A NATION OF FOOLS Thursday, Apr 18 2013

In April of last year, I greeted you with the words, “Unhappy Atheist’s Day”. Atheists do have their day to be recognized, and that would be…April Fool’s Day. We are warned in scripture not to call someone a fool in a light manner. In this case, however, we are only repeating what the sovereign creator has recorded in Psalm 14:1 – The fool hath said in his heart, (there is) no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

In our most recent national election, voters gave clear evidence that they have chosen to be identified as fools. This (possibly) majority vote gave new meaning to the term, “a nation of fools”. I doubt if a majority of those voters would actually call themselves atheists, but there are those who are willing to do so. They are the stated fools, who admit – by God’s definition – that they belong to a nation of fools. The remaining part of that voting bloc admits to being fools only by the way they speak talk and live. They are demonstrated fools, who live as if there is no God who is the final authority on all things.

This discussion is not about our nation having originally been a Christian nation; I will let others debate that. On the other hand, though, how could anyone possibly think that we are a Christian nation at this point in time? Some would argue that we are a secular nation, but that is not true, either. Everything that is being advanced by this nation of fools today is really based on what they believe. Their belief system is actually their religion, and it is not difficult to identify. While the goal of Islam is to be a majority and to extend its cruel rule over all the earth, Muslims are not yet the majority in our nation. The religion of fools that now has a majority has one common god, and that is man himself. Man has, for them, become autonomous; he doesn’t need, nor does he want, the God of the universe.

FOOLS LEADING FOOLS

A majority of fools has placed foolish leaders in charge, but this elite group is demonstrating every day that, through their new oligarchy, they will press their folly on the entire nation. This is true in every phase of government. The majority of our Supreme Court members have chosen to mock the one true God with most of their decisions, the most recent trend of approving sodomy being only one of the most egregious. For years, they have been closing the public sector to God, at least from their point of view. Instead of having a court jester, as in olden days, they have become an entire court of fools, according to God’s definition.

The present administration has morphed from its former false claim of support for Christianity, to ignoring it, and now even to open hostility. While it openly and without apology has given honor to Islam, it now pushes the agenda of that movement, which is based on violence and hate. At the same time, it is criticizing and condemning biblical Christianity, the very heart of a peaceful society.

Our Congress, for the most part, has joined the massive movement that has led us to become a nation of fools. Like other leaders in government who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, they have run roughshod over the founding elements of this nation that were put in place in order to protect good citizens. The very people who were chosen to protect all citizens – including people of faith – have marginalized and maligned those very people. This folly on the part of our leaders is the reason why this nation is now so deeply divided.

Some moderate evangelicals at this point are going to brand these thoughts as anti-government rhetoric. I warn you not to go there. It is nearing the time when your support of fools, by God’s definition, is going to return to bite you as well. Your affinity to this failure is why the govern-ment has become the god of our beloved land. Who needs the true God, anyway, when we have a government that can solve any problem and will take care of us from the cradle to the grave? The problem with this setup is that the only way government can play god is to make slaves out of the rest of us; and a fool is really a slave, even if he thinks he is in charge.

THE SOURCE OF THE FOOL’S FOLLY

Any Bible student should be able to recognize this failure of leaders in the history of the nation of Israel. The people became evil because the leaders became evil. In every case, the Old Testament declares that the nation was judged by God; and in time, some were sent into exile for their rejection of God’s leadership and law.

With this in mind, it is worth asking when God will bring His judgment on our country. Perhaps it has already begun, and we are unwilling to recognize it. How could any serious student of the scriptures think that the murder of millions of infants, and the accommodation of sodomy, will be ignored by God? At all levels of society, morality has reached the level of a junkyard dog’s.

We might begin by asking what made it possible for such a nation, founded on biblical law and principles, to sink so low. One of the answers is education. Like it or not, fools are in charge of today’s educational system. Intellectual fools, perhaps, but nevertheless having dictated, “no god but man”. The terrible truth is that believers have supported these fools and paid them to destroy the morality of our youth, who now have become the fools in charge.

NOT EVERYONE IS A FOOL

At every level of society, there is a light. Thank God there are still true believers as identified in the book of 1 John. These saints have “kept the faith”; they have “fought a good fight”, and they will be “faithful unto death”. This week I was asked, “How long do you think it will be before true believers may have to go underground?” At the present rate of the advancement of the evil led by the elite fools, I doubt if we will have ten years. Because I am in the evening of my life, I may not see that day; but I think of our children and grandchildren and what we must teach them.

Peter has the answer to this question, and it begins with perspective. We shouldn’t be surprised. Beloved, think it not strange considering the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” (I Peter 4:12) We should find joy in the fact that we will suffer for Christ. “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s suffering; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. (I Peter 4:13)

Consider reading The Coming Conflict; The Separation of Church and State, by Clay Nuttall; available at http://www.FaithfulLifePublishers.com

Leave a Response »

 

KINGDOM THEOLOGY Friday, Mar 22 2013

When I began my formal training for the ministry in 1958, the kingdom was an important part of liberal conversation. People talked about “bringing in the kingdom”, “building the kingdom”, “growing the kingdom”, “for the kingdom”, and many other such characterizations. It was obvious that they were not referring to what the Bible teaches about kingdom theology. In recent days, moderate evangelicals have made some of these same terms popular by use. The problem is that their errant view of this important subject has bled into our own ranks.

It appears that much of the time people do not understand what they are referring to when they use the word “kingdom”. Some may be using it only because they have heard other people doing so, while others simply may not have a biblical view of the subject. Music is the worst place from which to get your theology, but it has been readily used by those who are basically without understanding of the subject.

When I hear the word “kingdom”, I am forced to ask, “Which kingdom is that?” Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, in his excellent book, Israelology: The missing Link in Systematic Theology, discusses this issue at length, attempting to categorize the several facets of kingdom theology. Dr. Fruchtenbaum notes that with each kingdom one must identify (1) the ruler, (2) those ruled, (3) the realm that is ruled, and (4) the period that is covered by the kingdom. One might add other clarifying points, but this is sufficient for my discussion. You can pursue this line of thinking if you choose further study.

