Celebrating The Wrath Of God--A Cosmic Dance In The Theater Of Space And Time For All Sentient Beings To Watch, Mouths Open.

As believers we celebrate a lot of things about God. We celebrate the love, mercy, and condescension of God at Christmas. We celebrate the power and promises of God at Easter. Did you know we also celebrate the wrath of God? We do. At communion.

During communion we celebrate the humiliation of the Son, His sacrifice, and His love. However, we also celebrate God's wrath being poured out on Jesus. It goes without saying that we don't celebrate God's wrath in the sense that we jump in the streets and sing, but some day I believe we may.

Heaven points to God's wrath as a facet of His glory radiating to the universe.

Listen to what the Spirit says:

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Romans 9:22-24.

So then, according to Scripture God puts His attributes on display for His glory, including His wrath. He does so purely for His glory. This is frightening. He claims to prepare vessels for destruction on purpose in order "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy."

The plight of the unsaved is incomprehensible. According to verse 23, they are allowed to live for a time on this earth in order to glorify God by showing His mercy to the elect. God's mercy on you, if you are saved, is a shining star in an unlit coal mine of the sin of others and the wrath that awaits them. It's the job of the unsaved to glorify God in their sin and punishment. God uses them in this way without their permission or knowledge, while they revel in their idolatries and evil acts. The atheist is a puppet of the God he hates. The drunk is taking part in an ingenious dance choreographed by God before the universe existed.

Do you see an apology from God for His sovereign dealings with men, destroying one and saving another for His glory? The cosmos watches unblinking as the majestic dance of Providence unfolds to demonstrate the power, righteousness, holiness, mercy, and love of God. The infinitely angry wrath of God is shown so that His power can be demonstrated and His love known in its full depth. Oh, the GLORY OF GOD!

Examine yourselves. Make your calling and election sure.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Problem Of Evil (the other guy's, that is)

The Problem Of Evil is a deep philosophical argument developed from a very sophisticated study of the deep human need to complain a lot. It sounds intellectual. It's just whining at the graduate studies level. To put it in a simple syllogism, we can state it this way:

A. I had a really bad day, what with disasters and war and all.
B. Therefore, there is no God.

I've often been assailed by unbelievers (and pouting believers) howling about how bad the world is and doesn't that prove there's no God. Tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, disease, despots, murderers, thieves, abusers of children...

"Yes," I say, "and which one of those are you?"

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

"Low Self-Esteemers In The Hands Of A Girly God"

This great sermon by the Reverend Edward Johnson was instrumental in the revival of spiritual mediocrity in New England in the mid 1700's. Many secular and church historians claim it was the single thing that caused the So-So Awakening, which in turn spread like tiny, sedated turtles shining the light of the non-committal, non-judgmental, self-esteem based gospel of self-love unencumbered by doctrinal clarity or the power of God across several city blocks in less than a decade. To read it go to http://www.warmheartsluke.com.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Burning Hatred of God

Only the upright will see God.

Oh, my religious friends, do not think we are saved for pleasure. We are saved for holiness. Only the upright will see God. If you go to church, if you pray, if you sing in the choir, if you lift your hands, if you preach, if you're religious, you will not see God.

If you give, you will not see God. If you go as a missionary to the darkest corner of the earth, you will not see God. If your theology is good and proper you will not see God. If your family is godly and saved, you will not see God.

God hates you and He will destroy you. Prepared for you are the flames of hell for eternity. There will be no relief. Your thirst will not be quenched. Your pastor will not save you. Your parents will not save you. Your good works will not save you. You will desperately want out of hell each and every moment, but the rest of God's creation will have nothing to do with you because you are nothing but a disgusting, sinful, oozing, vile creature unfit for life.

Unless you're upright.

Listen to what the Spirit of God says:
"The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD'S throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men.
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Upon the wicked He will rain snares;
Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup.
For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness;
The upright will behold His face."
Psalm 11:4-7

Examine yourselves. Make your calling and election sure.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Out Of The Abundance Of The Heart The Mouth Speaks--An Answer To Those Who Hate Reproof.

