THE COMING CHANGES IN AMERICAN LIFE--Violent Revolution or Change of a More Subtle Kind?

CURRENT AND SCARY
Why are gun sales so increased since the last election? Can folks with a Judeo-Christian worldview live with homosexuals who demand approval from all their neighbors?

For some time now there has been a sense among regular folk in my part of the country that our nation needs fixed and the solution can't be effected politically. Freedom for folks with traditional values is the issue.

Sound far out? As you may recall, last December the world was introduced to Russian scholar, Igor Panarin. Panarin has been predicting for ten years the possibility that the war of words and ideas between secularists and Judeo-Christian religionists in America concerning social values, morals, and worldviews will turn into a victory for the secularists, meaning a moral collapse and civil war in 2010. (1)

Might Panarin's notion simply be a reheated rant from Nikita Khrushchev, who predicted the US would fall from its own decadence? Maybe, but in Panarin's defense, he's a respected scholar and in the past few months we've seen the lives and safety of those who voted for Proposition 8 in California threatened by homosexual activists. (2) (3) (4) (5) In Montana, there's a new law passed by the legislature, awaiting the decision of the governor, banning the Federal government from control, registration, or even knowledge of the production and ownership of firearms within the state's borders if those firearms are produced and remain inside Montana. (6) (7) Think the implications of that one through. Whether or not the new law will survive the court challenge or the Supreme Court will again deny the States and their citizens their constitutional right to defend themselves from each other, foreigners, or a tyrannical government who wants to tell us how to eat, think, and raise our kids, it's an indication that something serious is afoot or at least that some would want it to be so. (It's sad when bad things happen to good sentences.) This would go a long way toward doing away with any Federal gun control and it could possibly decentralize the production of weapons, leading to all sorts of freedom and technological innovation in that area sans Federal snoopervision.

Finally, to bolster the case for the Panarin scenario, the Federal government's Department of Homeland Security, under the new administration, has declared to all law enforcement that individuals who tend to vote and live conservatively are enemies of the state, likely to be dangerous, and should be watched. (8) This isn't racial profiling. It's political and religious profiling. America, the land of the surveilled, home of those brave enough to report their neighbors for what they read, think, and watch?

WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
I think Panarin is unnecessarily exact with his time line, but accurate in his assessment of current trends. The choices are three.

1. Continue on the path toward secularization or polytheism. (I'll explain that later.)

2. A revival of religion--not necessarily Christianity. (I'll explain that, too.)

3. Civil war or cessation of parts of the country.

We are on a train toward civil war or cessation. And that train can only be stopped by choices 1 or 2.

The trends toward polytheism and secularization are actually two paths to one place and that's why I see them as both compatible and essentially serving the same end. The goal of both is the end of the Judeo-Christian worldview. As long as there is no longer an insistence on biblical ethics in public policy, education, and entertainment secularists are happy. The secularists aren't as secular as they are anti-Christian. Hence, the puzzling attitude of atheists and the ACLU toward other religions is explained.

This is what I mean: If one prays a Christian prayer in school, secularists complain. If, however, there's a class requiring the kids to role play and do Muslim things or Wiccan things, that's okay.

Practical polytheism achieves the same thing. Modern Evangelical player Ravi Zacharias recently prayed at the National Prayer Breakfast. He was asked to not name the name of Jesus. He complied and prayed a prayer that fits with just about any religion. Like the Romans we are now being required by the tolerance-Nazis to be polytheistic at least in our outward actions. You can be a Christian, but don't say Jesus is the only way. As long as you do that, the secularists will leave you somewhat alone.

And so, atheists and theological liberals and other non-Christian religionists are comrades working toward the same end with different tools.

A revival of religion could again unify the nation, but Christianity isn't likely to be the religion that does it. That's the point of the polytheism we see today. Most of us would like to stay religious, but without all the moral restrictions biblical Christianity demands. American Evangelicalism is dead, both spiritually and as a meaningful movement. In its place practical polytheism has rushed in, allowing religion without distinction. Spirituality's okay. So is faith. The problem with that is any intellectually amorphous system of thought can't be effectively transferred to the next generation for four reasons.

