IS THERE NO GOD IN ISRAEL? (Or how to insult a head of state with one question.)

Interesting things happen when one is faithful in everyday stuff. For instance, this morning my wife and I were having our regular Sunday morning Bible study. Each Sunday we read and discuss 5 chapters of Scripture, working our way through the entire Bible. Today we started II Kings. The book starts with the sad story of Ahazia (pronounced ah-khaz-YAH, meaning "Yah has grasped"). Ahazia was sick due to a fall. Wanting to know if he would live or die, he sent messengers to ask this question of the Philistine god, Baal-zebub (pronounced bah-all-zu-VOOV, meaning "master of flies"). The Angel of God met with Elija (pronounced eh-lee-YAH, meaning "my god is Yah" or "God is Yah") and told him to confront Ahazia with this simple question:

Is there no god in Israel?

This reminds me of Jesus' often asked questions, "...have you not read..." and "...is it not written..."

The question asked by Elijah is simple, straightforward...and a VERY hard insult to the intelligence of the king. Having the Torah, the writings of Moses, and the presence of the Creator God of which to inquire, why did Ahazia send messengers to a filthy idol named after insects who live by eating rotten flesh? Having men of God locally, even Elijah, to ask, why send to a foreign land and wait? The question of life or death had to be one that burned for the ailing king, one he wanted answered right now. So doctrinally, logically, and logistically, sending his aids across the border to a filthy god of a filthy people who killed Israelites didn't make any sense.

It was just stupid. And Ahazia paid with his life for this stupid act. II Kings 1:6.

Here is my question to you:

IS THERE NO BIBLE?
How stupid are you to spend hard earned dollars buying the latest from the religious book store when you have the Bible right on your night stand? How stupid are you to watch hours of Rob Bell videos about the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit has written an entire book to you?

How stupid are you to trust such strangers who make money, even millions, off their books, tapes, and videos? How stupid are you to think even for a minute their hands are innocent and their motives pure when such profit is possible, and the master told us to give as freely as we received? Mattew 10:8, Mark 1:45.

Don't you realize that even the good teachers have to eat from the same plate (the Bible) as you? So why not eat it yourself? Do you prefer the saliva of a preacher? How stupid are you to eat vomitted food, when you can eat the steak, drink the wine, enjoy the cheese the very God of truth has spread before you? And how can you know a good teacher if you know Spurgeon and McLaren, but not David, Moses, and Paul?

JESUS' QUESTIONS
In the gospels Jesus asked two questions aimed at insulting the religious teachers of the day, "...is it not written..." and "...have you not read..." His point was the same as that of Elijah. Just as Ahaziah ignored the true God and His prophets in favor of the disease-carrying insect god, the religious leaders of the day put as much weight on religious traditions and writings as the Scripture, often violating the Scriptures in order to obey men. As a result they were not as informed about the Scripture as they ought to be.

Thus His questions. He insulted them on purpose. Before answering the doctrinal question, He badgered them for not knowing the Bible in the first place.

LONG AWAITED ANSWER
I have, for some time now, considered the mess called North American Christianity. I find folks that know less and less about the Bible each passing year call themselves Christians. I have watched as more and more books and videos come out that are considered essential (until the next big religious thing, that is). "Christians" are conversant in all sorts of doctrines and all sorts of authors, but can't name the twelve disciples, the twelve tribes, the ten commandments, or any of the covenants.

So how do I confront them? How do I motivate them to study or to admit that they simply don't want to do such work?

Now, because of a simple Bible reading this morning that I wanted to skip because of a stomach flu, I know.

Practice the sufficiency of Scripture.

Scripture works,
Phil Perkins.

Preview of an upcoming post: BALANCING HOLINESS AND LOVE?

Here is an post I've been working on for about two weeks. Sorry for the logn lay off. Some have emailed asking about me and the blog. I DO appreciate the support. Some of it has been work, some of it has been family, but most of it has been a lack of diligence about the work I believe God has given me. Your support and interest does help.

Here's the preview:

Francis Schaeffer wrote in The Great Evangelical Disaster that both love and holiness must be "evident simultaneously". (1) Both were together, two batteries in the flashlight. Neither was to be omitted or limited. At first this may sound as if we are to balance the two, but in the context of the rest of what Schaeffer wrote, balance may not be what he had in mind. And in actual fact, Schaeffer didn't speak of a balance.

Today, on the other hand, many speak of a balance between holiness and love. Is this biblical? Is it logical?

LOGIC FIRST
Let's look at the biblical doctrines of holiness and love, apply sound logic, and see if a balanced approach makes sense. Later, we can look at Scripture, the real authority, to see if our logic is correct.

We won't take the time here to go in depth concerning the definitions of holiness and love until we first logical at Who is holy and loving and our Great Example of holiness and love. Instead we are simply going to ask two logical questions.

