THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part VII The Lost Practice of Separation (continued again)

This the seventh in a series on the doctrine of holiness. Parts V, VI, VII, and VIII are about the lost practice of holiness, often called separation. This Part VII is the third installment concerning separation. Here is how it fits with the other three:

1. WE HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. (The Lost Doctrine of the Ownership of God) Covered in Part V.

2. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SINFULNESS OF OUR SIN. (The Lost Doctrine of Our Moral Filth and Our Spiritual Hopelessness) Covered in Part VI.

3. WE ARE NOT HOLY. (The Lost Doctrine of Personal Holiness)


LET'S CLEAR THIS UP RIGHT NOW.
I'll define three terms I'm going to start using to make this discussion readable. These are my words and my definitions that I use to keep my thinking straight:

abiblical--Not found in the Bible. Cars are abiblical, but not anti-biblical. That is to say they're neither forbidden nor required in Scripture.

antibiblical--A violation of clear Scripture. Theft is antibiblical. I am anticommunist. That is, I violate communist principles. Theft is antibiblical because it is opposed to biblical teachings. Antibiblical things may be things forbidden or the omission of things required, sins of commission and sins of omission.

unbiblical--Either antibiblical or abiblical. It's a catchall word that is used either of things not mentioned in Scripture or of things forbidden in Scripture.

If that seemed a bit obscure and off-subject, just be patient. You'll see.

WHAT PERSONAL HOLINESS AINT--SLIPPERY SLOPES OR JAGGED CLIFFS?
This weekend I went to the website of a Christian college/seminary and read their take on proper Christian living and just what is required of the students. There was a list intended as an answer to what "Christian separation" is. The list contained some biblical things and some unbiblical things. For instance, one of the somewhat biblical things was a dress code for the ladies. The Bible does command us to be modest. Just how one would apply that takes some thought and hard and fast rules will be hard to set. The list mentioned "excessive use of makeup" and a number of other things that could definitely be seen as reflective of biblical commands.

The slippery slope comes in when we make these unbiblical lists. If the list doesn't exist in Scripture, we ought to ignore it or oppose it. Why? Because the abiblical is often the segue to the antibiblical. What starts as a concern for righteousness and holiness becomes prideful.

Another definition: Personal holiness is the restoration of the image of God in each of us and the process starts with regeneration and continues through sanctification. Wow! That's different from our definition of holiness up to this point, huh? No, actually, it isn't. It's just saying the same thing a different way.

Going back to the beginning, what is the first verse in Scripture that speaks of the holiness of God? Genesis 1:1 divides all things into two categories, the created and the Creator. The dependent and the Independent. The caused and the Uncaused Cause. The needful and He to Whom "need" is a meaningless word. The profane and the Holy. The ordinary and the fabulously Different. The dependent and the Sustainer.

And why are we to be holy? Because God is. "Be holy for I am holy." And the first passage of Scripture that demonstrates the holiness of God's people is also in Genesis. All other life was simply spoken into being. Not so man. He was personally formed of the dirt by God. ("Adam" is the masculine form of "adamah" meaning dirt.) And then God breathed into him the breath of life. In 1:26 we read a very strange thing. After all else is created, God creates man, male and female. BUT, just like God's first appearance, man's introduction is a stark contrast to all else on earth. He is made in God's image and in verse 28 we read that not only does he have a unique personal essence, he is made to be sovereign over the earth. And why not? God is sovereign, too.

Finally, in 2:4 we read the recap of creation and this time it's more to the point of the order of creation, not the detail of creation. In just three verses, 4 through 6, all creation was recounted. Then in verse 7 God puts a special kind of life into only one creature. He breathed life into man. He did this for no other creature.

So what's the point of this revisit of the old Sunday School story of creation? We were created holy, set apart, different, unique, one-off. The point of the atonement is to wipe away sin and its affects. As regenerate people we have a reason--no--an impulsion to be holy. Those who don't aren't his people.