First, under the currently ascending secularism/polytheism males have no defined role and many rebel in order to exercise masculinity outside of the prescribed bounds or replace that worldview with one that makes a role for males. Either usually leads to a masculinity that is exaggerated and grotesque, likely to be violent, sexually outrageous, or both. Hence, today we see many young men moving toward Islam, a religion that, if nothing else positive, is very masculine. And who has moved there the most? African American men. That makes sense because they have been excluded from the main stream of society much more than most other groups, though that has changed and is still changing.

Second, the youth can't find inspiration and motivation in a belief system that has no sharp edges. What young person with leadership potential wants to be distinctly indistinct? Or, who will follow the nebulously undefined? And who among us is attracted to ideas that have little content or illogical content? Most have no inclination to cheerleading when no team is on the field.

Third, it's actually very hard to pass on a body of knowledge without cognitive handles. And this may be of as much importance as the other three factors in this list. That is to say a belief system whose ideas have been dulled in order to be as inoffensive as possible is actually hard to communicate. And anything that is hard to communicate because it's extremely conceptual is hard to remember. The transfer from person to person is difficult even if the motivation is high.

Fourth, those who may be eligible to enter such a worldview will lack motivation for the simple reason that a worldview which has been designed or modified in order to be acceptable to others currently outside it usually says a lot of what those others outside it already believe. It has to or it would offend them. If nothing I say is new or different to my hearers, why will they listen?

The simple answer is they won't. They already believe what they're now hearing. This forgets the dictum that says any publicity is good publicity, as the current rise of Islam in the West so succinctly attests. So, go ahead and offend. At least you'll be heard.

Those four reasons are why practical polytheism, including the different forms of liberal Christianity, will have a short shelf life and even while it's still in force, it lacks the character to enforce morality of any kind, except a mindless tolerance of all things non-Christian even if it means great harm to society. (Christianity is the greatest evil to them.) So, while secularization and/or practical polytheism may stop the rush to a violent end to the America we once knew, it won't long stand without being replaced by another religion, tyranny, or civil breakdown of some sort.

Panarin is right for now. However, the problem with extrapolating current trends into future predictions is it assumes that all existing trends will continue essentially unchanged until the end state is achieved.

But then, I don't see the brake pedal. Do you?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1) http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/15011-russian-professor-forecasts-us-break-up-
(2) http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479861
(3) http://thenextright.com/proud2b4family/hate-on-8-recipient-of-prop-8-death-threat-blogs-the-experience
(4) http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613
(5) http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2009/prop8-donors-fear.html
(6) http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/04/29/greenslade.htm
(7) http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/01/22/montana-brings-a-gun-10th-amendment-to-a-knife-interstate-commerce-fight/
(8) http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf

STILL TO COME--THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part V Righteousness Versus Holiness--So What's the Difference?

HITTING, MISSING, AND APOLOGIZING

I would like to apologize to some of my regular readers. This is my busy time of year, working six and seven days a week, ten to twelve hours a day or longer. So, I've been a little absent. This will probably last until the end of May, possibly longer.

Sorry.

I have some saved posts up my sleeve, though, and will be editing and posting them weekly for a while. And I am still absolutely jacked about the series on holiness, the lost doctrine. This is the most important doctrine of Scripture.

In the Holy One of Israel.
Phil Perkins. PS--I will also be publishing course descriptions and syllabi for the upcoming classes.

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part IV The Holiness of Holiness in Four Forgotten But Important Places

THE UNIQUE HOLINESS OF GOD.
The first three installments of this series reintroduced us to the biblical centrality of holiness, without which we cannot understand just Who God really is. Holiness is the very essence of God. Unlike all the universe, He is outside space-time. He is uncreated. He is non-contingent, needing nothing to be, to continue to be, and to be happy. He is so unlike all the rest of reality expressed by a special adjective He gave us to describe Him--Holy, Holy, Holy. Holiness is that characteristic of God that names this vast difference from everything else, this enormous apartness, this gigantic otherness.

There is no way to describe Him. We can only describe created things like Him.

Then I discussed the place of holiness among the other characteristics of God. God is righteous, loving, holy, all powerful, all knowing, prescient, present everywhere at once, eternal, wrathful, merciful, etc. There are two common views of the place of holiness among the attributes. First, is the idea that holiness is one among a number of attributes. God is this, God is that, God is the next thing, and one of those things is holy. This is the older of the two, but it is wrong. The second common view of holiness among the attributes of God is the newer and even worse idea that love is the highest attribute of God. All other attributes are subservient too love. Love conquers all, including all the other attributes of God, it seems. As a result of this view, God orders all things in His program for mankind to achieve the goal of love and attributes like righteousness, holiness, and wrath are downplayed or omitted completely in the minds of many church--goers and preachers.