There were fourteen folks around the three folding tables. Five of them had styrofoam cups at various levels of "full" with coffee. Some were still visibly sleepy, others raring to go. The teacher was doing his thing, when Tom spoke out in Sunday School about a particular sin in the church. It was obvious to everyone there that Sunday morning that Tom was really angry and disturbed about it. Chad spoke up from the other end of the table to say that he agreed with Tom, but gently reminded Tom that if he was angry, instead of loving, Tom would persuade no one.

How many thousands of times does this sort of scenario play itself out in churches across America? If you've been a Christian for any amount of time, you've witnessed this, maybe dozens of times. Tom is bad. Chad is good. Tom is unloving. Chad is loving. Tom is new in the faith. Chad is mature. Right?

NO! Chad's heart is evil, he is disobedient to Scripture, he blasphemes against God, he is a modern legalist, and he is unable to tell the truth.

I recently had that sort of interaction with an "Anonymous" on the comment thread here. The sin I was dealing with was the infestation of the church with the agenda of the feminists and homosexuals and the mistranslations currently flooding the church that censor masculinity, such as the Message, the NRSV, and the TNIV. Please read what I said to "Anonymous." You are likely to think I was out of line and simply spouting out of anger.

I wasn't. What I had to say was well thought out and biblical. To see why, let's go back to the fictional account of Chad and Tom.

I made five specific claims about Chad.

First, I condemned his heart as being evil. Why? What right do I have to judge another's heart? Jesus put it this way: "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil." Matthew 12:33-35.

Chad's heart and the heart of Anonymous are evil and we can know that because of what they said. Jesus said that what we say is whatever fills our heart. The point of Anonymous and Chad was that we could embarrass ourselves by being too adamant in our disapproval of sin. Do you understand? That which often fills our heart is the selfish desire to be liked, and we know that opposing sin is never popular. We don't want to be seen as closed minded. Someone might furrow their brow at us or call us fundies or something horrible like that.

Another black spot of rot in the heart of those who hate reproof is evident in the fact that they do not hate sin in the church. How do I know? Chad was quick to admonish Tom and Anonymous was quick to correct me. They said nothing about the sin that motivated the reprover to harden his face as God's face is hard against sin. The hearts of Anonymous and our fictional "Chad" are cold to God and His righteousness. Their words prove it. If you reprove the man reproving sin, your heart is evil. You need to repent. Your heart is black. You are cold to God, warm to your own reputation, and in need of repentance.

Second, I also claimed that Chad and Anonymous are disobedient to Scripture. They follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees. They do not walk with the God of Abraham. Paul said, "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." I Timothy 4:1-6.

Anonymous and Chad refused to bring attention to the falsehood brought into the church. Scripture asks us to do so. We started this discussion with the question, "What right do I have to judge another's heart?" Now I ask this question: "What right do you have to grant approval to that which God hates?" When we allow sins to flourish among the brethren, we oppose God. I'll ask another question: "What right do you have to judge the heart of a man who expresses hatred for that which God hates?"

Third, Chad and Anonymous blaspheme against the name and reputation of God and His servants throughout history.

How? Simple. They claim their silence and apathy toward sin is right. Ergo John the Baptist was wrong. And Hosea was wrong. And Moses was wrong. And Ezekiel was wrong. And Jesus was wrong. And Spurgeon was wrong. And Edwards was wrong.

And God is wrong. Why? Because He hates sin. And He proclaims it constantly. Out loud.

Fourth, anyone who reproves the reprover is a legalist. Ironically, while those who hate the hatred of sin intend to be open minded and generous, in point of fact, they accuse the man hating sin of doing something sinful. (Which, of course, they hate.) Where in the Bible are we told not to hate evil? Or not to express hatred of evil? Or not to express it too much? Are not these purveyors of spiritual mediocrity making up rules not in Scripture? These days the Scripture often quoted is one like Colosians 4: 5-6, where Paul the Apostle said, "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." We are told, "seasoned with salt" means nice, polite, inoffensive. However, in the context of the life of the author, either the apostle did not follow his own admonition or "seasoned with salt" must include the reproof of sin and the rebuke of the sinner, in or out of the church. Perhaps, the "salt" of the apostle stung the wounds of the soul, as well as provide a savor for the tongue. Does not grace always precede its application to a soul with the conviction of sin so that soul can repent and receive grace?

