LEST YOU THINK WE AREN'T IN A MENTAL GHETTO

Before my hiatus, I did a series on the abysmal state of biblical knowledge in the religious clubs we most often call churches. I hit pretty hard, but recently I did something I've had in mind for sometime. I downloaded the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, the Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Canons of Dordt.

They make great reference material for a number of reasons, one of which is to get the perspective of men not tainted by the spirit of our times. (They were tainted by the spirit of their times, of course.)

One great lesson, though, came to me in spades: WE KNOW NOTHING!!!!!!

Some of these documents were hundreds of pages. The Westminster Larger Catechism had 1303 sets of proof verses with which to be familiar. Yes, that's right. Not 1303 proof verses, but 1303 SETS of proof verses. Each set varied from 1 to maybe 4 or 5 verses. Some had more. Yet, we're told by so many that we know too much Bible and should stop studying so much and all the yada yada about "knowledge puffs up" (the only verse memorized these days, it seems).

That's a lie.

Be Holy,
Phil Perkins.

HIATUS OVER

This is part apology and part explanation. Mostly explanation. This spring in April, my work schedule was hijacked. I worked 60 hours a week. At that point I was told to expect that for two weeks to two months. Well, here we are. I'm back down to 40 hours and have been for some time, but I had a choice. I could blog or I could study Scripture.

And to be honest, while the blogging simply stopped, the studying of Scripture suffered as well. Currently I am in I Samuel and Luke. I read some in Hebrew Bible and some in Greek Bible, trading off to keep practiced and fresh in both languages. I am expanding my vocab in Hebrew, learning a lot of Modern Hebrew.

Phil Perkins.

DOCTRINAL STATEMENT TO COME FOR JTB INSTITUTE

Blogging is one thing. Teaching is another. So, in preparation for starting classes in Just The Bible Institute, it would be wrong not to offer a doctrinal statement. My doctrine is right in line with the Baptist Confession of 1689, with two exceptions. First, I don't believe that Christians are bound by Scripture to practice Sunday "sabbath" at all. And neither does any modern pastor. If one says he does, simply ask him at Sunday service who is going to make his lunch this fine "Lord's Day". Watch him squirm. It reminds of that passage about a man's belly being his god. Either he expects his wife to sin or he will pay a cook, waitress, and dishwasher to sin. In addition, I would recommend the following four passages for consideration:

1. Romans 14:1--6. This needs no explanation. Simply read it. The only commandment here in regard to the practice of keeping sabbaths is not to make it an issue one way or another. This is the kind of judging prohibited in Scripture.

2. John 16:2. This is a word from Jesus to His disciples. If they were kicked out of the synagogues, weren't they originally worshipping on Saturday? Were they sinning? At the very least, this shows convincingly that early Christians continued meeting on Saturdays with their Hebrew brethren until the unsaved Hebrews kicked out those who followed Jesus for their insistent worship of Him.

3. Acts 13--22. Here Paul met with his Hebrew brethren and worshipped God there. When it was the proper time in the service, he spoke of the Messiah Who came and was the Lamb. Did he sin? Was he feigning worship?

4. Heberws 4, especially verses 9--10 and compare to Hebrews 10:26--31. The sabbath of the New Covenant is rest from works for salvation. Forsaking this sabbath results in irrevokable eternal death.

Please note that I will not separate if someone disagrees with me here and neither will I argue about it beyond what is necessary to make clear that I am following my conscience, guided by my best current understanding of Scripture and this post should do that. Also note that I do NOT deny the Scriputral command to meet regularly with other holy ones and if one wished to do so on Sunday, that's absolutely fine. Why not?

Second, I don't believe that baptism has to be by dunking. Any washing will do. For this, I would remind you that if following the exact mode of this ritual is essential, did you wear sandals to your baptism and do it outside in a pond, lake, or river? If not, are you ready to do a redo? And do you reenact the Last Supper? Do you make everyone get on one side of the table for pictures?
For positive biblical indication that baptism includes washings that are far less that total immersion, read Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38. But do so in the original. You may be surprised.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

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

CURRENT AND SCARYWhy 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 affected 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, by way of bolstering 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

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 that it has to be expressed by a special adjective He gave us to describe Him--Holy, Holy, Holy. Holiness is that characteristic of God that names His 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 holiness, 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 Godness 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 like Einstein? 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 thousands of years 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, such as His power, mercy, omniscience, etc. "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.

In other words, God loves just because He has decreed it so. His love is uncaused and free. It is like no other love. Even His love is holy.