Still older than the two views mentioned is the biblical view that holiness is the chief attribute of God. All other attributes are governed by holiness, can only be properly understood in light of holiness, and are originated in God's uniqueness--His holiness. There is none like Him.

THE UNIQUE HOLINESS OF HOLINESS AMONG THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
Still reviewing, I discussed, also, the fact that even as an attribute all in its own right, apart from its status as an attribute of God is holy. Yes, holiness is unique--holy among the other attributes. Every other attribute can be balanced by it's opposite without being changed in its essence. Righteousness can be balanced by mercy. That is what the atonement was about. The Righteous One became merciful without being one iota unrighteous. Even the Lamb remained righteous in essence, when my unrighteousness was imputed to Him so that He could experience the wrath of the Father. Power can be balanced by self-control, without weakening the power at all. Love can be balanced by wrath and remain loving.

Some may ask, "Can't holiness by countered by mercy, since the holiness of God demands justice?" This is a mistake that is rooted in the fact that holiness is often mistaken as another word for righteousness. Holiness is often mistaken this way simply because we live in such an unrighteous world that the righteousness of God is in stark contrast to the unrighteousness of the world around us. God's holiness includes righteousness, but it also includes His power, His love, His knowledge, and so forth. All these attributes are holy unto God because no one has power, knowledge, and love like His. Holiness is much more than righteousness. It is all that God is. All that God is is different, set apart, unique, separated--in a word holy. God's God-ness is His holiness.



Holiness, on the other hand, isn't like the other attributes. Apartness, disappears when it joins. Purity is ruined by mixing and dilution. There is no counter to the attribute of holiness that doesn't destroy it. It is, thus, unique among the attributes. Indeed, holiness is the only attribute by which God will swear and expects people to do the same. He swears by His Name and by His holiness. Recall that the personal name of God, Yahweh, indicates His holiness strongly, as laid out in Part III. Also, read these passages:

"Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David."--Psalm 89:35

"Nevertheless hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are living in the land of Egypt, 'Behold, I have sworn by My great name,' says the LORD, 'never shall My name be invoked again by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, "As the Lord God lives."--Jeremiah 44:26

"Then it will come about that if they will really learn the ways of My people, to swear by My name, 'As the LORD lives,' even as they taught My people to swear by Baal, then they will be built up in the midst of My people."--Jeremiah 12:16

THE HOLINESS OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG RELIGIONS.
The concept of the holiness of God is unique to the religion of Scripture. While all religions, to my knowledge, have a concept of holiness, only the religion of Scripture has a holiness like the holiness of the God of Scripture. True, this is still a review, but I want to go further here. I have written already in passing of the God of Scripture being outside space-time. That may sound pseudo-hip and modern, like a clever adaptation of modern scientific language retrofitted onto a religion of the past--a cute lie to disguise the obsolescence of an old religion.

It isn't. As early as Augustine the idea of Yahweh being outside space and time was discussed. Augustine lived from 354 to 430. He said that before creation there was no time. God created both space and time. Sound a bit Einsteinian? Well yes, it does, doesn't it? One more proof that the Scripture is reliable, predicting something so counter intuitive that it's truth wouldn't be discovered by the brightest human minds until millenia later. No other religion speaks of the beginning of time and space.(1) In fact, no other religion speaks about a god who is outside space-time.

THE HOLINESS OF THE SCRIPTURAL GOD'S PEOPLE.
"Be holy because I am holy." God's people are called to be holy for a specific reason. It isn't to gain favor or to gain heaven or to set a good example for the kids. They are to be holy because God is.

This brings with it a question? Just what kind of holiness should we have? Is it to be the holiness of other religions--kind of different, but not qualitatively? Gods of other religions aren't different from creation qualitatively, but quantitatively. That is the gods of other people are made of stone, metal, wood, or flesh, but much bigger or more powerful. If none of this is true of a particular god, that god is never considered outside space-time, but operates within space-time just like we do. Their gods are just like them or quiet similar, but bigger, wiser, more powerful, invisible, or some such thing as that. Only the God of Scripture is wholly different, outside time and space. He is qualitatively different and more so than any god conceived by men.

