Dealing With Conservative Evangelicalism Part II

The Doctrine of Separation and the Priesthood of the Believer

“⁵ Ye 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. ⁷ Unto 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, ⁸ And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. ⁹ But 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.

“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).

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.

“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” (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.”

“¹⁶ This 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.

“¹⁴ Follow 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).

“¹³ Who 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

“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.

Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of Separation

We cannot understand the doctrine of Separation apart from understanding the doctrine of Fellowship. The reason our understanding of the doctrine of Fellowship is essential to understanding the doctrine of Separation is because “fellowship” with God is conditioned upon being right with Him and obedient to His will as revealed by the Word of God. The condition for “fellowship” with God is simply stated in I John 1:1-7:

“¹ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; ² (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) ³ That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. ⁵ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (I John 1:1-7).

The word “fellowship” is used 4 different times in these few verses of Scripture and in each instance is translated from the Greek word koinonia (koy-nohn-ee'-ah). The word literally means partnership. It refers to joint cooperative participation to achieve a common goal or purpose. Secondly, there is a condition that must be met before this partnership can be formed; the believer must “walk in the light” and cannot “walk in darkness.” “Light” is a metaphorical synonym for theological Truth or obedience to God’s will; i.e. righteousness. “Darkness” is a metaphorical synonym for theological error that leads an individual into disobedience to God’s revealed will; i.e. unrighteousness.

Therefore, those individuals or local churches that are living in “fellowship” with God cannot join themselves in partnership with other individuals or local churches that are walking “in darkness.” To do so would be an act of disobedience that would break or breach “fellowship” with God. In this context, there is the presumption of knowledge of God’s Word and God’s will revealed by His Word. To object to the doctrine of separation on the ground that it creates disunity is complete ignorance of the fact that false doctrine leads to false practices, which reveals there is no real unity in the first place.

Separation from worldliness and unto God is a Biblical mandate for both the local church and the individual believer. We find this mandate recorded to some degree on almost every page of Holy Writ. Separation from worldliness and unto sanctified service to God is the universal call to all believers “born again” of the Spirit of God. Therefore, it should not be difficult to define God’s intended parameters regarding His purpose in separation and the degree to which all believers are to be separated from worldliness, heresy, and apostasy.

Normal separation is the unwillingness to identify with or cooperate with individuals or other local churches that hold to false doctrine(s) or who involve themselves in worldly practices. This includes the willingness to separate in both identity and/or cooperation with individuals or local churches that might appear to hold to correct doctrine, but refuse to separate from those who do not agree with them doctrinally. Some refer to this as Second Degree Separation. I reject that term. This is just separation on one level in that orthodoxy must always result in orthopraxy. If orthodoxy (right doctrine) does not result in orthopraxy (right practice) then this reveals heterodoxy (doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position). No individual or local church that is in “fellowship” with God can join in identity or cooperation with another individual or local church that is out of “fellowship” with God.

In recent years we have had men rise up out of professed Bible believing Christianity (commonly referred to as Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism) to propose that Scriptural separation is not intended to maintain local church purity (Ecclesiastical purity) relating to doctrinal purity and practice, but merely intended to maintain purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore they propose that local churches should not separate over other lesser important doctrines such as issues of Church polity, Pneumatology, or Eschatology (to mention a few areas they propose as lesser important areas of Truth). I believe this is little more than another level of an attempt to keep Bible believing Christianity culturally relevant in a national and world culture where true Bible believing Christianity is being rapidly relegated into cultural obscurity.

“¹⁷ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. ¹⁸ For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. ¹⁹ For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. ²⁰ And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Romans 16:17-20).

Uniquely, Romans 16:17-20 is within Paul’s salutary to the local churches at Rome. It is his final statement defining a true Opus Dei (the universal call to holiness). Romans 16:17 gives the faithful believer two responsibilities regarding individuals that “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine.”