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 any way whatsoever, except that both are love, but of very different kinds. 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, limited, 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 perfections" 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 other 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. If it is, 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 space-time. They live space-time. Yahweh is eternal and omnipresent. That means He is outside space-time. 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-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. He is complete, always was complete, and always will be complete. 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 famaliar to human experience that can describe Him. 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 reference point for everything else. 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 noun, saying the rich instead of the rich people. Saint translates the exact Greek adjective for 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. If God is equally 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 own 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.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part X

For the shepherds have become stupid And have not sought the LORD; Therefore they have not prospered, And all their flock is scattered. The prophecy of Jermiah, chapter ten, verse twenty-one.

He slumps at the bar. Or he laughs too louldly by the pool table. Or he flirts too much with too many of the girls at the bar. He intended to drink only two or three beers. It's quarter to one and he has to be at work at six. He turned of his cell three hours ago so his wife can't call him again.

FINALLY THE END--Part X.
When I started this series I was like the drunk. I thought it'd go two, maybe three installments. But as I dug and thought and read, the devastation done by the avoidance of precise thought in favor of the emotive and mystical has weighed and weighed on my mind. It's a desparately evil thing. I hope I've exposed well a tooth or two of this animal. I hope I've motivated one or two to strive to think biblical thoughts in biblical categories with biblical vocabulary. I hope I've comforted one or two who have been persecuted for doing it. I hope I've helped all of you to laugh at the Swami of Smarminess at prayer meeting or Sunday School. I hope you laugh up your sleeve the next time the church lady (or the fellow who wished he was more like a lady because he thinks Jesus was) looks down her long, stiff Pharisee nose at you and says you're not nearly as loving as she thinks she is------I hope the next time that happens you have a hard time not laughing. I hope the next time someone tells you that doctrine isn't important you ask them where they found that doctrine in the Bible and if they think it's really important to believe the dontrine-isn't-important doctrine. Then I hope your accuser gets embarrassed for saying something so stupid. I hope you ignore anyone who tells you this sort of thing as irrelevant. I hope you pray that their influence be quenched. I hope you pray that such folks get saved. I hope you fall more in love with Scripture and the God Who revealed it every day. More and more and more and more and more.

That's why I couldn't shut up.

THE MENTAL GHETTO ONE MORE TIME.
For those of you who may be new, this is the tenth and last of a series on the MENATAL GHETTO. You can read about it by following the link provided. Briefly, the MENTAL GHETTO is the idea that doctrine isn't important, sensitive is better than true, feeling is better than knowing, and the praise band is a ministry. I call it a ghetto because it's like the real ghetto in most American cities. It's a horrible place to be, but getting out means turning off the TV, putting away the bong, taking a shower, and filling out jobs aps. As long as a pittance of money stolen by government from working people comes in, it's tolerable. In the MENTAL GHETTO, everyone knows they don't know much about the Bible, but pastors, other congregants, even our closest friends don't hold us accountable. Few church goers can name six of the ten commandments, but never will you hear anyone rebuked for this appalling ignorance in an ME (Modern Evangelical) institution. We get away with it. Studying the Bible is hard. What's even harder is the change that biblical knowledge will require from those who come to possess it. So folks stay in the MENTAL GHETTO.

It's easier.

SENSITIVITY AS A SIN IN SCRIPTURE--MALACHI.
The clergy need their faces smeared with manure. Who would make such a vulgar suggestion? God said that. Malachi's job was to pass this message along to the folks and their shepherds, the Levitical priests.

In Malachi 2, God addresses the shepherds of Israel. Like all the prophets dealing with the descendants of Jacob, Malachi was an officer of the court. God sent Malachi to serve papers on Israel, but this section is not to all of Israel. It was just to the Levites. The papers served usually named the ways in which the people of Israel or Judah had violated the Covenant of Sinai. The papers for the Levites had to do with the covenant God made with Levi's descendants. He promised them the priesthood. In Numbers 3 God told Moses that only the Levites could attend to the tabernacle. All others would die if they tried. In return, the Levites were to be completely owned by God through Aaron, in Numbers 3:9. This special favor and wonderful privilege was to be repaid with absolute fidelity.

The Levites had broken the contract. They were not exact in the instruction of the Law of God. Here is Malachi 2:1-9 in the NASB:

1 "And now, this commandment is for you, O priests.
2 "If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name," says the LORD of hosts, "then I will send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart.
3 "Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it.
4 "Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant may continue with Levi," says the LORD of hosts.
5 "My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of reverence; so he revered Me, and stood in awe of My name.
6 "True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity.
7 "For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
8 "But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi," says the LORD of hosts.
9 "So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways, but are showing partiality in the instruction."