DIFFICULTIES

One of the major problems in this study is that if the one biblical hermeneutic is not used; there is no hope of getting a consistent answer. The tools of interpretation that are undeniable must also be utilized. The first tool is that “the part is not equal to the whole”. While one kingdom may be part of another, that does not make them equal. Those who tend to isolate a text in order to arrive at a presumed end will not find a biblical answer; therefore, the answer is always in the whole and not in a part. When we view a single text, we have a question, but not an answer until the whole is carefully considered. One of the dangers of presupposition is that it makes it easy for a reader to invent something. You have a kingdom when the text states there is one; concluding or assuming something that is not in the text is destructive. Finally, “similarities are not equals”. Just because the word “kingdom” is used does not mean that it is equal to all or any of the others.

There is a point in this discussion where we become aware of the “Lucifer Syndrome”: “I will know as much as the most high God”. If we don’t have a clear answer, there is always the temptation to create one. I fear that some of our best scholars have done this upon occasion. We don’t have to know everything, so it is perfectly alright to say “I don’t know”.

VIEWING THE KINGDOMS

If I consider that most of our readers are conservative, it should be evident that there are some kingdoms outlined in scripture about which there should be no debate. God is the ruler of all things for time and eternity, and there is no exception to this. It includes all time and space, every grain of sand, and the entire universe. We will let you argue about the name, but this universal kingdom includes all other kingdoms; yet it is not like any of them. This kingdom is the whole; all others are the parts. Finite humans are not building, growing, or making this kingdom. While we may participate in it, God is totally responsible for everything about it.

Most of us would agree that there is a millennial, Davidic, messianic kingdom to come. Christ is king of this one-thousand-year rule, and it will include all the earth and the people living on it. It is prophesied, but it is not here yet. We are not building it, growing it, preparing it, or making it. We do not need to pray for it. It will come in the time that God has promised. Theologians love to invent things, and they even like to take credit for things they have not done and cannot do. This kingdom is part of the universal kingdom, but it is not the whole. It is similar, but not equal to it.

Any elementary student of the Old Testament would know that there was a kingdom that was a theocratic monarchy. While that kingdom may be characterized as folding into the millennial kingdom, it is not the same as, or equal to it. That kingdom is part of the universal kingdom, but it is not the same as and not equal to it. It may even have similarities, but it is a part and not the whole.

There are many earthly kingdoms recorded in the Bible. There is even a kingdom of darkness over which Satan reigns. Even these are part of the universal kingdom, because God rules over all things and has the final word on anything.

WHAT IS NOT A KINGDOM

You will note that some of the kingdoms other folks might list are missing. This was done deliberately, because at this point they tend to enter the “guessing zone”. I will admit there is a lot of room to discuss the various terms used in that circle of debate. What needs to be made clear is that we do not live in a kingdom age. Yes, the church is part of the universal kingdom; and we will reign with Christ in the messianic kingdom. The church, however, is not a kingdom. Such a view is not stated in the text, and Christ is not king of the church. Yes, he is the Lord, the head, the bridegroom, the cornerstone; but the text does not say he is king of the church. He is ruler, but similarities are not equals. He is king of Israel, but that does not make him king of the church.

We are not building, growing, making, or producing a kingdom or the church. God is building the church, and it is dangerously assumptive to attach our name to His creation. This is the age of the church; it is not the age of a kingdom or the kingdom. So, is it alright to sing “King of my life, I crown thee now”? That would depend on what He really is to you personally. I want Him to rule my life. I want Him to be Lord. I want him to control me. You can call it anything you choose, but the question would be, “Is He ruling your life and mine”?

One Response »

 

THE BIG LIE Monday, Feb 18 2013

The unregenerate heart holds few surprises. While it may not be as evil as it might be, one can only wonder at the amount of sinful activity it produces. We are always surprised when a child of Satan actually participates in something good, because that is not his nature. The world of communication is filled with man’s efforts to cover sinful attitudes and actions. The use of “turn-speak” is only one example. Using new words with cloudy meanings in order to cover old words that hold harsh reality is certainly nothing new. Claiming good intentions in an effort to hide heinous perversions has simply become a way of life. When Jesus was faced with the question of good, however, He said “…there is none good but one, that is, God”. (Matthew 19:17) Only the true child of God has the capacity for true good, and this is because the God who is good dwells in each believer.

Not only is it possible for the redeemed one to have good in his/her life; it is expected. The surprise comes when a believer chooses to speak or do evil, because that is not the nature of the God who dwells within. The saint is out of character when attempting to cover up his sin and disobedience. We call this the “Adam syndrome”. Never in my lifetime, though, have I seen such a prevalent practice among those who profess salvation as is evident today. This attitude has become epidemic, but remember the old spiritual that said “everyone talking about heaven ain’t goin’ there”!

The covering up of sin has become a much-used tool in both evangelicalism and fundamentalism today, and we need to focus on one particular aspect of this practice. There is a well-worn but foolish phrase being used constantly which tries to convince us that methods do not relate to belief: “We have changed our method, but not our message”. That is impossible, and down in their hearts, they know it. Denying the link between methods and faith is part of the Adam Syndrome; it is “The Big Lie”.

OUT OF THE HEART

Jesus taught that all issues, both evil and good, flow out of the heart. (Matthew 12:35) Any attempt to divorce action from motive in the normal life is impossible. For both the children of God and the children of the devil, the source of any action or method comes from the heart. The inner man represents what we believe, and every word or deed in your life today comes from what you believe. This is not a light matter; men want to be free to do their own thing without any interference from a holy God. There is only one real reason why the pseudo-scientist pushes the folly of the Big Bang theory and evolution – it has to do with what they believe. The first chapter of the book of Romans details this motive: it is the motive of fools, both in what they believe and in what they refuse to believe.

Paul writes that God expects better things from believers, because actions do come from what they believe. When trying to cover a rebellion of the flesh, a believer is acting out of character and violating his new nature. The practice of covering one’s own base desires by trying to separate them from what he believes is nonsense. It is dangerous to try and cover actions that rise from anything but the true faith detailed for us in the Word. (Proverbs 28:13-14)

DEFENDING THE IMPOSSIBLE

It is impossible for a person to do anything that does not rise from his belief. There is a positive side to that. A person who changes his method because of greater understanding of the Word finds it beneficial. We never really arrive; we just continue to grow. As a result, positive changes that rise from our belief are good for us. The whole point of this article, however, is that to say there is no relationship between method and message is a statement without merit. It is impossible, since all our actions rise from our beliefs.

Many of today’s changes in methodology result from a lowering of theological standards. The opposite is also true in that the change in methodology may affect our view of biblical authority. Francis Schaeffer rightly pointed out that a society is affected by art, music, literature, media, law, science, and medicine. It is also true that a society is reflected in these categories. That is why, when you see or hear something in an area, you are often able to tie it to a certain historical cultural setting.