There are two ways to be wrong on holiness. The one common in churches today is the systematic replacement of holiness with something softer. A god who is love, not holiness, fits well. The preaching of right living is missing, unless you mean by "right living" living without offending anyone. (And that offends God, but oh well...) The gospel is offensive. It's offensive for the same reason showing someone at your work how to do something is offensive. The one receiving the corrective is aware that the message carries the implication of his own short-coming however large or small, his wrongness. The offense derives not from the correction, but from the black character of he who wishes not to learn, too proud to change.

Here's the harm in the soft approach: No one gets saved. Not even the ones in church. We don't hear repentance, so we don't think we need to repent. (Well...except that we need to repent of not loving ourselves enough.) In fact, we don't think we're wrong. Like the stubborn worker who can't correct his mistake, the sinner wants to ignore his sin. Unlike the stubborn worker who may use the wrong bolt, have a hard time with a word processor, or spill the paint, the sinner goes to hell forever. You can't replace hell with the right bolt. You can't wipe up hell before it dries. And once a man is in hell the delete button won't work.

NICE THEORY. SO WHAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE? Church.

And the people who go there.

Like me.

I'll give my own example. When I turned thirty-eight, I got more than a little introspective. At thirty-eight, a fellow is about half done. If the average American male lives to seventy-six, perhaps it's time to take stock. I had gone to seminary because I was sure I was just about the most profound guy I knew. I was raised in a Christian home, went to church every Sunday, married a Christian lady, and went off into the Christian sunset, complete with several of those sinner's prayers at different times in my youth under my belt to make sure the end of my ride was going to be heaven.

Trouble was it wasn't going to be and that was obvious when I looked at me. I won't bore you with the list of sins, but put the Bible on your wall and throw a dart. You won't miss. And they weren't occassional. They were a pattern of life. I knew I wasn't a Christian.

Now, I've said several times holiness isn't righteousness, but holiness includes righteousness. At the fall, we became unlike God in a particular way. Of all creatures we were the ones who were to be like Him. He was apart and separate from all creation. We were to be, too. Being created, we could never be as uniques as He, but we weren't like any other creature, either. We were to be God's face in creation. Not literally, of course. That can't happen when you're filthy.

Here is the crux: You are not in God's image the way you ought to be if you're not reborn into a new creature.

WHAT HOLINESS IS
Praying the prayer isn't it. It's a heart thing.

Want to do an experiment? Do what I did. I was hit up by some Mormon missionaries. So I did just what I shouldn't do. I went to their little indoctrination meetings. If they ever come to your door, they will ask you to meet with them for a few times, seven or so, I'm no longer sure. They will ask you to read the Book of Mormon, too. Well, I did that. It was really revealing.

THE MORMONS HAVE THE SINNER'S PRAYER, TOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Yep. Just like Modern Evangelicals, they want you to pray to Jesus and "accept" Him into your heart. They even put up a little picture of their jesus on the coffee table and boy is that fellow blonde! I think he's from Indiana or some such.

THE 99 DOLLAR QUESTION: Just what kind of saved do you get when you pray the seppgeezuz prayer anyway? Mormon saved or Baptist saved or Assembly of God saved....? Perhaps Russian Orthodox. I don't know who all has the magic seppgeezus incantation, but maybe it hits them all. Maybe that prayer is especially magical. Maybe it knows just exactly what kind of church you're in when you pray it, so that it can route you to just the right kind of salvation, Mormon, ME, JW (if the JW's have the sepgeezus prayer), Wesleyan, Lutheran...

My wife and I were doing our family Bible reading when I came across this passage from Deuteronomy: "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live." Chapter 30, verse 6. That's the Old Covenant, yet it sounds a lot like the New Covenant, huh? There is a whole lot of Bible study that has gone into this and I can't take the space here to list it all, but look up the New Covenant in Joel and Jeremiah. VERY interesting! No mention of the seppgeezus prayer Old Covenant or New. NONE!

The point is no matter what time in history, what culture or nation, God's people are God's people by a miraculous re-creation that restores His image in us. You will love God and His ways. You won't be able to help it. And He will complete that work in the day of Christ Jesus!