This being so, isn't our holiness to be radical? We aren't to be like the Catholics, Buddhists, or Mormons, but more fervent. We are to be entirely different. As the God of Scripture is hated and was even killed when He became flesh, are we to be different from Him or different from those around us? We are to be so different that it is hard for us to live in peace, according to Scripture. If we aren't hounded and hated, we aren't His. But more on that in later installments.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1) D'Souza, Dinesh; What's So Great About Christianity; Tyndale House Publishers; Carol Stream Illinois; 2007; p. 125.

NEXT TIME: Holiness and the problem of evil--Bad things happen. Are we concerned or just whining?

AND: If a radical holiness is the foremost quality of your God, what should yours be?

JUST THE BIBLE ACADEMY MISSION STATEMENT

This fall will be the beginning of something new I'm doing. God willing, I'm starting something I call Just the Bible Academy. It will be unaccredited and unofficial. It will be an alternative to going to seminary or Bible college. It will give the student a better understanding of the original languages of Scripture than most seminaries. It will give the student a MUCH better understanding of Scripture than most Bible colleges and seminaries. It won't leave the student in debt. It will be done live and interactively over the internet, available to individuals and churches. It will be centered on two things: The Bible and how to study it for yourself.

Here is the mission statement in embryonic form. I will publish it again with a fuller explanation of the twelve things I've listed here.

FOUR OBJECTIVES.
1. To replace of the education of pastors by faceless, unaccountable institutions with the discipleship by pastors and godly men in the churches, as the New Testament example demands.
2. To return the education of pastors to biblicity of content.
3. To educate Christians in the languages of Scripture.
4. To offer in-depth, systematic Bible study and the training to study the Bible in the original languages to the entire church.

EIGHT BENEFITS OF THE FOUR OBJECTIVES.
1. Pastors will have more knowledge of Scripture.
2. Pastors will be more accountable, because other men in the congregation will be more informed in Scripture.
3. Trainers of pastors will be more accountable, because they will be in the local church, not financed by the local church, and working in a distant city.
4. The resources of the local church will be saved to reach their own city or support missionaries, rather than supporting teachers and campuses unnecessarily.
5. Money won't be the motivation to train pastors. Love for God and the disciple will be the motivation.
6. Pastors will be more free to be biblical because they can be free from financial obligations.
7. More men will be able to train for the pastorate because they won't need money, opening the pastorate to men of God's choosing, whether rich or poor.
8. More Christians will be able to evaluate modern translations, many of which aren't honestly done.

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part III The Names of God and the Great Lie of Modern Evangelicalism

I AM. Yahweh of Armies. The Holy Spirit. Son. Holy, Holy, Holy. Love. The Truth. The Way. The Life. Father. Holy Father. Creator. Lion. Eagle. Bridegroom. Husband. Judge. King. Lawgiver. Warrior. Physician. Builder. Maker. Shepherd. Lamb. Hen. The Sun. Shield. Light. Salvation. Defense of My Life. Fountain of Life. Hiding Place. Root and Offspring of David. Bright Morning Star. Lamp. Temple. Rock. God of Faithfulness. Strong Tower. The Most High. The Almighty.

GOD'S NAMES SPELL HOLINESS.
Not love. Not power. Not mercy. Not knowledge. Not righteousness. God's names almost all breath holiness. I believe all do when understood in context.

Above are a few of God's names, starting with His actual personal name. In Part II, I discussed the fact that holiness was part of God's personal name. I AM is a name that no one can claim but Him.

In addition, God has a number of other names or titles that describe Him in one way or another. All the titles highlight a specific thing about God. "God is Yahweh of Armies." Most translations say "Lord of Hosts". That means something specific about God. It is a mention of God's power and status as a warrior leading other warriors. A conqueror. But George Bush can say that. He lead a nation in a war and conquered another nation.

So are George and God warriors in the same sense? No. George had to tax millions of people for money for the war. He had to recruit thousands of young men as soldiers, sailors, and airmen. He had to get thousands of others to train these young men. He did nothing much with his own power.

God's power is nothing like that. All the power of God's army is from God Himself. George has no power against another nation. He borrowed power.