The question is, “Why would anyone deny that methods and messages are joined by a silver cord?” It is because this is the nature of the flesh. We want our own way, even if it means we have to attempt to tell God what to do. So strong is our lust for the present cosmos that it becomes easy to say that “God has not spoken to this” or “He is not interested in that area of life”. The truth is that God desires to supervise our “every thought to the obedience of Christ”. (II Corinthians 10:5) That is true of both what we do and how we do it, particularly in ministry. Defending an unsupervised methodology is like telling God to mind His own business… and He will; you can be sure of that!

WHO DOES THIS?

It is very interesting to note the sources of some of these new approaches for which so many of today’s leaders seem to be clamoring. In the majority of cases, the ideas are not coming from trusted biblical theologians; rather, they come from people who may know about the Bible, but who demonstrate that they do not know the Bible. On the receiving end, we can only wonder why people in our circles are so quick to swallow ideas that have not been tested by the text of scripture. In many cases, it may be that they are unfamiliar with basic Bible theology and therefore are not wary of adopting things that do not rise from our basic beliefs.

This discussion is similar to the defense that left-leaning leaders offer in academic institutions. They tell us that they still have their original statement of faith, but it is neither taught nor practiced; it is nothing but paper and ink. This flawed model is where a lot of flawed method comes from. It makes no difference where the error is born; denying the connection between practice and faith, method and message, is downright dangerous. It is not only a lie – it is the Big Lie.

3 Responses »

 

THE SINE QUA NON OF HERMENEUTICS Thursday, Jan 31 2013

According to the clock of life, I am living in the last minute of mine. This sobering thought has caused me to approach this new year with a different perspective than heretofore. The following are some of the things I have determined to consider. I will not let other people determine who my friends are. I will not be afraid to speak the truth, hopefully in love, no matter what doing so may cost me. I will not be intimidated by pseudo-intellectuals and prideful scholars. I will use plain speech so you will not have to wonder what I mean. I will not be silent when truth is falling in the streets. I will not attack another person’s character, and my discussions will be about ideas and not about people.

With these things in mind, I will spend massive amounts of time in reading and research. I will do those things that others may not be able or willing to do. I will focus on those areas that God has highlighted in my life through these fifty-three years of ministry and academic pursuit. In my reading already this year, something has become very clear to me: it is a waste of time to read and write much of what is found in most of the blogs. Even the scholars are disappointing in that they run in endless circles with little help for what really matters in life. They remind me of the philosophers at Mars Hill, …which spend their time in nothing else, but either to tell or hear some new thing. (Acts 17:21)

In my reading, I have noted a common thread among these “minglers” of the mind. There is a lot of talk about interpretation and the use of literal interpretation, but there is very little evidence that the one biblical hermeneutic found in the body of scripture is used. It appears that many of these commentators have copied the liberal pattern, where they “complicate to confuse”. There is very little evidence that the normal hermeneutic is understood or used. This is one of the reasons my focus will emphasize the “normal, plain, consistent, literal” interpretation; this is the “sine qua non” of hermeneutics.

JUST A SIDELIGHT

For the last thirteen years, God has involved us in a ministry in the Arabic world. Upon arriving there, we found a zeal and passion that is seldom found among American Christians. On the other hand, there was almost no possession of a theology that is biblical. There was a lot of admixture, but little that represented the solid core of dogmatic theology. What we quickly learned was that there was little biblical understanding of how truth got into the scripture and how it is taken from the scripture. The first step was to deal with inspiration and revelation, resulting in a text that was without error or the possibility of causing error. With that part of the training settled, the most difficult task was to teach the one system that God has given for extracting that truth from scripture. The bad habit of “personal interpretation” was hard to erase from even the best of our friends. In due time, the one biblical system – normal, plain, consistent, literal – became clear to some of them. It was as if the light suddenly went on! In the words of leaders in that country, “the whole of scripture suddenly became consistent and clear”. We taught them to ask, “What does the text say?”

These servants of God have learned to let the text speak for itself. Prior to this time, they had inserted or assumed anything they wanted the text to say. Many of them wept as they saw that the one biblical hermeneutic was mathematical, scientific in nature, and reliable. Students who were used to coming up with a dozen different ideas were finally able to find a unanimous interpretation for texts that had only confused them in the past. Their confidence in the scripture was settled, and they will never be the same. Admittedly, some went away using the word “literal”, but they were still rewriting their own Bibles out of habit.

BACK HOME ON THE FARM

Here at home, listening to and reading the works of our peers, I discovered the same thing. Many of our friends give lip service to the normal use of language, but they often change the rules. The result is theological confusion. I often refer to the “theological error of the month”. Moderate evangelicals have taken the lead on this dark trail. The “emerging church” at least tries to hide its mismanagement of the biblical text, but the “emergent church” is proud of their heresy. Why would they teach that there is no hell? Might it be because they are going there?

At the same time, my real concern is more nearby, in the circles in which we travel. A caller to our radio broadcast some years ago asked, “Why are there so many denominations?” “After all’, she said, “don’t we all use the same Bible?” “Use” is the operative word here. That is exactly why there are so many different denominations and beliefs. It is rank disobedience to use the Bible to get our own way and to make the text say what one wants it to say.

Even though it rises from the same problem, my concern is not broad denominational disagreement. The real issue is why, in our narrower fellowships, we have so many divergent interpretations of the same text. A fellow professor told me that it was because we have all brought “presuppositions” to the text, making it impossible for each of us to get the same answer. He was right, in that we do bring presuppositions to the text; all of us do. He is wrong, however, about the trusted, mathematical system that God has given us. That system – the “sine qua non” of hermeneutics – will, if we allow it, erase our presuppositions and open our hearts and minds to the truth in the text.

SIMPLIFY TO CLARIFY

The liberal mind deliberately “complicates to confuse”. A sickening reality of modern education is that it pretends to be “fair and balanced” about truth. The biblical Christian, on the other hand, strives to “simplify to clarify”. This is at the heart of the teachings of the greatest Teacher that ever walked the face of this earth. Our Lord’s effectiveness is clearly shown in the way that He taught as well as what He taught. Christ passed these great truths on to us so that we will remember that what is important is obedience to the scripture, not the shrewdness of the human instrument. We need add nothing to the foundation of hermeneutics; the system of interpretation God gave us is the “normal, plain, consistent, literal” use of language. Obeying the grammar, the context, and the historical setting of the text will give us truth in place of presupposition. It will also tell us when someone is pulling our theological leg.

