IF YOUR GOD IS SO LOVING NOBODY GETS HURT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE.....................SHE'S NOT HERE.


ROOLZ O' DA BLOG--Ya break 'em, ya git shot.
1. No cowards. State your first and last name. "Anonymous" aint your name.
2. No wimps.
3. No cussin'.
4. State no argument without reference to a biblical passage or passages and show a strong logical connection between your statement and the passages you cite.
5. Insults, sarcasm, name-calling, irony, derision, and humor at the expense of others aren't allowed unless they are biblical or logical, in which case they are WILDLY ENCOURAGED.
6. No aphronism.
7. Fear God, not man.

Friday, February 20, 2009

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?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

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.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

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.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

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.

Monday, February 02, 2009

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.