In addition, George fought vicariously through young men, borrowing their power, to defeat a nation of men who were made of flesh and blood just like his flesh and blood. Not so God. He fights no one like Him, because there is no one like him. He is a Spirit who can speak all flesh out of existence. No flesh now lives without His powerful arm supporting it and His omniscient mind ordering each vibration of each sub-atomic particle in each molecule of every cell. Anyone in His army exists just because God makes him exist and his power is borrowed from God.

In short, God is the leader like no other of armies like no other.

The same sort of thing can be said about all the other names. "God is love" doesn't mean the same thing that "Phil is love" means. It means that God is a loving being. Well, so am I. I love my wife. I love my dogs. I love reading the Bible. I love my family. Each of these things and people I love are things that cause me to love them. I fell in love with my wife because she was and looked a certain way. I love my dogs for certain reasons, too. I love God because He first loved me. My love is selfish and caused. His love is unselfish and uncaused.

The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness."--Jeremiah 31:3.

And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."--Exodus 33:19.

All of God's attributes are one of a kind and separate from the some sort of attribute possessed by any other being. Everything in reality is created, except God. Remember, holiness is differentness, called-outness, unmixedness, outsideness, uniqueness, purity. Only God is uncreated. All else is created and derived. My love is some capacity God created within me. His love is outside created reality and cannot be compared to mine in many ways. My power is created, derived, and limited. His is uncaused, unlimited.

All power, all love, all righteousness, all compassion, all mercy, all wrath, all justice, all intelligence is created, unlimited, and derived. Except God's. His love, power, justice, mercy, knowledge, is unlimited, uncaused, uncreated, underived, and unknown to us except by His gracious revelation. He doesn't know like we know. He doesn't love like we love. He doesn't exercise power like we do.

ALL GOD'S OTHER ATTRIBUTES ARE GOVERNED BY THE HIGHEST ATTRIBUTE--HOLINESS.
When I was young, I was taught that there was a great God and He had a number of attributes. They were all His attributes and there wasn't a real order of importance given. They were all equally His, none higher than the other, unless by the emphasis given by a particular preacher. It looked a lot like this:

MEism (Modern Evangelicalism) typically sees it another way. "God is love" seems to be the ruling principle that governs all other things about God. His wrath is governed by His love, so it is often said God doesn't send anyone to hell. (So how do they get there, I wonder?) It looks like this:

While this scheme isn't often formally articulated, it seems, by the teaching, the preaching, and the beliefs of folks in the pew, God's love is His foremost attribute. Love governs all else. He wants everyone saved and happy. Love limits His power, His wrath, and His sovereignty.

This isn't biblical. Holiness (uniqueness, differentness, apartness) isn't just one of the attributes. It governs all the others. God's love, being underived and uncreated, is unique from the love of all others. Their loves are derived from the creative hand of God. On the other hand, God's uniqueness (holiness) isn't anymore loving than it is powerful or wrathful or merciful or sovereign. But His sovereignty is indeed holy, different and unique from all others. All His attributes are uncaused, underived, uncontingent, independent in their very essense. So, the biblical scheme looks like this:

HOLINESS IS THE VERY EXCELLENCY OF THE DIVINE NATURE--A. W. Pink.(1)
Isaiah 6 tells us that the Lord of hosts is holy, holy, holy. Why is this sort of statement stressed less that "God is love" from I John? Never is God called love, love, love. In Psalm 89:35, we see that God swears by His holiness. He never swears by His love, does He? Mr. Pink called the holiness of God "an excellency about all His other perfectgions" and "the glory of every perfection in the Godhead".(2)

The highest attribute of God is holiness. God's holiness is powerful, but it is also meek. His holiness is loving, but it is also wrathful. His holiness is sovereign, but humble. However, the opposite isn't true. His love is holy, but not impure. His power is holy, but not unholy. His sovereignty is holy, but not mixed with the common. All the attributes of God are balanced. Love and anger. Power and control. Mercy and justice. Righteousness and compassion. Knowledge and the determination to impute righteousness and forget sin in His beloved. Even His sovereignty humbles Itself to use the will of man to carry out the decree God made in whatever was before the foundation of the world. Not so holiness. Purity isn't balanced with impurity. It's ruined. It's no longer pure, but impure. Uniquensess isn't complemented by conformity. It is sullied. It's no longer unique. God is just holy, holy, holy.