One Response »

 

HEADED FOR A THEOLOGICAL CLIFF Wednesday, Dec 19 2012

Over these fifty-two years of ministry, I have been an observer of some individuals with very effective ministries that ended well.  Many of these servants of Christ have helped mold my own life and ministry, and they all have been conservative in their perspective.  While they may have varied in their ability and approach, they were faithful to the Word of God.  Admittedly, none of them was perfect; but they were mature, and only heaven will tell of their impact on those around them.

During these years, I have also been an observer of far too many failures.  I speak here of fundamentalism’s Hall of Shame.  Some in conservative circles have not escaped the “castaway” branding.  Their failure has done irreparable harm to the cause of Christ and has left a dark cloud over the work of the Lord.  The reasons for these personal and ministry disasters are many, but they all have some things in common.  It would be fair to say that each was related to pride, the dark side of fundamentalism.  Ministry and moral failure are not limited to the conservatives; liberals and evangelicals have their own list of horror stories.  I will raise that issue later.

What I am sure of is that, in every case on both sides of the issue, each instance of failure was related to theology.  Every act, habit, decision, sin, or success rises from our own belief system. In ministry, worship, and communication, we betray what we believe.  Jesus repeatedly taught this principle “…for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” (Matthew 12:34) and “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” (Matthew 15:19)  It is what the new America believes that is sending her over the cliff.  It is what professing Christians believe that is sending them over a theological cliff.

THE DANGERS OF EXTREMES

All movements have their extremes.  We try to make that simple with phrases such as “from conservative to liberal”, or “from right to left”.  In each case, there is a central position that embraces the heart of a movement.  In Christianity, the center is those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without any addition or detraction.  Those who move right or left from that point may claim Bible authority, but every step away becomes a bit more dangerous.

I was raised in a church where “externals” were a high priority.  With the passing of time, much study, and the help of godly mentors, I came to understand grace as it is clearly stated in the scripture.  This position was solidified by an understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, and I must not add or detract from the text.  Many people whom I love dearly are still caught in the web of externalism, and my guess is that they are unaware of the pain it causes.  What I do know is that this extreme is fraught with theological error.  Theological and moral failures are bedfellows.

The other sad story is about those who didn’t stop at the scripture’s clear teaching of grace.  They traveled beyond the clear authority and sufficiency of the text to a false freedom and a veiled libertarianism.  They are headed for a theological cliff because what they have chosen to practice is based on what they have added or removed from scripture.  The freedom they proclaim in their move toward the left is not the freedom of scripture.  As a believer, my freedom makes me free to choose what God has said is right, and not what I may want to do.  The curse of human reason has taken over the thinking of many, and the demands of the flesh have captured them.  Rather than the grace they refer to as having given them freedom, they have actually become slaves by choice.  Sin always does that; just when you think you are free, you find yourself in bondage. They fail to heed the apostle’s warning in Romans 6:15.

GOOD FOR THE SOUL, BAD FOR THE REPUTATION

I need to confess to you that I feel a bit of anger in the next step of this discussion; perhaps you will understand why.  Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled “Where have all the young fundamentalists gone?”  It described the journey of many youngsters who have been caught up in the cult of intellectualism.  They have become enamored with the teachings of scholars, intellectuals, philosophers, and academics who have little caution for a theology that is biblical. This dangerous road is made even more slippery with the rise of Evangelical Moderates.  The unstable youth worship at the feet of these men, buy everything they publish, rush to every conference and event they can find.  It is not hard to spot those who blindly pursue modern explanations based on human reason.  Their speech betrays them; they pick up the buzz words and use them with impunity, thinking they will thus be viewed as intellectuals.  The sad part of this story is that most of them have no clue that they are following theological error and are headed for the cliff.

There is, however, a lurking tragedy behind this story.  All this talk about freedom and worship of human independence has led to a wave of moral failure among these men.  Erroneous theology is always accompanied by moral failure, so why wouldn’t these hapless souls fall into destructive practices?  They are taught a flawed view of grace: God doesn’t care what you do; God hasn’t spoken this; enjoy yourself, and don’t let anyone judge you; let your own mind be your guide.  It is this same errant freedom that is taught in the emergent and emerging church. God is just a fetish, a name to use, not the sovereign creator, the Eternal Holy One.  After all, they say, there is no hell, and the New Jerusalem is just figment of your imagination.  Forget the hereafter; live for the here and now.

BE STILL, MY SOUL

My anger is not just about the theological error that is being pressed on young men who have not been taught well enough to be able to spot and respond to extra-biblical concepts.  My feeling of grief is for those young men who have no idea of the moral failure that lies ahead of them. Just like those who have already fallen, they are not aware that they are headed for a theological cliff and a moral pit.  They will act on what they believe, because that is what people do.  On the other hand, my soul is comforted by young men who have not been led astray and by those men, past and present, who found the anchor and held fast to the Bible as the Word of God, without addition or detraction.  I speak of those who stand firm on a theology that is biblical, knowing that it is this belief that will be a defense against the moral decline so prevalent among professing Christians today. “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word”. (Psalm 119:9)

8 Responses »

 

LET THE WEEPING BEGIN Friday, Nov 30 2012

The nation I live in is deeply divided, more deeply even than it was prior to the Civil War.  It is not divided by political parties; it is divided between liberal and conservative perspectives.  It is now a matter of record that the majority of U.S. citizens want nothing to do with biblical Christianity.  Those who hate the Sovereign Creator and His children have been emboldened, feeling now that they have a mandate to make everyone think and act like they do.  They despise the authoritative message of God’s Word, and the fermenting hatred that has been boiling under the surface is set free to overrun a once great nation.

I am sure you think all this is very negative, but ignorance or denial is not helpful.  I am fully aware that Jeremiah got into a lot of trouble by saying things like this.  There are some things that we most assuredly know; think about them:

1. No one ever rises to power in this world without the permission of our God.  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.  (Romans 13:1)
2. When the wicked rule, God’s people will suffer.  He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  (Proverbs 29:1, 2)
3. God is a holy and righteous God.  While He is indeed merciful, He is also a God of justice and judgment.  The existence of hell and the lake of fire are evidence of this. (see Revelation 20:15)

Yesterday I posted the following prayer on Facebook: “Dear Heavenly Father, we know this nation deserves judgment for its horrible sin, but we plead for mercy.  If it is Your time for judgment, we pray that believers will have the strength to face the persecution that is sure to follow.  We pray that there will be repentance and a true revival among believers.”

WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW THE WICKED TO RULE?

The Old Testament is replete with examples of how God used wicked rulers to punish a nation. This is even true of Israel.  It is hard to understand how any believer could miss the reason why our nation deserves judgment.  I understand that some moderate evangelicals oppose this idea, and that obviously rises from their bad habit of “dumbing down” sin.  America has sanctioned the murder of untold numbers of unborn babies; that fact alone would call for the wrath of God.  The open approval of sodomy is another sure sign that judgment must come.  The headline on my computer right now states that Maine and Maryland have voted to approve sodomite unions. The move for America to turn against Israel has been on a fast track, and no nation in history has ever raised its hand against God’s chosen people without guaranteeing its own destruction in due time.  The favored status of Islam in our nation does not bode well for us.  Our Sovereign Creator God is no longer welcome in our schools, commerce, courts, society, or even in some churches.  God has obviously chosen to judge this nation, and His judgment has already begun.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO TRUE BELIEVERS?

Paul told Timothy that in the last days the Word of God would be the believer’s strength.  There never was a time in our lives when the Book was more important.  It is the source of our author-ity, comfort, and direction.  The church has followed the world into the pit of sin and has made believers numb to the things that offend God.  Repentance and revival need to be sounded from the pulpit, and the earnest prayer of confession and intercession needs to ring through the hearts of believers.  We cannot depend on professing believers, because they can be more of a hindrance than a help.  We cannot look to the wicked, the children of the devil, as they are at enmity with God.  They are dead in trespasses and sin with no ability to do good as God sees it.

We should not be at all surprised at the words and actions of the lost.  They have done the bidding of their father, the devil.  We have not yet seen the worst they can do; but we see them for what they are, and they have not disappointed us in this.  What has been a disappointment is the lack of action on the part of those who call themselves believers.  Why would the strong words in this article offend the believer?  Why would we spend time defending evil?  Why would we want to use soft words about sins that God says He hates?

The judgment that stands at our door is at least in part the responsibility of evangelicals and fundamentalists. Those who have learned their lessons – words from the liberal mindset, with form over content and meaning – have aided the coming of judgment.  Believers cannot expect help from them.  They will continue to compromise and even question the judgment of God.

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?

Those who love God and His Word can expect difficult times and persecution.  This is not a guess; it is based on what we know has already happened.  There was a time when sodomy was disdained as a capital crime, but then a permissive attitude gradually began to prevail.  Now there is a big drive to make it legal, and with that comes a requirement for everyone to accept it.  Some are already being legally penalized for not accepting this abomination. Believers can expect to be incarcerated for open opposition.  Those in charge have again today openly pledged a massive raise in taxes.  The church will not escape this taxation, and it would be well for every church to have its leaders sit down and decide how they will handle this when it comes.  Because the liberal model cannot and will not accept successful competition, any education outside of the state model – including Christian schools – can expect impossible intrusion.

Yes, there will be tears, but our tears will be for the lost greatness of a nation, the loss of our liberty, the setting aside of the constitution, the rewarding of lawbreakers – a nation of fools.  The coming judgment should not be a surprise to any of us. (See I Timothy 3:1 and I Peter 4:13-19)

In June of 2011, my book entitled The Coming Conflict was republished with the idea that the truth in it would soon be needed.  The book is about “the separation of church and state”, but it outlines much of what there is no room for here.  It is available at:

The Coming Conflict; by Clay Nuttall, Faithful Life Publishers, (888)720-0950, or e-mail us at info@flpublishers.com

4 Responses »

 

ONCE UPON AN ELECTION Friday, Oct 12 2012

He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  (Proverbs 29:1, 2)

My students know that I seldom deal with suppositions.  The Bible is full of factual information that calls for obedience, and that should occupy the center of our attention.  I admit that the question of “what if” may be entertaining, but it often leads to the invention of non-truths – the kind of things that can be found in the “theological error of the month”.  The same is true of prognostication.  I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.  While God knows every detail of the future, we don’t know much about it at all.  What we do know is what has been given to us in the divine revelation of the word of God; going any further than that can be dangerous.  The Bible also gives us adequate information about a holy God, and our understanding of what may be in the future rests on who He is and what He has said.

This article is not a guess about who is going to win an election; it is about what we already know.  It seems astounding that people could know, and give support to, the very things that will destroy their way of life. Giving consent to deconstruction would cause anyone to ask, why?  Cheering moral depravation, mocking the work ethic, and creating a society of dependent slaves chills the bones of any thinking, moral person.  A culture that is exceedingly proud of its intellectualism, but that has abandoned common sense, is headed for disaster.  Why would people deliberately surrender freedoms that are so dear, freedoms that were won by the blood of our forefathers?

It is true that some of these people live in denial because they are so practiced at accepting a lie.  Others think their elite liberal perspective can triumph and destroy all conservative perspective and practice.  Like all false religions that their belief cannot conquer with truth, they must force their beliefs on others and imprison them in a humanistic mold.  The leaders of the elite are deliberate in their creation of a slave culture; everyone must be equal except them.  Examples of this include dictators, socialists, and communist societies as well as those controlled by a single intolerant religion.

WHAT IF THEY WIN?

We have no idea what will actually happen, but some things we do know.  History teaches many lessons about nations that take such drastic turns.  That is another story.   Some things we do know for sure: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  (Romans 13:13)  No one rises to power without the knowledge and permission of the sovereign eternal creator of the universe.

The next question is, why would God allow such a person with a wicked, anti-god agenda to come to power?  This answer is also in the Bible.  God has often directed or allowed the wicked to rule in order to judge a nation for its sins.  The scripture describes how God has allowed destruction of a country when its wickedness overwhelmed the land.  The wholesale murder of the unborn and the acceptance of sodomy in our own nation are sufficient evils to warrant the judgment of God.  Then there is the rejection of, and opposition to, Israel; that alone is sufficient to bring the judgment of God.  When a people turn their backs on a holy God, we can be sure that He will send judgment, which often is done through allowing wicked men to be in authority.