Fifth and last, whoever hates reproof is unable to say the truth. Again, Jesus said in Matthew 12, "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." By their spoken hatred of reproof we know their hearts are evil. And because their hearts are evil, they are unable to speak anything but the lies they speak. They can't help it. It's in them just like the gospel is in the righteous man and he has to speak the truth. Neither man can keep what is in his heart silent for anything but the shortest time. It must burst forth like the angels that praise God and the vile man who cannot contain his profanity.

The issue is not the mouth. It is not what is said. Words only prove what is in the heart. The alarming fact is that if you hate reproof, you hate God. You are likely to be unregenerate.

Take warning from the Spirit of God. Call to Jesus.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Tim Challies Puffs An Altered Bible Version

This is a sad thing, but I have made it a principle not to shrink from confronting false teaching in the church. And believe me I've paid a price for it and will continue to do so in the future.

This weekend, I came across an article that touted a recorded reading of the TNIV. It was by a fellow whom I have read from time to time and recommended, Tim Challies. In fact, his site is currently linked from another site of mine, called Zits Emerge. For those of you who don't know, the TNIV is another of the many mistranslations of the Bible that purposely seek to remove much or all mention of the masculine. This is an accommodation to the feminist and homosexual agendas. It is by Zondervan and you can read something about their gender agenda manifest in another Zondervan publication by reading here and scrolling down to the "Expose`" articles. Scripture is never to be changed and all Christians know that simply by reading what the Scripture says about itself.

Nevertheless, many think it's okay.

In response to comments by me and a couple other folks on his blog asking for an explanation he wrote about how mean we were to him.

This is what I wrote to him and his readers in response this evening:

To all,
I'm the guy Tim's mad at. The issue came up over the weekend when I read Tim's puff piece pushing a recorded reading of the TNIV. For those of you who don't know, the TNIV is a version that was changed intentionally from what the Bible actually said in order to remove the masculine.

Tim's piece was far from a "less-then-complete condemnation of the TNIV." It was an article that actively pushed the recording for use. Read it under "Church Merch--The Bible Experience." You will see, there was no condemnation.

Tim only derided those of us who asked why we should buy and use something so sinful.

For instance, I asked why it's okay to purposely alter the Scripture when the Scripture itself prohibits it? No one answered that question and no one even tried.

So, I ask again. 1. Why is it okay to purposely change what God has said, when He calls such activity lying? 2. Why is it okay to support people, like Zondervan, who engage in such dishonesty, when God expressly forbids us to bring falsehoods into the body of Christ? 3. Why is it so hard to simply use another translation that attempts to be orthodox? And 4. Do we really think God will wink at so brazen a sin? The prophets of old were killed for it and the NT requires excommunication.

I have not gotten an answer yet, except to say that I am really mean to ask. To be fair and balanced he has criticized the TNIV and that is good. It just does not fulfill the very simple thing that God asks us--don't change His Word.

Still waiting,
Phil Perkins. PS--This will be posted on one of my websites as well because this should be dealt with. Sorry.

For clarity, you can read Tim's puff piece here.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Big Problem With Calvinists

Calvinism can be an ice cube in the heart of a man. Freezing a man's joy. Squelching his passion for evangelism. Making him actually hate the idea of evangelism and getting saved. How many ardent Calvinists do you know who are just as ardent about evangelism? My guess: ZERO.

The doctrines of grace, what are usually called Calvinism, are all biblical and correct, but just as grace can be twisted into licentiousness, so election can become indifference to the lost. How does that happen? Election becomes indifference or even hostility toward evangelism in the same way and under the same circumstances that grace can become an excuse to stop striving for holiness.

When grace is taught exclusively, without a call to holiness, it becomes an idol and our worship is in the form of moral laxity. In like manner, when election is preached and preached without any mention of the zeal for the gospel, we begin to devalue evangelism. In fact, we see ourselves as much more pious than the silly free-willers out there passing out tracts, witnessing, and pleading with the lost to come to our Lord. We can actually think we are more godly because we don't witness. Yet, is it not self-evident that good doctrine should lead to obedience, not disobedience?

