²⁶ And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this” (John 11:24-26)?

“Believest thou this?” God gave from His heart the most precious of gifts. He gave His only begotten Son. He gave because He loved us. He gave His best. He gave Himself. You can be saved if you will trust in the finished, substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “Believest thou this?”

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.He has served the Lord for over 40 years.