We also know from the Bible text that God uses such terrible times for the benefit of his own people – in this age, the church.  It is true that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church”.  It is also true that persecution tends to bring more spiritual awareness on the part of believers.  In an affluent economy, even believers tend to expect help from the things of this world, with less dependence on God.  Where a government provides everything from the cradle to the grave, it becomes a matter of “who needs God, anyway?”  This attitude seems to be especially prevalent among the younger generation of today.  In the main, they have little interest in heaven and the things to come; rather, their lives are focused on the here and now, the things of this world.  Even the church has failed in this area.  Music, message, and ministry tend to be more about earthly things than heavenly goals.  When we collect prayer requests, very few of them anymore are about the lost.  Heaven has faded behind the fog of things, people, and stuff.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

Before we list the failures of liberalism, socialism, and humanism, we should observe our own weaknesses . The church in our nation has failed to obey the clear teaching of scripture.  We have not shared the good news with those who are implementing the deconstruction.  The church has become apologetic about the truth in the whole counsel of God.  Believers have not only fallen in love with the things of this world; they have downgraded the meaning and effect of sin.

One of the most disturbing developments has come from popular evangelicals, moderates, and intellectuals, who keep telling us that sin is not all that bad.  This dumbing down of evil is oh, so slick.  If there is some offense to God that they don’t think is really so bad, they just tell us that “the Bible doesn’t speak to that”.  After all, they are the elite, and they think they just may know more than God.  When a heinous practice is condemned by those who teach the holiness of God, this group reminds us that no sin is worse than any other and we shouldn’t be so hard on that crowd.  It doesn’t seem to matter to them that God has condemned that practice.

Finally, there are the misguided leaders who keep reminding us that we shouldn’t deal with the bad in this world.  We are told not to speak out on political things.  Don’t bother voting; just love people, forgive them, and let them make their own choices.  While love, forgiveness, and soul liberty are important, that is not all that the Bible teaches.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MATTER?

The big question is, what are we supposed to do?  The writings of the apostle Peter will answer much of that question.  No matter who wins, temporarily there will be persecution and suffering.  Paul’s epistle to the Philippians outlines how it is possible to retain one’s testimony and joy when circumstances appear to gang up on us.  For now, we need to go back to the Bible for instruction as to why we should speak out on matters of righteousness, and that would include speaking for truth at the polls.  The real power, however, is in prayer.  So, how should we pray in light of all of this?  It is easy to construct an imprecatory prayer against those that we disagree with.  Contrary to the intellectual view, there are times to pray for such a victory…as long as we leave it with God.

Have you ever thought about what would happen if we were to participate in concentrated prayer for the salvation of a wicked ruler?  If God were to act in response to the cry of His people, the major problem would be solved in a split second!  This reminds me of the terrorist who was saved a couple years ago in the morning service of a student church planter.  In one second, he went from being a destructive force to being instead a man who will never fly a plane into a building in order to destroy hundreds of innocent people.  He came to church a coward, but left that morning a man of courage who now helps people instead of hating them.

2 Responses »

 

MODERATE EVANGELICALS Friday, Oct 12 2012

Ecumenical evangelicalism is alive and thriving.  Like a pack of wolves, the left leaners are devouring the stable theology of the right.  There appears to be some kind of death wish on the part of those who feel driven to erase a theology that is biblical by merging it with all kinds of aberrations.  This ecumenical activity is willing to set aside important doctrine in order to draw people together.  Their argument is that only love, the gospel, unity, or any such singularity is all that matters, along with getting people together; as long as you have the central doctrines, whatever they are, you can trash the rest of the text.  This is done by stealth and the redefining of such things as the gospel itself.

Defining the main players is easy; they regularly confess their participation in print.  Placing them in categories is another matter altogether.  There is no single category where everyone holds to the same views.  Terms like atheist, agnostic, infidel, apostate, modernist, liberal, or neo-orthodox is one thing; dealing with evangelicalism, neo-evangelicalism, conservatism, and fundamentalism is something else altogether.  Trying to sort them all out is like trying to pick up mercury.  In general, each designation does have some major things in common; but none of these is equal to the others.

When individuals try to straddle the theological fence between liberal and conservative, they are most often referred to as moderates.  This position of compromise gives credence to the views of both sides.  It always means, however, that they have to give up something to the right of them.  You cannot hold two contrasting views at the same time; one of them will have to be damaged or disrespected.  Part of this problem comes from the desire to be tolerant.  We ought to respect others in that they have a right to a view, but that does not mean they are right.  The moderate, however, sees tolerance as allowing a broad range of theological positions with a focus on just a few things that are often unstable in themselves.

Recently, discussion has centered on a group called conservative evangelicals.  The term alone admits that not all evangelicals are conservative, so this designation is an effort to build a bridge between two divergent positions.  It is true that there will be some common ground between them, but they are two distinct views.  In light of the forgoing discussion, those who stand in between the two views are really moderate evangelicals.

THE MODERATE PROBLEM

The moderate position has to surrender something.  One cannot hold to a theology that is biblical and blink at the error of another.  We don’t have to attack the persons who hold them, but we are obligated to state the contrast of biblical doctrine and to reject error.   An example of this is what happened with the invention of progressive dispensationalism.   Admittedly, it was an effort to build a bridge between standard dispensationalism and covenant theology, but that is impossible.  The gulf between them is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean, and it is impossible to bridge the two.  In this case, the moderates had to give up something.  While they continued to claim to be dispensational, they departed from the true meaning of the word and developed something new.  This, of course, leaves serious questions for them to answer; but this is the nature of the moderate position.

What brought them to this place?  Why would anyone want to be caught in the middle?  One of the reasons is an insatiable lust for intellectualism.  The pseudo-intellectuals have painted fundamentalists and dispensationalists as being a little less than bright.  The truth is that some of the finest minds we know are in the ranks of historical dispensationalists; many of these trusted scholars, however, have not felt the need to appease those on the left of the discussion.  It is a serious flaw to “want to be like them” so much so that you would walk away from, or be embarrassed about, key doctrines of the faith, because you end up joining the moderates’ choir singing “the time of rapture is not something to separate over”.

I am frequently asked why so many of our young men are following the pied pipers of theological error. Immature students are apt to be fooled quite easily by intellectual gurus.  They reveal their passion by repeating telltale buzzwords and questionable theological pretzels such as a “misguided kingdom theology”.   Like their mentors, they are quick to discard such important parts of the theological puzzle such as cessationism and to adopt such things as the replacement theory.  This not only identifies spiritual immaturity, but also shows that they have had poorly-taught biblical theology in their seminaries.  The real bombshell, though, is the absence of the one biblical hermeneutic that would have prevented them from gulping their minds full of doctrinal error.  This ministry tragedy can be placed at the feet of the moderates.