YAHWEH IS THE ONLY HOLY GOD.
All other religions have a concept of the holy. That seems to be implanted in us. However, Yahweh is the only holy God. Other gods may be called holy by their followers, but they really aren't. They are very like the creation. First, they're created. Usually by man. We make them up or we follow created demons and call them gods. Second, their attributes are just human attributes exaggerated. They aren't seen as outside of time-space. They live in time-space. Yahweh is eternal and omnipresent. That means He is outside time-space. Apollo looked like a man and did things with his arms and legs just like you might do them if you were a cartoon. That's why idols are often statues. We take what little we know and rearrange it just so and call it Fred, God of Gerbals, Kangaroos, and Giraffes. And our neighbor makes Nora, Goddess of Bathwater and Navels. Another man takes a half horse and half man and creates something else in his imagination. Worse, a person goes to church and imagines a god who only loves people, never hates them for their sin, gets a job preaching and tells folks that he found this god in the Bible somewhere.

Our God is holy, holy, holy. Nobody is like Him.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.

(1)Pink, A. W.; The Attributes of God; Sovereign Grace Publishers; Lafayette, Indiana; copyright 2002 by Jay P. Greene Sr.; ISBN 1-58960-320-6; p. 43.
(2) ibid. p. 44.

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part II The Highest Attribute of God and the Death of Western Christianity

IS GOD LOVE?
Being raised in Modern Evangelicalism, I was taught the greatest attribute of God was love. Not much Scripture was given as evidence other than the old see-saw "God is love" and the two passages where these words are found in I John.

But how does Scripture label the trinity? God is love, according to I John, but is that the entire story? Is it the crowning characteristic? Is it even the main charachteristic? Or have we been short-changed? Have we misunderstood? Have we been lied to? I've been reading Pink lately, so here's what he said about the issue:

The unregenerate do not really believe in the holiness of God. Their conception of His character is altogether one-sided. They fondly hope that His mercy will override evertything else.--A. W. Pink. (1)

What is God? Starting with His name as revealed in Exodus, He is "I AM". Does I AM speak of love or of something else primarily?

Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"--Exodus 3:13-14.

What is the point of such an odd name? I'll list several.

1. God is eternal. "I AM." He can't tell us when He began or when He will complete. He simply is. No creature can say this. He is other.

2. God has no possible reference by which to describe Himself. He can't point to a clan, city, nation, or race. I am Philip Perkins of Billings, Montana. By saying this I define myself by things larger than I (city, state, nation, family)--something of which God isn't capable. He isn't from anything or any place. Even in terms of space-time, God is other.

3. God has no substance or essense that can describe Him familiar to human experience. I am a human, made of human flesh, blood, and soul. This is how I describe what I am. I can refer to other beings, processes, events, substances. God can't do that. He is other.

4. God can't describe Himself as shaped by any experience, since all history is cause by His very decree. I am the fellow who grew up on a farm, was raised by a certain family, went to certain schools, married a certain lady, acquired a BS in psychology and an M. Div. in theology, has owned a small business, designed a number of pieces of equipment, learned welding, machining, and some basics of mechanical engineering on my own, and am self-taught in Latin. God can say no such thing. He isn't the best carpenter in Nazareth--or the worst. He decided and there was wood and hands to shape the wood. He's God and that's about all one can say. He needs no experience because He knows all things. No experience can shape Him, because He is unchangable. He cannot be improved because He is perfect. He can't lose any perfection or have even one tarnished in the slightest degree because He is God. He can't say "I AM" shaped like this and so, and was changed by this experience. All He can say about His growth is "I AM" because He has had no progress to make upward because He is perfect and He can make no downward progress because He is God. No one else and nothing else is like that. He is other.

In God's own personal name, His otherness--His holiness is demonstrated as especially important. No one but God, when asked, "Who are you?" can actually say "I AM". Anyone else would have to identify himself/herself with references. God is the great reference point. All the other points come from His plan and His creation.

WHAT HOLINESS IS
There is little difference between the Greek and Hebrew words for holiness, so let's just stick to the English words involved for now. Depending on your translation the verbs meaning to make holy will be words like dedicate, consecrate, or sanctify. Other terms that are similar, but not cognates of the root words in Hebrew and Greek for holy will be words like separate or dedicate.