Remember why grace was so profound the first time you found out what it was? It was amazing because we knew we were filthy and that we answered to a holy God, not because we were suddenly permitted to sin and not go to hell. No. In fact, grace rightly understood motivates holy living. Similarly, election rightly understood reminds us we are small and sinful, not pious and good. Election should spur us to more evangelism because the Sovereign will judge us all, and because we go out to preach without a method. Instead, the Sovereign has decreed that we preach. So we preach knowing the Sovereign has elected and He will give the increase in His chosen time and in His chosen way. A proper understanding of election actually preserves the gospel from being downgraded, because God is sovereign and He will fulfull His decree to save all that are given to Christ. We need never manipulate the message to fit the flesh, but faith in the Sovereign gives confidence in the foolishness of preaching.

If your election cools your evangelism, your Calvinism is wrong.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

WARNING: Many Christian Bloggers Are Not Saved

After blogging a little less than a year now, I have come to despise much of what goes on here. Here's what I hate: It's all so casual. So nonchalant. For instance, this weekend I went on a blog by a well known "Christian" blogger and was disappointed to find he recommended partaking in a sin. It's a rather fashionable sin. Only the most cosmopolitan among us appreciate its nuance. It's for the sophisticated, newfangled types. And those folks engaging in it are convinced that we who don't are obscurantists, hicks, throwbacks, fundies.

It's a sin that any student of Scripture will be aware of within the first six months of his/her new life in Christ. Myself and several others took issue with the practice, but the blogger and most of the commenters just poo-pooed us, kind of like we were just being picky, backwards, or wound a little too tightly. Maybe even rural.

Here was the issue: Can we purposely alter the Scripture? And if not, can we support those who do?

Is there even one Christian blogger out there who is unaware of all the biblical commands not to change the Bible? Well, just in case, I gave Scripture references.

It did no good. They didn't care. In spite of the clear teaching of Scripture, they continued in their sin. Not one even pretended to deal with the Scriptures I mentioned. Scripture didn't matter. They were too educated to be corrected simply by Scripture.

Today, I listened to a Paul Washer sermon in which he simply perused through the entire book of I John and listed all the times we are told that if we continue to break God's commandments, we are not saved at all--just religious. Needless to say it was a long sermon--73 minutes.

Most "Christian" bloggers are casual. Quite intellectual. Quite articulate. Quite well read. Quite casual about the religion they discuss.

Listen to what the Spirit of God says: "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

The bloggers mentioned above didn't even care what God had commanded on the subject. And they continued on doing what God has prohibited. According to God, they are liars and without the truth.

Do you find yourself casual about the things you discuss online? When you're met with a command by God that you have not been obedient to, do you look for a Christian t-shirt slogan to help you get around it? Do you look for someone to quote to support your position? Do you search for another verse to use against the Author of that verse?

If you do, God says you're a liar and the truth is not in you.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Are You "Formerly-devoted..."? A Quote Worth Remembering

This weekend I came across a new phrase by Bondservant. He described Christians who, in the face of our deteriorating culture, end up with collapsing convictions as "formerly-devoted-to-holiness Christians." The issue he addressed with this phrase was gender-altered Bible mistranslations such as the TNIV, a version of which was puffed at a formerly-devoted-to-Scripture website, challies.com. You can find his full remarks in this comment thread.

I thought it was such a good and descriptive turn of words it was worth spreading to others Christians.

I like three things about Bondservant's phrase: First, it describes just what is happening. At one time we showed enough respect for the Scripture that to dream of purposely altering it was not even a faint possibility. That was then; this is now, huh?

Second, Bondservant's words are cutting, and rightly so. They focus on a rotting soul. Once, we honored God's word. Now, in our arrogance, we act as if He doesn't know how to communicate to this generation in a politically correct way, not even stopping to think that perhaps it is we who need to change, and not Him.

Third, in just five words, Bondservant calls us to repentance, to return to our first love, to remember the burning zeal that once burned in our hearts for God and His Word and the reverance that once made us bow low in His Presence and hang on His every utterance as if He was the potter and we were the clay. (Yes, we actually used to think that way.)