1. “Mark them”

2. “Avoid them”

The word “mark” is translated from the Greek word skopeo (skop-eh'-o), which literally means to take aim at. It is the word from which we get our word scope (as in rifle scope). We might understand it to mean to put a bullseye on their foreheads and keep your eye on them; keep them in the crosshairs of your scope.

The word “avoid” is from the Greek word ekklino (ek-klee'-no), which means to deviate out of your way. The implication is to go out of your way to shun such a person. The idea is to go to an extreme to avoid even an appearance of association with someone holding to false doctrine and/or by such association condoning any such false doctrines contrary to what Paul had just finished defining in his epistle to the Romans. Obviously, this is a very broad definition of separation and completely contrary to the Gospel Only separation proposal of the new division within Bible believing Christianity being created by Conservative Evangelicalism.

Of course the new Conservative Evangelicalism wants us to believe that they are the ongoing representation of true Bible believing Christianity and that their position on Gospel Only separatism is the Biblical norm with all other forms of separation being extreme. This is just not true and his completely contrary to both the Biblical and historical pattern of centuries of Church history. The question that needs to be answered regarding this is simply, does Gospel Only separatism meet the criteria for the Biblical mandate regarding what Paul commands in Romans 16:17-20? This question can easily be answered by simply defining “the doctrine” that Paul refers to in Romans 16:17. Is he referring to the doctrine of salvation only; i.e. the Gospel Only? Or, is Paul using the word “doctrine” to be all inclusive of everything he had just written to them about?

Surely we could not take this to mean that Paul is saying that almost everything he had just taught in his epistle to the Romans is really inconsequential to God as long as we get the Gospel right. In fact, we should go far beyond this reductionist mentality to understand that the whole of the epistle to the Romans defines the Gospel as the good news regarding redemption and all peripheral truths relating to the salvation of a soul. This includes the doctrine of grace that extends salvation beyond the salvation of the soul into the salvation of a sinner’s life through practical sanctification and even the salvation of a sinner’s body through glorification.

We must understand Paul’s instruction to “mark them” and his command to “avoid them” as referring to anything that departs from “the faith” he had just laid out in careful divisions and meticulous detail including the vocational election of national Israel, the details of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the place of Church Age believers in the unfolding “already, not yet” beginning of the New Covenant. Paul gives details of Pneumatology in Romans chapters 6 and 12 regarding the supernatural baptism with the Holy Spirit (6:1-18) and the supernatural enabling of the Holy Spirit in the lives of consecrated believers (12:1-8). Paul gives details of the Church Age priesthood of all believers in Romans chapter 11 and warns them of the consequences of unfaithfulness by disobedience to what they were saved to do; Ambassadors of Reconciliation.

Secondly, two practical outcome failures are addressed in the statement “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine.”

1. “Divisions . . . contrary to the doctrine”

2. “Offences . . . contrary to the doctrine”

Those to be marked and avoided are those involved in these two corrupt outcomes. The words “the doctrine” is synonymous with the words “the faith” used elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. In fact Paul uses the phrase “the faith” to refer to the complete inscripturalized doctrines of the Word of God over and over again in his epistles. I believe Paul uses the phrase “the faith” on 20 different occasions and Peter and Jude each use it once. The phrase “the faith” is what Paul refers to in Acts 20:27 as he addressed the “elders” of the local churches of Ephesus, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

The word “divisions” in Romans 16:17 is from the Greek word dichostasia (dee-khos-tas-ee'-ah), which means disunion. Paul is referring to doctrinal dissension resulting in division or sedition. Therefore, the primary meaning of “divisions” is the breaking of what was previously joined together. “Divisions” is doctrinal disunity as contrasted with doctrinal unity. Paul addresses this in Ephesians 4:1-16.

“¹ I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, ² With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; ³ Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one 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 of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. . .^.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: ¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:1-6 & 11-13).