Nouns that indicate the process or act of becoming holy, the process or act of making something or someone holy, or the state or condition of being holy are words like holiness, dedication, consecration, and sanctification.

The actual words that translate directly from the Greek and Hebrew words for holy are holy and saint. These are descriptive terms called adjectives. Consecrated, dedicated, and sanctified are verbs that act like adjectives and are common in Scripture, but holy and saint are the first words to consider. While saint appears as a noun in the English, it's an adjective in the Greek and Hebrew. It means holy man or holy person. It's use is much like the English term the rich. Rich is an adjective and usually occurs in phrases like the rich people. We shorten that phrase, letting the adjective stand in for the entire phrase, saying the rich instead of the rich people. Saint translates the exact Greek adjective as holy. The biblical writers shortened the phrase to just the adjective just as we do in English with the poor, the tall, etc. Saint means holy man. Sanits means holy people.

The root words from the Greek and Hebrew are hagios in the Greek and qdsh, nzr, and hnkh in the Hebrew. The most important and common Hebrew root is qdsh. The denotations have a range that include separateness, separation, differentness, difference, set-apartness, or the quality of being dedicated for a certain role, function, or position, unmixed, apart from, untainted--in a word holiness.


HOLINESS AS A MAJOR THEME OF SCRIPTURE--Gentlemen, start your concordances.
I've already asked if the reader has heard a sermon on holiness lately. It's almost a joke, isn't it? Of course not. Many church goers have never heard a sermon on holiness and I'd be confident that the average church contains members, none of which have ever read even a small book on the subject. Go to your local religious book store and ask where is the section on sanctification. The fellow waiting on you won't even know what you mean.

So isn't holiness just another of the virtues God expects of us, along with about a dozen more? Isn't holiness just somewhere in the group. Certainly love is the crowning virtue of all virtues, right?

What if I told you, "No, holiness is the highest attribute of God and the highest virtue of men. You would reply, I suppose, that the two greatest commandments are to love God and then to love men. That's a good reply and a biblical one, but there is a problem with that thinking as it is practiced. The problem has to do with exactly what love is. I'll handle that in the next installment of this series, God willing.

For now, I'd like us to consider something that may shock many of you. Holiness is a small or non-existent theme in MEism, but it's actually a bigger theme than love in the Scripture. The words I listed as translations of the Hebrew and Greek roots for holy, holiness, and to make or be holy occur more times in the Scripture than similar words for love, loved, beloved, loves, and loving. Using an electronic concordance of the NASB, I found the words concerning love occur 731 times, while the words expressing the theme of holiness occur 830 times.

So what? Those are just numbers. Well, pick up an ME (Modern Evangelical) book and read. Listen to ME radio. Listen to ME sermons. Is the ratio in modern preaching, writing, songs, and church services even close to just one to one? Is it close to two to one? Ten to one?

Nowhere close.

We are out of balance with Scripture.

"But," you may object, "holiness is a major theme of the Old Testament, not the New Testament. These days are days of grace, not holiness and judgment." While that objection is certainly typical ME, it's NOT BIBLICAL. Out of the 611 occurences of holy (including saint), 422 occur in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is 72-73% of the Bible. Now, to be just propostional at 72%, the OT SHOULD have 440 occurences of holy.

That means that you are more likely to find the word holy more quickly reading in the New Testament than in the Old Testament!!!!!! Yet, how many times have we been taught that holiness, righteousness, law, and wrath are the purview of the Old Testament?

We've been lied to.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins

(1)Pink, A. W.; The Attributes of God; Sovereign Grace Publishers; Lafayette, Indiana; copyright 2002 by Jay P. Greene Sr.; ISBN 1-58960-320-6; p. 46.

COMING FRIDAY:
PART III OF THE LOST DOCTRINE--The Names of God.
God is love or God is holy, holy, holy. Since God is both, Why is His Spirit called Holy? Why isn't He called the Loving Spirit?