Well said, Bondservant. Don't change.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

"They Have Run Away From Theology"

Sent by Mark Johnson:

The following is lifted from Creed or Chaos, by Dorothy Sayers, first published in 1949 (reprinted edition, Sophia Press, 1999). Sayers, who died in 1957, was well known for her detective novels, but also argued strongly for the inseparable nature of Christian dogma from Christian ethics.

"…it is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality, unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say that dogma does not matter; it matters enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational
explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and incompromising realism. And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ."

If you think I am exaggerating, ask the Army chaplains. Apart from a possible one percent of intelligent and instructed Christians, there are three kinds of people we have to deal with. There are the frank and open heathen, whose notions of Christianity are a dreadful jumble of rags and tags of Bible anecdote and clotted mythological nonsense. There are the ignorant Christians, who combine a mild gentle-Jesus sentimentality with vaguely humanistic ethics — most of these are Arian heretics (or possibly Adoptionists; they do not formulate their theories with any great precision). Finally, there are the more or less instructed churchgoers, who know all the arguments about divorce and auricular confession and communion in two kinds, but are about as well equipped to do battle on fundamentals against a Marxian atheist or a Wellsian agnostic as a boy with peashooter facing a fan-fire of machine guns. Theologically, this country is at present in a state of utter chaos, established in the name of religious toleration, and rapidly degenerating into the flight from reason and the death of hope. We are not happy in this condition and there are signs of a very great eagerness, especially among the younger people, to find a creed to which they can give wholehearted adherence.

…The task has not been made easier by the obstinate refusal of a great body of nominal Christians, both lay and clerical, to face the theological question. “Take away theology and give us some nice religion” has been a popular slogan for so long that we are apt to accept it, without inquiring whether religion without theology has any meaning. And however unpopular I may make myself, I shall and will affirm that the reason why the Churches are discredited today is not that they are too bigoted about theology, but that they have run away from theology."=

AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part IV (of VII)

Claire Powell: Jesus or Jessica?

This will wrap up my critique of Claire Powell’s three page article on pages 89-91. I have already wasted a lot of ink on it. And much more could be pointed out in the way of interpretational hijinks and downright dishonesty. So we are only going to look at four more problems as representative samples.

First, in her introduction on page 89, we learn that men are stupid. She writes, “A change of perspective on the Bible was also needed, not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men, or that all women think the same way, but because, until recently, almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.”

Yep, that’s right. Men have been doing all the interpretation and that's bad. I have to assume we have gotten things wrong somehow. Huuummmm.

Oh, but wait! In that same quote you will find two curiously anomalous statements. One says, “...not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men...” And the other says, “A change of perspective on the Bible was...needed...because...almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.” This is the conundrum of feminist bigotry. They want to say that men and women are essentially identical at the same time they say women are better than we beastly males are.

Second, on page 90, second column, we read, “Junia...was an apostle (Romans 16:7).” Actually, Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” So either “apostle” was used in an wider sense or Andronicus and Junias were held in high esteem by the twelve. In any case, Junias was not one of the twelve.

Third, Powell goes on a rant about how we must not see God as male. On page 91 we read, “Many people hold a mental image of God as male or at least somehow more male than female.” Yes, Claire, and so did I....until I was six!

But it gets better. When she delves deeply into Greek and Hebrew grammar all three wheels come off. “In languages which do not have an inclusive pronoun, either masculine or feminine must be used to reflect the fact that God’s nature is personal, not impersonal. It has nothing to do with sex (that which is biologically determined) or gender (that which is socially determined.)” (The parentheses were hers, not mine.)

Did you catch that? Sex is biologically determined. (Thanks, Claire, for clearing that up for us.) But gender is socially determined. Hummm. And all this time I thought sex determined gender. One is scared to think just where Powell is going with this line of thinking. If gender is not afixed to biological sex, then the way is open for all kinds of filth, such as that espoused by the EC (Evangleicals Concerned) which says this about itself: “Evangelicals Concerned (EC) is a nationwide ministry which encourages and affirms lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians in their faith.” Is it my imagination or is Powell nudging us down a lavender path?