Once the division is created and an individual is disjoined from the unity of the “one faith,” this creates a faction or new sect within Christianity. Therefore, this division in doctrine leads to heresy. The word heresy in the New Testament is from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is), which basically means to choose a party or sect. The negative aspect of the word heresy refers to the removing of an individual from the main stream of Bible believing Christianity to form another division that wants to represent itself as the main stream or the norm.

Conservative Evangelicalism is seeking to remove individuals from the main stream of Bible believing Christianity to form another division that wants to represent itself as the main stream or the norm. Uniquely, they do this by using the argument that Fundamentalism is becoming too fractured and that we must unite under the umbrella of a common denominator; i.e., the Gospel. Their acceptable Gospel is as broad a stream as the reductionism of Only Believism to the extremes of Lordship Salvation and Calvinism’s Soteriology of Monergism and/or Limited Atonement. They have chosen to declare themselves neutral on these wide diversities of Soteriological positions within Evangelicalism. Neutral means they will not even discuss them in public forums lest they fractionalize their constituency. This nonsense does nothing more than create a manufactured, plastic kind of unity that completely lacks in genuine spiritual unity. It is certainly not “unity of the Spirit” and unity in “the faith.”

In Ephesians 4:13, God speaks of “the faith” as a “unity.” “The faith” is the all-encompassing teaching of the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) from cover to cover; every “jot and tittle” (Matthew 5:18). The believer keeps “the faith” (II Timothy 4:7) when he maintains the Bible’s unity in teaching and practice. The “unity” of “the faith” is threefold:

1. Unity in doctrine (Eph. Chapters 1-3)

2. Unity in purpose (Eph. Chapter 4)

3. Unity in practice (Eph. Chapters 5-6)

The Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is) is often translated by the word sect rather than by the word heresy. There was “the sect {hairesis} of the Sadducees” (Acts 5:17). There was “the sect {hairesis} of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5). On two occasions, true Christianity was called heresy by the Jews (Acts 24:5 and 14). Paul refers to the divisions within the church at Corinth as heresy (I Cor. 11:17-19). Paul referred to “heresies” as one of the manifestations of the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21. Peter referred to the divisive teaching of the “false teachers” as “damnable heresies” in II Peter 2:1 that ultimately denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The point is that even though individuals who come under the pretense of unity, but with some new divisive theological position thereby creating a new faction and sect within Christianity, this is the very essence of what defines the word heresy. Therefore, although Paul’s use of the word “divisions” in Romans 16:17 is not the Greek word hairesis, the outcome of these “divisions” is heresy (new sects).

The secondly practical outcome failure addressed in the statement of Romans 16:17 is that they “cause . . . offences contrary to the doctrine.” The word “offenses” is translated from the Greek word skandalon (skan'-dal-on) from which we get our English word scandal. It is derived from a word meaning trip stick. The context of use gives us the meaning to refer to the outcome of false doctrine that would cause people to be tripped up or to stumble in their Christian walk. This certainly would apply to the false teaching of Conservative Evangelicalism that cooperation amongst various sects of Christianity should only be determined by some ambiguous definition of the Gospel.

Can we find commands in Scripture for separation over issues other than “the gospel”? Of course we can. This is the very nature of God’s commandments regarding local church discipline. God commands separating from disobedient brothers, Christians who refuse to resolve offenses (Matthew 18:15-20), believers refusing to repent of moral turpitude (I Corinthians 5:1-8), and even from Christians who refuse to work to earn a living (II Thessalonians 3:6-15). Paul also spoke in rebuke and reproof regarding the issues of false teaching on the rapture of the Church and the Tribulation that would follow (II Thessalonians 2:1-12). He certainly spoke against selfishness in II Timothy 3:1-9 as a contradiction against the sacrificial love that should be practiced by genuine believers.

“¹ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ² For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ³ Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, ⁴ Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; ⁵ Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away {avoid}. ⁶ For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ⁷ Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate {rejected and cast away as a worthless counterfeit} concerning the faith. ⁹ But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was” (II Timothy 3:1-9).