WHAT MODERATES ARE MISSING

Every doctrinal error and theological diversion comes from an erroneous hermeneutic.  This is the heart of the moderate problem.  The one biblical hermeneutic is exact; it is mathematical.  Letting the text speak for itself will bring us to common conclusions.  This process would exclude any moderate. On the other hand, the hermeneutical system used by moderates actually lets them conclude anything they wish – and they do.  So why would anyone who is committed to a theology that is biblical, established by a biblical hermeneutic, want to hold theological hands with the moderate?

It is one thing for the authors of the “theological error of the month” to ignore the one biblical hermeneutic. Their bad hermeneutical habits go way back to the Jewish rabbis, Origen, Clement of Alexander, Thomas Aquinas, and – surprise! – to Luther and Calvin.  To argue that some of them were right some of the time is to argue for the value of a stopped clock.  It is true that some of them claimed to own a literal hermeneutic, but their writings tell us otherwise.

The most disturbing thing about this subject is that there are so few people among us who really understand what the plain, normal, consistent, literal hermeneutic is and fewer yet who actually use it. Using the biblical system will not let you agree with the wayward theological ideas that are being fed to young minds these days by the moderate evangelicals.

CONTRAST TO THE MODERATES

The liberal mind infects the moderate mentality.  It will focus on form instead of content and meaning.  It loves complication that creates a smokescreen for the infusion of human reason into biblical text.  Such thinking is so well practiced that it is hard to peel the layers off.  This is where the biblical system of interpretation is so valuable.  When you are following the biblical system, it is impossible to arrive at the many theological errors that exist and are even now being created.  On the other hand, there is real joy in knowing that we are allowing the text to speak for itself.  Leaning on the grammar, the context, and the historical setting of the text will produce that purity of doctrine that our Lord desires us to have.

Leave a Response »

 

SINGULAR HEADSHIP Monday, Sep 3 2012

In the previous issue, I took up the challenge of some readers to point out areas where the scholars have gotten it wrong.  We dealt with the issue of elders in the church.  If you missed that one, consider going to our website where it is posted.  Careless scholarship has created two groups who snipe at each other from their towers of human reason.  The Bible is in the middle of this war, and because it has the answers, that is where we want to focus.

Let me repeat for you that the problem isn’t about plurality of elders, or elder rule.  These are clearly taught in scripture, even if we have ignored them.  The point of discussion is “Who is qualified to be an elder”?  A careful study of the text firmly establishes that the words “elder, bishop, overseer, shepherd, pastor” are all referring to the same person.  He is all of these, or he is none of them.  He is a shepherd, and the Bible explains what that entails.  The simplest form of the local church is not where two or three are gathered together; it is sheep with a shepherd.  Yet there are those who, because they have decided that headship is multiple, use an errant hermeneutic, arguing that some sheep who are not shepherds can be elders.

Against my better judgment, I refer you to an article on “The Plurality Principle” on page 83 of The Practical Aspects of Pastoral Theology.  The author of that particular chapter is Christopher Cone. The writings of a number of other authors are included in the book, including some who are the finest in their field, but “The Plurality Principle” article is a hermeneutical disaster.  It is a perfect example of what happens when we try to defend a presupposition and force the scripture to comply.  I know this is a strong evaluation, but it demonstrates the ease with which a theological pretzel can be manufactured.  If you think that this amounts to attacking a brother rather than exposing an idea, I beg you to read other articles in the Shepherd’s Staff archives.

THE BACKGROUND OF SINGULAR HEADSHIP

All of creation teaches clearly that headship is singular.  It is God’s plan.  An animal with two heads is not normal, and a multiple-headed being is viewed as a monster.  When God created the home, He created single headship.  Every time He stepped into the molding of society, He created single headship.  The patriarchs, judges, and kings whom God chose were singular headship leaders.  When God chose Moses, He knew what he was doing and He made no mistake.  The people may have erred, but God did not.  To argue that God was wrong in His singular choices because the people failed is to argue from error, not truth.  Even the Godhead reflects this headship concept.  Someone once said that “God so loved the world that He didn’t send a committee or a board; He gave us the God-man.”

Anyone who has some years of leadership under his belt knows that there is no vacuum in leadership. Someone always rises to the top.  It is as natural as breathing.  It is how God made us.  You can see this working out in the record of the New Testament local church.  It is evident with James in Acts chapter 15 and with Paul in his epistles, as well as with those who traveled with Paul, planting and bringing order to the local churches.  The record of local churches in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation are simple if only we will just let the text speak for itself.  Nothing speaks more clearly than an honest understanding of the role of the shepherd.  Shepherds come one at a time.  If the flock was too large, there would be multiple shepherds, just as in a local church.  How could there be any question that there is also singular headship where there are multiple pastors?  Any other plan would be a disaster.  John chapter 10 and I Peter 5 are only a couple of clear examples of this.  There may have been hirelings, apprentices, etc., but just because they did some shepherding did not mean they were shepherds.  Remember that all of creation teaches what we see in a local flock – singular headship.  Multiple shepherds with the flock, perhaps, but there had to be singular headship.  At this point, you may wish to read chapter 7, “The Shepherd and His Sheep”, in my book, The Weeping Church.

MISGUIDED ARGUMENTS

Let me encourage you to review the one biblical hermeneutic.  It will assist the reader in seeing how ignorance of, or ignoring this God-given plan of interpretation, will always create error. When we come to such a subject as this, we must pay attention to the language, context, and historical setting of the text if we are to come to a biblical conclusion.

I am stunned at the idea that God had one plan – singular headship – from the beginning of time and used it throughout the life of Israel…and suddenly it is no longer true in the church age?  In the chapter by Dr. Cone mentioned above, he argues that singular headship in this age supports the replacement theory, which posits that Israel has been replaced by the church. The fact is that many, if not most of those who reject the replacement theory, hold to singular headship.  Creating straw men like this is not helpful.  Let me point out, though, that Cone doesn’t use the term “headship”, but instead uses “leadership”. These terms are not the same. Not all leaders have headship, but all who have headship have leadership.