Is God One?
Huh? Of course God is One, but what has that to do with holiness and love? Simply put, the Scripture says three specific things pertinent here.  1. God is One. (2) 2. God is holy. (3) 3. God is love. (4)

Are both love and holiness commanded for men to live out?

(1) Schaeffer, Francis A.; The Great Evangelical Disaster ; Wheaton, IL; 1970; p 69.

SPEAKING OF ANTI-SEMITISM...

Socialists are anti-Semites, too. Don't believe me? Go here and scroll down through the picutres. The "One Nation" socialist rally recently done in Washington DC included a lot of hatred for Jews and for Israel. The old media won't tell you the truth on that, so look for yourself.

I seldom do political themes on this blog for two reasons:

1. This isn't a political blog.
2. What is often called Evangelicalism today is a mixture of quazi-biblical beliefs mixed with a nasty dose of American religious jingoism, a belief that this is "God's country" and that we are special in God's eyes over other nations. I don't want to promote that at all.

That being said, I am politically conservative in the American sense (not the European sense) and I hate anti-Semitism or racism of any kind with a passion.

I'LL BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW...
While many early socialists were Jews, socialism actually came out of anti-Semitism. Now as a fairly informed American, I know the unorthodoxy in saying anti-Semitism is actually a product of the Left.

But it is. It actually came about when anti-Semites in Russia decided that it was smarter to hate all the rich, not just the rich Jews. Steal all the money, not just the Jewish money.

NOTE: I am currently working out of town away from my library. So I can't access the proper documentation, and the idea that the Left is the real home of anti-Semitism has been so lied about by our academy and media in this country, many of you will think I am lying. I'm not. So I will finish this article this weekend with full documentation of my main claim.

In Christ,
Phil.

RICK WARREN AND TERRORISM

Sound crazy? Well, here's just one more reason to distrust Warren.

I think there is no doubt that many "Christian" leaders have anti-Semitic tendencies or the cowardice to stop them from opposing such bigotry. Many won't speak against any type of racism/bigotry among us. That was the point of this article I wrote in July. As Christians we should have nothing to do with Warren, any leaders who invite him to speak (such as John Piper), or the Southern Baptist Conference for allowing this man to remain in an SBC pulpit.

Phil Perkins.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--Septenber 28, 2010

In the prophetic and apostolic tradition of ridiculing the ridiculous and scorning the superficial, I present to you this week's example of the god of the refrigerator, the deity of the dashboard:

FASCINATING-FOOD-MIRACLE GEEZUS NUMBER 1.

This is truly the most inspiring geesuz catgegory we here at Al Tosap can think of. If anyone thinks his god no longer does miracles, just wait until someone spills the jello at Thanksgiving and it makes the shape of Moses crossing the Red Sea or the Used-to-be-a-virgin-before-all-those-brothers-and-sisters-of-Jesus Mary washing the dishes in her bathrobe and slippers!

Yes, sir. You can bet that when Sven from South Dakota saw Fascinating-Food-Miracle Geezus Number 1, he flipped his lid as well as his pancake! In our exclusive Al Tosap interview, Sven, said, "I knew it was my Geezus, cuz I'd saw all kinds o' other pichurzs o' him before. It's just like the one on my mom's refrigerator! 'Cept it ain't all brown pancake color, ya know. And Mom's geezus' hair is a little more wispier. I didn't like the wispy hair anyway. It's like I was sent just the purfec geezus just for me."

It's a miracle!

INTERNET BIBLE INDEX--Slow, But It's Coming.

Well, thanks for your patience. As I promised here, I started working at publishing my Internet Bible Index this past weekend. NOT as promised, I failed to get any of it up until just yesterday. As it turns out, the fonts are a problem. I have to retype all the Hebrew and Greek passages in fonts that can be reproduced in PDF's. This isn't easy. Only being about one third done, it's already about 270 pages of text.

So for the next few weeks, no progress will be made on the reading and editing because I will be retyping it all and publishing each section as I complete that section. As of now, all I have up is Section A and Section B. That's because I'm currently working on Section C. But it's all coming, God willing, and I will publish each section as I complete them.

And by way of reminder, feel free to suggest your passages. Send them to philperkins99@yahoo.com.

Phil.

NEW FEATURE COMING--THE INTERNET BIBLE INDEX

There's something I've been doing. It's not done. I make it a practice to read through the Bible in the original languages over and over. When I'm done, I start all over. I read some in the NT and then some in the OT.

The last time through, I started taking notes and saving them on memory sticks simply for my own use. They're arranged in alphabetical order based on topic. It's basically an updated Nave's Topical Bible, but Mr Nave isn't involved and the topics chosen are arranged differently.