By the time of Malachi, the judgment had been set. This was not a prophecy of warning. Judgment was ordered. The time for repentance was gone. The Hebrews were about to go through 400 years of silence from God. These were probably His last words to that generation and the first nine verses of chapter two were His last words to the clergy before their damnation came upon them. Read the first two verses. "I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart," God said. What had they not taken to heart? The first part of verse two tells us. "...you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name..."

The priests had another priority and it didn't involve being wholly given to God. Any preacher who preaches for any reason other than to glorify God by being absolutely faithful to His word is sinning the sin of the Levites of Malachi's prophecy.

I don't get to preach much in churches. The story is always the same. "You're too harsh." "Can't you be positive?" "Why do you always preach judgment?" In short, I'm not sensitive to the feelings of my hearers.

The preacher of God isn't supposed to care about the feelings of his hearers. He's supposed to be given precisely and totally to God. The Levitical Covenant in Numbers puts it this way in verse nine: "You shall thus give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons; they are wholly given to him from among the sons of Israel."

See the words "they are wholly given"? Literally, word-for-word, it could be rendered, "...given ones, given ones are they..." THAT'S emphatic. That's pointed. The next two phrases are important, too. First is "to him". "Him" refers to Aaron. In other words, the Levites were given to the work of the ministry. Then comes the contrast, "...from among the sons of Israel." The idea here is that there is a distinct consecration of the Levites. Men called to minister are distinct from others. They are not the same. Are all the saints given wholly to God? Yes, but there's a special responsibility preachers have that no one else has. Their job isn't to be given to the congregation. They're God's. Only God's feelings are the preacher's concern. Men are incidental. And that's appropriate even if only the love of our fellow man is considered, since the very Word of God is life to the soul. The feelings of a man are no more important to the preacher than the pain of a patient to a surgeon. The limb must be amputated or the man dies. For the man of God, only the accurate preaching of God's word is a concern of real consequence.

Going too far? See another passage having to do with the work of presenting God's truth to men. The task of the prophet is delineated in Deuteronomy 18. This is a key passage for understanding all of Scripture, but one ignored by far too many. The reason it's so important is it's centrality to the understanding of just how any man is to relate to the word of God, preacher or not. This passage is pivotal and precursive to II Timothy 3:16 and 17. Without II Timothy 3 and Psalm 119, we would still have the doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the necessity of Scripture in Deuteronomy 18. It even gives the foundation for order in the church. All that needs to be added to the plain teaching of Deuteronomy 18 to achieve all this is the inspiration of Scripture.

Let's take a look at just a wee bit of this passage. Verses 18-20 read like this:

18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

Did you notice the part about how the prophet is to consult the feelings of his hearers when deciding what to say and how to say it? I didn't either. There is one and only one criterion for deciding what to say: "...he shall speak to them all that I command him." There isn't much to consider, is there? Just say what God has said. That's all. It's simple. Either you do it or you don't.

Back to Malachi--the Levites were under God's coming judgment simply because their guiding principle was something other than God's glory. That other agenda was the "lifting of faces". Look at verse nine. The NASB and most translations say "showing partiality". Literally, it's "lifting faces". Their sin was lifting faces instead of giving honor to the name of God as prescribed in verse two. That, by the way, is the essence of the declarative side of the gospel. Bragging about God is an essential part of evangelism. See Psalm 145 for that and cross reference the first verses of I Corinthians 15. (The imperative side of the gospel is the command to repent and believe.)

"Showing partiality" isn't a bad translation. It's appropriate since that is the idiomatic meaning of "lifting faces". "Lifting faces" is commonly associated with taking bribes, too, in Scripture. See Job 34:19, Proverbs 28:21, and II Chronicles 19:7. I think it's interesting, though, that the Spirit chose the idiom "lifting faces". The Hebrews understood something. We read each other. When we please someone, they look up and their eyes brighten. As one who has taught, I can tell you with confidence a teacher knows when he has his audience. When the faces are up and bright, your audience likes what they're hearing.

But there's often a trade to be made to get this result. Men who respect the feelings of others don't fear God and don't know the wonder of God. They don't know God. Verse five. And in verses six through eight, we read that such men no longer speak the truth to men.

The dishonest preacher preaches based on what will lift the faces of his audience. It can be very manipulative. Malachi tells us just what God thinks about such men. He will smear feces on their faces, disrespect their religious service, curse their children, and throw them away with the feces produced by the eating that took place at their feasts. Verse three says, "Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it." This a picture of being thrown in the dump outside of the city, a biblical figure of damnation.