Those who have missed the meaning of the plurality texts would normally argue that Christ is the head of the church.  That is true if you are talking about the body of Christ – that is, those who have been saved since Pentecost or will be saved up until the time of the rapture.  It may sound spiritual to say that Christ is the head of the local church, but it is error not to recognize that Christ, “the Chief Shepherd”, has appointed under-shepherds/pastors to lead and head the local church.  This designated headship is stated clearly in I Corinthians 11:3, which says that “the head of Christ is God, the head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man”.  Christ has made the husband/father the head of the home, just as he has designated headship in the church.  We have clearly seen that this, and all headship, is singular.

So in the church, where the workload must be shared, Christ would have appointed other shepherds to carry the load; but the Bible teaches that headship is singular.  A church with multiple heads is a monster.  It might please human reason for us to order our churches like corporations and flawed forms of human government, but does it please God?  I am also astounded by those who claim that the Bible does not provide us with a pattern for polity, or church government.  That fits right in with the thinking of others who would like to be free to rewrite the Bible.  It is equal to the nonsense that says the Bible doesn’t speak to music, or alcohol, or adultery.  They may want it that way, but God has a plan for anyone who is interested.

Leave a Response »

 

THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING Monday, Sep 3 2012

When one of these articles stirs a wave of response, I consider that a compliment because it lets me know that at least someone is reading what I publish.  In the last issue, I challenged the reader to ask questions about everything, just as I do in my apologetics classes.  This is particularly important in Bible study.  Asking questions of the text makes one a student, whereas telling the text what it says makes one a writer, or at least an editor of the text.  Since I was challenged to demonstrate a specific issue where published scholars have it wrong, I will allow you to read over my shoulder.

In 1985, Regular Baptist Press published The Weeping Church, Confronting the Crisis of Church Polity.  The book has gone through several printings and is still in print.  I wish I could share with you the huge file of thank-you notes from those who have benefited from the information in that book that pointed them to the scriptures.  In it you will find a broader presentation on the subject I have chosen for this article.  Every doctrine rises from an individual’s system of interpretation. Theological errors rise from an erroneous hermeneutic or, at best, a misuse of the one biblical system.  The way to know if a scholar has a failed hermeneutic is simply to look at his conclusions, because “the proof is in the pudding”.

THE ELDER QUESTION

The frustration that rises with the question I have chosen for this issue is that there are two extremes of argumentation, and both are wrong.  Both extremes make it clear that they are arguing for a human presupposition and that their words are simply twisted to prove something they think is true.  None of us is free from this kind of temptation; but in an honest approach, we must stop and admit that “I added that to the text”.  The strange thing is that the presupposition of both sides is the same.  From one view, they downplay the function of the pastor/bishop/elder by arguing against the oversight, the ruling functions, and the plurality.  The other side argues against the shepherd role and makes unqualified sheep equal to fulfilling the God-ordained plan.  They both end up ignoring the clear teaching of scripture on the role of the shepherd.  The motive may well be a cultural infusion, or a political ambition, but it allows them to take for themselves what God in His wisdom has given to another.

For the record, both sides should go no further until they accept the plain statements of scripture.  The pastor, shepherd, bishop, overseer, and elder are all one and the same person. Either he is all, or he is none of these.  (Acts 20; I Peter 3; Hebrews 13; I Timothy 3; Titus 1) The main issue here is that the debate is not about plurality.  Plurality is clearly taught in scripture.  What some say about it, or how they explain it, however, has often been added to scripture.  The issue is not whether or not elders rule; that is plainly taught in scripture, even if we don’t like it.  The real issue here is “who is qualified to be an elder?”.

Typically, I Timothy 5:17 is rewritten by some to create two kinds of elders – ruling elders and teaching elders.  The text teaches the opposite: “The elder who rules well is to be ‘paid double’”.  Since all elders must be qualified to teach, those who do this work well are worthy of the same consideration.  The context rules in this passage, making it clear that the text is talking about remuneration.  Verse 18 is most often left out by those who choose to divide the office, but the issue is confirmed in I Corinthians 9:7-9.  A second problem is posed by those who state that the office is one, as the teaching/ruling elder; however, they most often miss the point that this man is also an under-shepherd.  These local shepherds are chosen by God and are answerable to the “chief shepherd” (I Peter 5:1-4). In a local church, there are sheep that have a local resident shepherd.  Understanding this text requires the full use of the one biblical hermeneutic.  The use of the term “under shepherd” here can only be understood in the historical setting of the text.  Understanding who would qualify to be a true shepherd requires some knowledge of that specific historical setting.  There was a clear difference between sheep and shepherd.  There were helpers, hirelings, and apprentices; but they were not the shepherd.  For the benefit of the sincere student, John chapter 10 has a wealth of information on this subject.

WHO QUALIFIES TO BE A SHEPHERD?

A person is not a shepherd simply because he does some shepherding, no more than a babysitter who does some mothering is automatically a mother.  A true shepherd is not an afterthought; his task is all-encompassing and consuming.  He has no thought or goal outside of this occupation.  The safety of the sheep is at risk if he is distracted by the things of this world. In II Timothy 2:3-7, Paul told young pastor Timothy how demanding the shepherd’s role is.  With very few exceptions, he lives, sleeps, and stays with his sheep.  The qualifications of a local resident pastor (and all pastors) are not found alone in I Timothy 4 and Titus.  His qualification and function can be found in the very understanding of the shepherd.  With all of these things in mind, one would be hard pressed to find a qualified pastor/elder among the many sheep who are falsely called elders.

The concept of having sheep called by men to be elders is not new, but that calling doesn’t make them shepherds; that is still creating two kinds of elders.  The idea of a ruling elder board is an invention of men.  True, some of the men who hold that view are well-known important people, and some are scholars; but they are wrong.  If a church is ruled by a “presbytery”, it has chosen the Reformed polity with a man-made hermeneutic.  If the polity of a church is Presbyterian, it is a Presbyterian church and should not use the name Baptist, no matter what mode of baptism they may use.  The fact that some Baptist churches have done this is no proof that it is correct, even if a well-known scholar is the pastor.

SUMMARY

We are well aware that there are lots of problems among those who use a true biblical system, but you don’t build error on error.  You don’t add to the scripture; you simply ask the text what it says.  To correct error, we go back to the source of the authority – the scripture – and begin there again.  We need to go to the Book – not to prove our point, but to know truth that God has revealed for us in His Word.  Space and time are limited here, so there will be more to follow.

In case you have never read it, you may wish to consider the book The Weeping Church,

ISBN: 0970826117 / 0-9708261-1-7.

Leave a Response »