The command to “turn away” from these types of individuals does not refer to ceasing all evangelistic efforts on their behalf. Nor should we cease to be loving and kind towards them. Nor should we cease to pray for them. It means that we cannot live in a working ministry relationship with these kinds of people and we must separate from them in that context. Our ministry is not, and cannot be, with such people, but rather to such people.

The classic text on separation is found in II Corinthians 6:11-18. However, these verses are often separated from their context by ignoring what is said in II Corinthians 6:1-10).

“¹ We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. ² (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) ³ Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: ⁴ But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, ⁵ In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; ⁶ By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, ⁷ By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, ⁸ By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; ⁹ As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; ¹⁰ As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things” (II Corinthians 6:1-10).

Of course, II Corinthians 6:1 is extending the teaching from II Corinthians 5:12-21 in expressing the moral obligations of all Church Age believers in their responsibilities as Ambassadors of Reconciliation concluding in verse 21 “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him {Christ}.” We must see that the context of II Corinthians chapter 6 is established in II Corinthians 6:1 by the words “We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” The “grace of God” is the supernatural enabling of the indwelling Holy Spirit who supernaturally generates the “fellowship” with God through the filling. This “fellowship” is expressed in II Corinthians 6:1 by the words “workers together with him.”

The production of God-kind righteousness through the life of a sinner, albeit a saved sinner, requires a supernatural work of grace through the Divine enabling of the indwelling Spirit. This Divine enabling cannot take place apart from the filling of the Spirit of God, which brings the yielded believer into “fellowship” with God. Failure in any area of separation breaches that “fellowship,” which then blocks the release of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-25) from overflowing (“rivers of living water,” John 7:38) from the believer’s life. This is what Paul is referring to by the words “beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” This is also expressed in I Corinthians 3:9-10 and the warning that follows in verses 11-16.

“⁹ For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. ¹⁰ According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. ¹¹ For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; ¹³ Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. ¹⁴ If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. ¹⁵ If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ¹⁶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ¹⁷ If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (I Corinthians 3:9-17).

This is the whole context that we must bring to the admonition regarding separation in II Corinthians 6:11-18. The Corinthians Christians were saved out of extreme paganism. They were becoming syncretistic (the melding or blending of Christian practices with pagan) and inclusivistic (tolerant) regarding the pagan practices of their culture. This is exactly what is going on in the Emergent Church culture today along with the incorporation of CCM (syncopated music rhythms) in worship music. This is cultural syncretism and a toleration of Neo-paganism.

“¹¹ O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. ¹² Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. ¹³ Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. ¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship {metoche; participation} hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion {koinonia; partnership} hath light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what concord {sumphonesis; harmonious agreement} hath Christ with Belial? or what part {meris; shared portion} hath he that believeth with an infidel? ¹⁶ And what agreement {sugkatathesis; a shared sentiment or opinion regarding values} hath the temple of God with idols? for ye {the local church at Corinth} are the temple of the living God; as God hath said {signifying a fulfillment of prophecy}, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ¹⁷ Wherefore {because Christians are the living Temple of the Living God} come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean {something or someone defiled by paganism or sin} thing; and I will receive you, ¹⁸ And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (II Corinthians 6:11-18).

There is a silly and blasphemous notion being propagated amongst Evangelical Christianity today. That notion is that “fellowship” with God is on the basis of his positional sanctification in Jesus Christ, rather than his practical sanctification in separation from worldliness, false doctrine, and unto sanctified service as “living” sacrifices to God (Romans 12:1-2). Paul elaborates on this in Ephesians 5:3-13.

“³ But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; ⁴ Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. ⁵ For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. ⁶ Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. ⁷ Be not ye therefore partakers with them. ⁸ For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: ⁹ (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) ¹⁰ Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. ¹¹ And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. ¹² For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. ¹³ But all things {unscriptural} that are reproved {addressed by Scriptural correction} are made manifest {exposed} by the light {Scripture Truth}: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” (Ephesians 5:3-13).

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.