Of course this is figurative. Yet, just how nasty a picture must God paint for us to understand His hatred for those who shade the truth to please others? How disgusting a story must He tell to make us understand the damnation that awaits the pastor who is nice, but not true? Evil preachers preach to make congregants look up and smile.

What a small bribe to accept for your soul!

EXAMPLES OF SENSITIVE HYPOCRITES.
I thought I'd end this series with just three examples I've had right here at this blog and some of the blogs I've read lately. These are Evangelical "Christians" who have become very sensitive and been lead into all sorts of sin as a result. I won't give their real or full names, because I don't want to confuse the issue. Chances are you could easily give dozens of similar examples, too, so I'll make it short--just be assured that you're not crazy all those times you wondered why such sensitive folks hate so much. You're not alone.

In the previous section we looked at some Scripture having to do with sensitivity and how it can actually be a sin. "But the passages had to do with paritiality, didn't they?" Yes, but excessive sensitivity is just part of partiality. The two are inseparable and that's part of the hypocrisy of the sensitive. As these examples will show, sensitivity is seldom blind. The preacher who pleases men will always please the most important men. That's how they get and keep their jobs, after all. Even if sensitivity to the feelings of men could be practiced with complete equality among the hearers of the preacher, the preacher is supposed to be partial to God, not men. When God tells us to speak and we change what we say to accomodate men are we not being partial to men over God?

Be that as it may, the sensitive (in my experience) have never been truly even handed. They are never sensitive to the feelings of those they deem intolerant and insensitive. Demonstrate a love for biblical truth over human relationship as Scripture commands and watch as your character is assassinated, ridiculed, and all the wonderfully sensitive hate you and your family. They have a cause and anyone who opposes it are to be despised, no matter how they feel about it.

Example 1.
After my post exposing the doctrinal problems of Henry Blackaby, "Anonymous" called me and all who read my posts "fools". In those posts, the underlying biblical doctrine I defended against Blackaby was the sufficiency of Scripture. That's pretty basic. Yet, "Anonymous" chewed me out good. I should get back to "basic Bible teaching", according to him.

How basic can you get? "Trust the Bible alone" is where one starts when teaching the Bible isn't it? Pretty close, I'd say. "Anonymous" accused me of being insensitive and called me a fool. No hypocrisy here, huh? Then he ended with a request. He wanted to know if the Bible allowed for a special sexual sin he had interest in. According to "Anonymous" the answer to whether or not we could find a way to approve of his lust was "basic Bible teaching". The adquacy of the Bible isn't.

Mind-boggling.

Example 2. I recently nailed a false teacher very popular among some in the Evangelical community. He has publicly held the "Wider Mercy" doctrine for decades. That doctrine says that one doesn't have to even hear the name of Jesus or know what the gospel is to be saved. Buddhists can remain Buddhists and go to heaven. The same is true of Mormons, Muslims, and atheists. A fellow named "Randy" was very offended. I wasn't sensitive. I was wrong. I emailed him with passages of Scripture laying out the problem with that position and quotes from the false teacher. He actually admitted I was right, but told me I shouldn't say it because it made too many people too mad. When I asked him if he thought it was consistent to tell me I was right, but shouldn't be allowed to say it, he hung up on the conversation and made it clear I was not welcome in his life.........EVER.

Interestingly, "Randy" claimed to be in full time ministry and offered that as evidence that he was right, or at least that I should be sensitive enough to him to let him remain in his sin. But when I checked his profile, he works in government.

How does this happen?

Example 3. Related to the story of "Randy" is another. In this story "John" had plugged a member of the ministry team of the false teacher mentioned above. I had read "John's" blog regularly. I enjoyed his defense of the faith against doctrines like the "Wider Mercy" doctrine advocated by the likes of theological liberals and Emergents. He has done so for a long time with good humor and frankness. However, when one of his heroes believed the very same false doctrine pushed by the groups he rightly opposes, I was not allowed to object against the very doctrine "John" so correctly hates. I wasn't sensitive to a hero of his.

Sensitivity is almost always sensitivity for only a special group. It is always partial. It is never honest. But it does very well at stopping biblical and logical thought. Is there a biblical role for sensitivity? Yes, in our personal dealings. But it can never make a difference when we speak truth.

THE LAST WORD AND A WARNING.
I hope you've profited by this series. I have, simply by digging in the Scripture and thinking things through.