As she continues down the road to grammatical perversion, we read in the middle column of page 91 that “...the feminine terms for God, e.g. the Holy Spirit and wisdom in the Old Testament...have been rediscovered.” I find two things here that are interesting. First, the idea that the Holy Spirit has been lost for some time is news to me. But then, I never accidentally had the book of Proverbs (or any of the other wisdom books) fall out of my Bible, either. Second, while she discounts the masculine pronoun as any sort of indicator about God’s character, she invoked the grammatical feminine as a determining factor in our picture of God the Holy Spirit. Is this a double standard?

In the biblical position, God is seen as masculine at times and feminine at times, never male or female, since He has no body. Masculine and feminine indicate manner, role, and character. And since God is Ruler, King, Judge, Yahweh of Armies, Husband of His people, Father, etc., the biblical view is almost exclusively masculine. This is so simple the church has always held to this view and I understood it when I was knee-high. Yet, the feminists and homosexuals amoung us don't get it. Why?

More important, why is Zondervan pushing their gender agenda on us?

Fourth, and last, Powell claims it is only happenstance that the Messiah came as a man and not a women. God flipped a cosmic coin and it came up tails, so He sent Jesus, not Jessica. Poor Jessica. This is found on page 91, second and third columns. The logic is tortured--unworthy of an academic setting with any pretense to objective research and learning. In Powell's creative history, since it was Jesus and not Jessica, women have been ignored as possible clergy. Again, she denies God's created order. Man is the head because of God's decree, not a messianic gender accident.

Further, it ignores the plain teaching of Romans 5. There we read of righteousness coming from a Man and sin coming from a man. Verse 19 says, "For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." So then, sin and death came by a man, and life and righteousness came by a Man. The masculinity of the Messiah was neither accidental nor incidental.

We weren't made sinners by Eve. We aren't made righteous by Jessica. And I won't buy anything from Zondervan.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. There Shawn. Happy now?

Working On A Curriculum

Just in case all three of my readers think I died, I didn't. Just busy out of my head. I am working on a curriculum for Just The Bible Academy. It will be three years and very intensive with the sole purpose of equipping men to preach and serve. It will be at least two years of Greek and two years of Hebrew. The first year the student will take Hebrew. The second year he will take Greek as well. The third year, the student will finish Greek.

After the first year, all work in specific Bible passages will not be done in English--only the originals!!!! More time will be spent in the OT than the NT, roughly in proportion to the volume of the two testaments.

Practicals will include weekly witnessing and street preaching. (You will be expected to work in the vineyard, not just drink the wine.)

Other than the languages, primary focus will be on Bible survey, exegesis, and hermeneutics. There will also be training in systematic theology and apologetics. The apologetics courses will include an introduction to Western philosophy and a complete biblical epistemology.

Pray for good teachers and accountability for me.

Here are some considerations if you want to consider Just The Bible Academy:

If you want to preach like Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, join us.

If you are tired of being told to shut up about doctrine, join us.

If you are tired of being told to shut up about false teachers, join us.

If you are tired of being told it is impolite to directly confront false teaching, join us.

If you want to be a fool for Christ, join us.

If you want to be holy as He is holy, join us.

If you know you're a filthy sinner, join us.

If you are a man between the ages of 14 and 120, join us.

If you are sure the Bible is all you need to serve God, join us.

If you want to sacrifice for Christ, join us.

If you want to take part in the fellowship of His suffering, join us.

If you want to see folks get saved, join us.

If you are sick of the compromise in the church, join us.

If you want to think biblically, join us.

If you constantly wish, "I don't ever want to be this sinful again," join us.

If you will take correction, join us.

If you will give correction when it may end in your own disgrace, join us.

If you are willing to work your brains out, join us.

If you don't care about the things of this world, join us.

If you think every day about what you will lay at Jesus' feet when you meet Him, join us.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Announcement--Radically Biblical Discipleship

I am looking for one to six men that want to be discipled as Jesus discipled the apostles. Lots of time will be involved and completely holy living will be required. You will be required to witness weekly. You will learn both Hebrew and Greek. And you will study the Bible inside and out. It will be called the Just The Bible Academy.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.