The second way to get holiness wrong is the list way. Remember the Bible college with the list? I mentioned slippery slopes and jagged cliffs. The makeup and dress thing is based on biblical principles. The problem is it isn't biblical and extrapolates from the Bible. It's abiblical, not antibiblical, but it's a first step to a slope that may lead to death. If a student follows the rules, but isn't changed in heart he may go to hell a very good guy. Over time, too, the list gets canonized.

In my neck of the woods, we have a group that have a history from as far back as Zwingli. They had a list. Now, to be part of that group, you must live communally, wear certain clothes only they make, groom yourself a certain way, etc. None of it is biblical. This is no longer a slope going from good intentions to hell. They have jumped right off the cliff by making up rules out of whole cloth.

Getting back to the Bible school, another item on their list isn't just abiblical. It's antibiblical. They forbid the consumption of things the bible expressly allows. The strict prohibition of certain foods and drink is a mark of evil in Scripture and expressly forbidden in Romans 14. Specifically, the issue is alcohol. Now, I know that some are convinced that alcohol is forbidden in Scripture. If you believe that, then you're obligated to obstain. Sin happens when one's opinion is that the Bible doesn't disallow it, but one disallows it regardless. That is sin. That's a jagged cliff.

Here are some reasons why this is so sinful: 1. First, it assumes that God hasn't told us all we need to know. The Scripture isn't sufficient. No matter what one's doctrinal statement says, if Scripture is sufficient, then additional revelation that is unbiblical is also antibiblical. If the Scripture is sufficient, why the extra rules? Did He forget? 2. Prohibiting things Jesus partook calls Jesus sinful. They would never say that, but it does. 3. It violates the principle of Romans 14. That which isn't stated clearly in Scripture is a matter of opinion. The only commandment on such things is that we are commanded not to command! "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."--Romans 14:5.

Finally, the list makers mistake the list for righteousness and righteousness for holiness. The Pharisees had quite a long list, much of which was unbiblical. And some was antibiblical. They thought they were holy by having list righteousness. And holiness is exactly what they were after. Their name "Pharisee" is from a root meaning to divide or break from. They tried for holiness, but just got a list. And their list made them separate from all their fellow men alright. The problem was they were still separate from God. And so they weren't all that different from other unregenerate men, just so religious that they disdained others. Their bodies were circumcised, but the hearts weren't.

God's holiness isn't a list He keeps. Remember what we learned about God's righteousness? It isn't God doing the right thing. God IS the right thing. His righteousness isn't list keeping. It's His heart--the way He is. Righteousness can be defined as like God in character. That's another way to be holy, by the way. Nearly all men try to be good. They just have different lists. Christians are different. They derive their legal righteousness in God's court from having Christ's righteousness, and their actual righteousness by being reborn as God's children with new hearts. Lists are just check lists to see. Lists don't make anyone righteous even if you have the right list.

Thus we see that outward righteousness isn't holiness at all and it doesn't save. It is only a sign of inward change and without the inward change the outward righteousness is sterile, dead, dry, and distasteful. It feels fake. Jesus didn't keep all the rules, but He is holy. Don't measure your holiness by what you do or don't do. If you have it, it won't even occur to you to measure it. You'll be too busy being in awe of and in love with God to think so self-centeredly. Scripture warns us to check and see that we are truly in Him, but it isn't a measure to see if we are okay. We know God and so we know we aren't.

As with God, so with us. If we aren't righteous from the inside out, we aren't righteous at all.

Which brings me to two conclusions. The first is the conclusion that leads to the next installment. It has baffled me how some churchies can hear of very sinful things in the assembly and not get upset. They don't seem sad and they don't seem mad. My conclusion? They might have the list, but they're not madly in love with God and His ways. Their hearts aren't reborn or they'd be grieved as God is.

The second conclusion this brings me to is that of this installment of The Lost Doctrine of Holiness.

NEXT INSTALLMENT:
4. WE FAIL TO SEPARATE FROM FALSE TEACHERS. (The Lost Doctrine of Corporate Holiness)This is the raging hypocrisy that is the lie that defined MEism from the beginning in the middle of last century. And, God willing, I'll deal with it in Part VIII.

Be holy because He is and pray that I am.
In the Holy One of Israel,
Phil Perkins.