Here's a warning that I'd like to humbly offer: After all this talk of precise thought and achieving biblical knowledge, it's good to remember that smart doesn't equal righteous. The most effective false teachers are geniuses. NEVER look down your nose at someone who may or may not be as smart as you are. If you're right and that person isn't as sharp as you, remember two things. 1. That person is your brother or sister. Be kind and care for them. Gently teach them, pray for them, and respect them. 2. If they're more faithful to what they do know than you are to what you know, you'll work for them in the next life. God ain't partial.

If you've read any of this, thank you. I consider it a privilege to be heard. God bless you and yours.

Be holy and pray that I do, too,
Phil Perkins.

THINK BIBLICAL THOUGHTS IN BIBLICAL CATEGORIES WITH BIBLICAL VOCABULARY!

UPCOMING EBATE?--Frank Turk Might Not Defend

Some time ago, Frank Turk came here to defend the practice of changing gender references in Bible translations for no linguistic reason at all. For instance, some translations have changed "brothers" to "brothers and sisters". This is a very new practice, not indicated by the language or the text and some say it's motivated by pleasing feminists, female pastors, and homosexual groups. In fact, Frank used to say that. But now one of his friends thinks it okay. So, Frank thinks it's just fine now and if you have a problem with it, you're a stupid fundamentalist who drools in your grits wears a straw hat, lives in some rural place not nearly good enough for learned folks like him, walks barefoot, chews stems of wild grass, and deserve to die a slow and painful death because you smell bad, couldn't possibly be educated, don't know the languages, only read the King James, and aren't nearly as cool, hip, and spiffy as he is, and you're messing up the gene pool too, YOU STUPID HILLBILLY, YOU!!!!!

Oh, yeah--you're an unloving bigot, too, and he's not.

Well, now he doesn't seem to want to debate anyomre.

Hummmmmm.

Oh, but wait! He REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY DOES WANT TO DEBATE!!!

Yeah, he really does. He says so..................as long as he runs the debate and has control over how much evidence I can bring in. Too much evidence in his words will make it a "feud". So evidence is bad. Yup, only bigoted, stupid, bakka-chewing, snake-hanlin, fundies git all stuck on eveedents, I guess. What really smart folks want is as little evidence as possible. It allows much more freedom of thought, you know.

Hummmmmmm. What to do, what to do...

So this is my public request for Frank Turk to be man enough to keep his word.

Frank, I don't mind if you're too busy right now or if you'd like time to do research. That's absolutely fair. We can schedule it a year from now, but keep your word or admit you don't want to keep your word. I haven't hidden or run from you.

Phil Perkins. PS--If you call yourself a fundamentalist or not, you're welcome here any time you wish. You won't be derided, subjected to the bigotry of folks like Frank Turk. The same goes for anyone. The only people derided here are those who purposely lie, no matter what they call themselves or even believe.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part IX The Sin, the Outright Hypocrisy of Sensitivity.

SOME INTERESTING DEFINITIONS. (From The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1992.)
sen-si-tive adj. 1. able to respond to a stimulus, sensitive to light 2. able to respond to a very slight stimulus, a snesitive instrument 3. keenly aware of the moods and feelings of others 4. easily hurt emotionally, too readily affected by the feelings or imagined feelings of others in regard to oneself, sensitive to criticism...

sen-si-tiv-i-ty n. the state or quality of being sensitive

sensitivity group n. participants in a therapeutic group designed to promote understanding of personal emotions

sensitivity training n. a program designed to sharpen individual awareness

touch-y adj. 1. apt to be easily offended 2. apt to cause offense, a touchy subject

SENSITIVE OR TOUCHY--A Lesson in Logic, Language, and Lying.
Here's a lesson in human nature, language, and logic all roled into one. Notice definitions, 3 and 4 of sensitive. They're the same except that number four admits the negative side, meaning the same as touchy. We do this all the time. Big boned or fat. Challenged or stupid. Complex or immoral. Mistake or sin. Simpler times or back before we all became self-centered lechers. Teenage struggles or rebellion. Pro-choice or in favor of killing kids. Liberal or socialistic. All these pairs can be used synonomously, but they give quite different vibes, don't they?

There's a difference between denotation and connotation. A word, term, or phrase denotes its dictionary definition. The connotation is quite different, though. Connotation is the subtle, emotive sense that comes along side the word's definition, often connoting moral value.

We choose our words carefully to protect our egos and sooth our consciences. It's human nature. We're sinners and we don't like saying it or hearing it. One needs to look behind the language to what is being said in simple, factual terms. Sometimes it pays to take the time and say the same thing with different words. Sometimes it'll shake you to your toes.