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part I The Attribute That Defines God

UNHEARD OF.
You've seen the word in Scripture if you read the Bible. It's a doctrine/practice that is neither taught nor practiced in the Modern Evangelical church. This Lost Doctrine is so essential that the biblical concept of God's people isn't possible without it. When God brought the people out of Egypt this doctrine/practice was the reason for it. Even the concept of the biblical God isn't possible without this Lost Doctrine. A. W. Pink said this doctrine is the premier attribute of God and all other attributes of God are governed by it. (1)

Almost certainly, you've never heard a sermon on this doctrine. In fact, if you're a pastor, you'll be ridiculed roundly in the ME movement if you preach this Lost Doctrine. You will be avoided and black balled in many circles of "Christians". Your congregation is likely to be much smaller than if you ignore it and you will be hated very deeply by others in your chosen profession.

This doctrine is so pervasive in biblical thought that if one were to cut out all verses which refer to it, many biblical stories would be unintelligible. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would be destroyed. They would be much shorter, too. This doctrine and its practice is essential to salvation and without it, no one will ever know God and the Bible uses just that sort of language about it. This practice is the very mark that shows who belongs to God and who doesn't.

This doctrine is huge in both Old and New Covenants, but its practice was changed from the OC to the NC.

I've called this the "Lost Doctrine" because it has been forgotten by many older lay people and many younger ones have never heard of it, but it might be better called the Ignored Doctrine. Beginning with the emergence of the ME movement, the practice of this doctrine has been systematically opposed by many clergy and religious leaders.

If you think I'm starting to sound like Joseph Smith, bringing in new doctrines that I SAY were forgotten but I really made up out of thin air, ask yourself this question: When was the last time you heard a sermon on holiness? Can you articulate the New Covenant practice of holiness? I don't ask questions like this to make you feel bad or stupid or inferior. I ask to make you worry and to motivate you to study the Scripture for yourselves to see if I'm right and if all you've heard and been taught is right. And I ask questions like this to make you distrust all teachers, including me, and check the Bible. Paul liked that sort of thing. Remember the Bereans?

THE ATTRIBUTE THAT DEFINES GOD.
It isn't love. It's holiness. Sound familiar? Not if you've spent a lot of time in MEism. MEism says it's the other way round. God is love. Legalism is the summum baddum of all of life. Soft is good. Harsh is bad.

The definition of holiness is pretty much the same, Old Testament or New Testament. At root, it's separateness, otherness, different-ness. By both logical and natural consequence it is also purity. (2) (3)

In all of reality nothing and no one is more other than God. Only God is non-contingent, self-existent, and uncreated. Only God is without limit. All creatures know by conforming their thoughts to reality. Only God knows by creating reality that is absolutely conformed to His thoughts. Creatures are righteous when they conform to a moral law outside themselves. Only God is independent of all laws. Only God has righteousness because He is righteous. All creatures have righteousness by imitating God's character or by imputation. That is to say, God has no need to conform His character to a moral law. Moral law is moral because it conforms to His character. Righteousness is described when one describes His nature and righteousness is righteous because it is how God is. A common misconception that is easily made is the confusion of righteousness with holiness. This is natural because to be holy to a righteous God, will cause the holy creatures to be much more righteous than those creatures not holy to this righteous God.

God's omnipotence is part of His otherness. His omniscience is part of His otherness. His otherness is Him. He can be nothing but other because everything else is created by Him, dependent upon Him, judged by Him, and has no purpose other than the purpose He gives it. Any creature that seeks its only glory is evil. God seeks His own glory because He is worthy of glory just because He is God.

If you have a copy of A. W. Pink's The Attributes of God, take a few minutes this evening to read the chapter on holiness. It will be a good reminder for us older folks, an introduction for you younger folks.

Part II will deal with holiness as the attribute of all the other attributes of God. This will be a very long series, with other posts in between. Patience will be needed, but this doctrine is key to understanding God properly as He revealed Himself to us. It is also key to the restoration of the gospel in the West. Why don't we fear God? Because we forgot His holiness.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1) Pink, A. W.; The Attributes of God; Sovereign Grace Publishers; Lafayette, Indiana; copyright 2002 by Jay P. Green, Sr.; ISBN 1-58960-320-6; p. 44.
(2) Erickson, Millard J.; Christian Theology, vol. 1; Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1983; ISBN 0-8010-3391-8; pp. 284-285.
(3) Grudem, Wayne; Systematic Theology; Zondervan; Grand Rapids, Michigan; copyright 1994 by Wayne Grudem; ISBN 0-310-28670-0; pp. 201-202.