Pro-choice and in favor of killing the unborn both denote the state or quality of being pro-abortion. But their connotations are vastly different. One connotes open-mindedness, freedom, and liberality. The other calls someone a murderer. Look for this sort of thing and your discernment skills will be vastly enhanced.

That's what unbelieving church-goers have done. Self-centeredness of the basest, most immature kind is now called "sensitivity". Jesus said that we're to deny ourselves. MEism says we're to worry ourselves about our self-esteem and that of others. Sensitivity is the attempt to never hurt anyone's sef-esteem. It is the worship of the emotional--the deification of the heart.

God hates it.

Jeremiah said the heart is a liar in 17:9. Now no one can call another a liar because it hurts our hearts. We feel bad and that fact is enough to stop any reproof, except the reproof of the reprover.

SENSITIVITY IN SCRIPTURE.
So, are we ever told in Scripture to be sensitive to the feelings of others. Yes, we are. But it isn't a major theme of Scripture. In fact, valuing another's feelings over their spiritual welfare is often the most unloving thing one can do. Jesus told everyone He met they were sinners in need of repentance to avoid God's eternal punishment. That was His theme. Matthew 4:17. He never went preaching sensitivity. In fact, He hurt so many feelings they killed Him.

The insidious effect of today's emphasis on sensitivity is to squelch factual communication of truth. It stops thought in regard to sin, righteousness, and judgment. If sensitivity is all important, then every statement about sin can be trashed because it hurts someone's feelings. Every commandment God has uttered is subject to man's commandment to never hurt the self-esteem of anyone. There is no commandment that can be uttered that can't be objected to under the color of sensitivity. All egos must be protected from the commandments of that nasty, insensitive Hebrew God.

Facts don't matter and thought stops.

And that's the point.

SENSITIVITY HYPOCRITES--The New Pharisees.

Who were the Pharisees? They were those lousy old men who were such white-knuckled Bible-thumpers that they hated Jesus because Jesus wasn't so uptight about following every little thing in Scripture. Right? They were all legalistic. Right?

No. That's a lie.

Jesus said that the Pharisees did two sins in Matthew 23 and neither had anything to do with being too in love with God's Laws or His Scripture.

1. Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites, saying things that may be right, but not doing the things they asked others to do. They were hypocrites. He said, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them."

2. Jesus said the Pharisees enjoyed holding themselves up as superior over others. He said, "And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men..." Holier than thou is now softer than you.
Doesn't that sound like the Mother Superiors of Sensitivity? "You're harsh!" "Don't judge!" "Be sensitive." They judge; you're not supposed to. They judge you for judging them because judging is wrong, unless you're one of them. They're loving. You're not. You just can't measure up. You're just not sappy enough. You're legalistic. They're not. Remember that. It's a law of nature in their world.

The Tolerance-Nazis really are hypocrites, too. And the whole idea is to prevent one from actually thinking. Tomorrow I'll end this series with three examples of the Sensitivity Police and how they act when they think now one's listening. You can decide if they keep their own commandments or not.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--For a humorous look at these new Pharisees, read here.

WHY WE NEED ODMS

I recently did a series on the sins of ODMs, not as an enemy. I tried to make it clear why I think ODMs are right to do what they do. They serve a very real purpose and the work they do is godly. We ought to thank them.

However, there's a very real reason we can't do without them. That reason is the speed with which false teachers are appearing on the scene. When Walter Martin wrote his books, books were enough. Books did the job well. That's not possible any more. Now we need something fast to publish and faster to read.

And THAT'S why we now need the ODMs.

Just a thought.
Phil Perkins.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part VIII The Sins of Intellectual Freedom and Lazy Preachers.

REVIEW.

If you've not read the articles on the MENTAL GHETTO I define the Mental Ghetto as the condition common in Evangelical America. That condition is the purposeful ignorance of biblical things. I call this on-purpose ignorance aphronism. The folks in the pew like this condition because hard thought and study aren't required. Clergy like it because they don't have to strive for accuracy and they are allowed to teach just about anything. Corporate "Christianity" likes it because they can keep selling books, music, t-shirts, conferences, and baubles that biblically-informed folks would never touch. So the Ghetto Bosses have a lot to lose if the folks in the pews get wise. And those folks seem to like napping. The ghettos in American cities are populated by folks who get money to stay there and do so because they are lazy. Their enablers are politicians who sell the tax money of hard working folks for votes from lazy folks. The Mental Ghetto is populated by folks who'd rather watch TV than do Bible study. The enablers are preachers who don't want to hold them accountable or be held accountable by them. The pimps are Corporate Christianity in the form of pulbishers, conferences, the music industry and preachers who thrive in an environment where the market is full of folks who don't know much about Scripture and don't care much about the little they do know.

THE SIN OF APHRONISM IN THE PULPIT. Mentally lazy preachers dishonor God and deceive the folks.
A. W. Pink lived from 1886 to 1952 and he disrespected his preaching peers greatly for the sin of aphronism. He said that he and others like him made "the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teachings of others." (1) So, too, I disrespect the typical ME preacher. Only a very few are godly men doing God's work.

Too strong? Let me lay out some facts from my own experience, many of which you will be able to confirm from yours with only a little reflection. The best preachers preach out of the Greek or at least study the passages for their sermons in the Greek. And when we hear fellows like this, telling us what the text means in the original, we all know we are hearing one of the better workmen filling our pulpits. But wait.

Why only Greek?

Simple. Greek's easier. Greek covers only 27% of Scripture. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Why ignore 72-73% of the Bible? The pattern is skewed for our young preachers-to-be. They hear the Greek expounded, never the Hebrew. As a result, the language many of our schools offer is the Greek alone. They do this to get enrollment up. Money and numbers matter more than obedience. If they demanded that young men learn to read the entire Scripture, some would flunk and some would go to another, easier school. Fewer students means fewer dollars and a lesser stature in their denomination and the ME "church" in general. So they're not about to do the right thing. Isn't it logical to learn Hebrew first? The first Scriptures were written in Hebrew. In order to properly understand the New Covenant, don't we need to know the Old Covenant? How do you recognize a Hebraism in the NT if you don't know Hebrew literature? Indeed, most ME preachers don't understand ekklesia (church) because they've never studied qahal and eydah. A common error is that God's church started in Acts. I didn't. It started in Exodus. But since the OT is seldom sermonized or studied, few know that. The old time commentators knew that. Why don't we? Ancient Israel was constantly called God's bride and spoken about as the wife of Yahweh, committing adultery when she openly sinned. Yet, if you ask the typical ME preacher or member when the bride of Christ started or what it is, they will answer the "church", meaning the believing Gentiles from the time of Acts. They've been told that by lazy preachers who know neither their Bibles nor their history.

Did you know that the bride metaphor occurs only once in the NT, but many times in the OT? Probably not. Blame your pastor. Correct him at your own risk.

And if you think misunderstanding the Hebrew nature of the concept of ekklesia isn't important, you're wrong. Because many see the church as Gentile, many deny the restoration of Israel or even practice spiritual or political antisemitism. We aren't better than the Jews, nor are we their replacement in history. We are'nt a new thing. We are grafted into the old thing. We serve the Hebrew God. WE'RE the redheaded stepchildren, not the Jews. Read Romans 9-11.

Worse still, there are many, many pastors who learned Greek and/or Hebrew in school, but have allowed them to become rusty. I can't even relate to these guys. What are they doing in their study time? Having been given the privilege and responsibility to speak for God to men, they're nonchalant? Why aren't they straining every nerve to be accurate? Inaccuracy was a capital offense in the OT. Read Deuteronomy 18. How can a man be indifferent to that and pretend to be godly? Is this not a sham? It's worse than a sham. It's fraud. When a young man comes to a church and gives his credentials, which include the languages, he ought to use the languages. If he gets hired with these claims, and then doesn't even use the languages, he is defrauding the folks hiring him.

Even worse than "worse still", there are many preachers who've made no effort to learn the languages at all. If God called them to preach, fine. But, in a day when one can buy a grammar and get to work or even learn on the internet, why are they still reading only translations instead of Scripture itself?

There is even need for a caution about expositional preaching. Expositional preaching is an effort to mine the word of God. There's nothing wrong with it and the motivations that have popularized it in so many circles are the most godly imaginable. Preachers and pastors who do exposition from the pulpit are some of the finest we have. However, there's also a danger.

The danger in expositional preaching is an accidental myopia. The nature of the NT epistles is compact and doctrinal. Indeed, a preacher can easily find one verse that could be preached for months without exhausting it. But, it's wise to remember three things. First, even the epistles were letters to be read to a congregation orally. The aim, then was to present a doctrinal argument, detailed as the epistles are, in a single reading. That being so, it cannot logically or biblically be said that a simple reading of chapters or entire books at a time without comment to a church isn't profitable. The congregation will be spiritually fed and served if all that is done is a reading of Romans. Of course, it's quite a question if there is any congregation in America so interested in just Scripture that they'd listen long enough to do that.

Second, most of the Bible isn't compact doctrine, but narrative. Some is poetry. Some is apocalyptic. OLD Testament narrative is full of doctrine. Exodus doesn't expound a single doctrine. But it puts on brilliant display the doctrines of sovereignty, the holiness of God, corporate holiness, individual holiness, redemption, salvation, mercy, forgiveness, the responsibility of man under the sovereignty of God, and even the doctrine of the church. As a result of doing only expostion, some preachers seldom teach from the Old Testament, Acts, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, OT history, or the Gospels. This has led to deficits like the one mentioned above.

Third, even in the compact, doctrinal epistles, the overview is often lost on the congregation. The end result is two-fold. 1. The listeners often remain ignorant of the theme or general argument of a book and its place in the historical narrative and theology of Scripture even after hearing the preacher expose the entire book. 2. The listener actually learns to view a particular verse without reference to its immediate context, its context in the argument or narrative of the book, and the place it holds in the context of Scripture as a whole.

I'll end this section with a story. I know someone whom I consider one of the best in MEism. He is in full time ministry. I have urged him from time to time to "think biblically". And from time to time he has told me of his irritation with hearing that. Yet, he didn't understand the parable of the wheats and tares. Many preachers have misapplied the parable from Matthew 13 to mean that folks can't be kicked out of the church. What happened? He listened much to other preachers without reading the parable and Jesus' explanation later in chapter 13, just like A. W. Pink said most preachers did even in his day. And Pink was right to call it laziness.

There are many things plain to our forefathers which seem mysterious to ME preachers. How many could name the covenants? How many could tell you when the church began and get it right? How many could easily tell you accurately the doctrine of sanctification?

But lots of them can tell you quotes from Spurgeon and all about spiritual formation.

THE SIN OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM.
Charleston Heston fibbed to us. God's assembly was established in the book of Exodus and that book says lots and lots about God's people being freed from Pharoah's Egypt and the slavery there. And we've been taught that God told Pharoah, "Let My people go." That's a lie. He didn't say that at all. He said, "Let My people go that they may serve Me."

See the difference?

And God didn't say this once. He said it over and over.

Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness. Exodus 5:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness. Exodus 7:16.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 8:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 8:20.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 9:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 9:13.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 10:3.

I'd say that's a theme.

When I was in college, I wasn't saved, but I was very religious and I went to Campus Crusade. A coed that also attended was preparing to go to seminary. When I asked her about her career plans for after grad school, she said she wanted to be a pastor. I brought up the instruction of Paul concerning men, not women, as overseers. I can remember her answer to this day. The reason I remember it was because at the time I was disturbed by all the church goers who just seemed to be ho-hum toward the strictures of Scripture. It seemed to me that many saw biblical interpretation as a game, as if asking, "What sorts of different positions can I come up with and choose from?" They seemed to consider it quite clever and intellectual to discuss, but not decide. And as long as an argument could be proffered, any position was legit.

That's why I remembered my friend's answer. I don't even remember her name after all these years, but I remember EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, her answer just like she said it. When I mentioned that Paul said only men should be pastors, she said, "You can get around that."

Oh.

Does the Bible give us that sort of intellectual freedom? Is this intellectual freedom or just old fashioned lying? The Bible says we're slaves. Before regeneration we're slaves of sin and Satan. After regeneration we're slaves of righteousness and God. The issue isn't freedom as conceived by most Americans. It's a question of who your master will be. Romans 6:16 says, "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" This is important in the Mental Ghetto because intellectual freedom is used as an excuse so often that it's hard to understand just why studying is all that important if life in Christ is multiple choice non-test on almost every issue.

Paul wrote specifically and directly to our thought life. We have no freedom except from the tyranny of man and Satan. (And against that tyranny, WE ARE TO BE RADICALLY REBELLIOUS.) God is our Master. II Corinthians 10:5-6 says, "...destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete."

Notice two things about that passage:

1. Speculation is a "lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God". Imagination, speculation, subjectivity, and "listening for God's voice" internally have no place in Christianity.

2. Speculation and NOT being an intellectual slave to God's revealed will in Scripture is worthy of punishment. That is why we shun false teachers and those who follow them and strive for biblical accuracy in our own lives.

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. 27.

PS--Sorry for going too long. The sin of sensitivity and the hypocrisy it breeds will have to wait for next time.

Comiing in Part IX:
THE SIN OF SENSITIVITY.

SENSITIVE HYPOCRITES.