Then one day, I thought, "This is a lot of work and it really slows my reading down, so why not let others have the fruits? If this is a great help to me, it should help others, too." So I decided to publish it.

Currently I'm only about one third done. I'm in I Samuel and Luke. I have thought it may be helpful for your Bible study if I went ahead and published it as is, adding as I progress. That way you can begin to use what's there.

Once category is the Passage Index, an index of the Index that lists verses and passages according to their appearances in the topic categories. So you can look up topics and find the passages under the topic category, or you can look up passages and find the categories under which I've listed them.

I've tried to make the topics reflect the biblical issues current today. For instance, some today tell us "brothers" in the Bible actually means "brothers and sisters" and "sons" means "sons and daughters". Now you can look up that specfic topic category, read biblical passages that use those terms, read the context for yourself, and decide for yourself. To get there look up the topic category GENDER and the subcategory “Sons of Israel” and “people of Israel” and “brother” used generically or specifically, find your passages and simply read for yourself.

In addition, the passages will be listed in both English and the appropriate biblical language. Many passages have notes with specific details concerning important aspects of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

TOPIC CATEGORY NOTES
At least some of the topic categories will have short explanations of why those categories are included, what current doctrinal controversies they are intended to address, or exactly what the name of the topic category means.

YOU CAN PARTICIPATE
And I hope you do. Please feel free to add to the index by contacting me at philperkins99@yahoo.com. Please  mention to me passages you think fit into a specific topic category. Suggest categories, too. I will do the editing, deciding what will and won't be included and I will email you back with my decision on your passage with the reasons. And PLEASE call attention to any mistakes. Especially, tell me about passages listed under a category, but not listed in the Passage Index.

It will appear on my sidebar and under "INTERNET BIBLE INDEX".  God willing I will start publishing topic categories this weekend.

God bless,
Phil Perkins.

HOW RELIGIOUS FOLKS CAN GO TO HELL IN ONE EASY STEP

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

That's right. All you have to do to go straight to eternal punishment after a life of religion is to fail to stand for biblical doctrine. So, just be nice and make sure everybody likes you.

Neat!

NEW FALL POLL

Check out the new fall poll in the sidebar, just below the Martin Luther quotes.

Did you get it right?

For the answer, read Mark 1 and Matthew 4.

Surprised? What are the implications for doctrine and evangelism?

JUST THE BIBLE ACADEMY FALL CLASSES

Learn the biblical languages online in seminary-quality classes. These are face-to-face seminary-quality classes.

Classes start the weekend of September 17.

What you will need:
1. High speed internet connection.
2. Webcam.
3. Textbooks. (Care is taken to pick books that are economical, as well as accurate and thorough.)
4. Computer with printer.

What you will need to do:
1. Set up your computer with OOVOO, a free service that allows video calls. Pick the free option. You will still be able to see the instructor and the electronic chalkboard. To do this go to oovoo.com.
2. Go to this website philperkins.wordpress.com to view class offerings.
3. Contact me at philperkins99@yahoo.com.
4. Set up a time at least a week before the start of class to check out our oovoo connections, register over oovoo, and pick a class time.

What this will cost you:
1. The textbooks are "required", but in many cases we can work around them if you don't feel you can afford them. In special cases we can provide them for you. In any case, NEVER let that stop you from seeking God by learning more of His word.
2. You will need to pay for your own internet and equipment.
3. For tuition, search the Scriptures. Find what Moses charged Joshua, what Paul charged Timothy, and what Jesus charged Peter and John. Add those amounts up and divide by four to find the average. Pay me that amount.

Changes at JTBA:
1. Lesson plans will now be available in PDF. Instead of getting them as attachments in your email, you can access them online more quickly.
2. I am currently working on an Aramaic module. After completing your work in Hebrew, you can learn Aramaic easily. This module will be only three weeks, with an option to continue and read all the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament in class which will likely take an additional 3-5 weeks.

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part IX The Practice of Holiness--What Do We Do?

This is the ninth installment in a series on holiness. This has not been a fun article to write. It won't be easy to read. It's heavy and you may not like what you read. Read it anyway. If you've been in American Evangelicalism for very long time, this article will contradict a lot of what you may think you know. But I dare you to try to refute what I've written here biblically. You may try to, but you can't.

Then you'll have to make a choice or two.

THREE REMINDERS
Here are three items by way of review from the first eight installments:

1. Holiness is unknown today. Unlike the day of Spurgeon (1834-1892), most of today's "Christian" religionists know nothing of holiness. Go to a religious book store or website and find more than you can read about a happy marriage, well-adjusted kids, a smooth career, and "Christian" diet tips. Ask the clerk or do a search for the section of books on sanctification and get nothing but a very confused clerk or "no items found". Ask the average pastor about his last four sermons on separation and watch the man (hopefully, a man) stumble, stammer, and make excuses. Or do what I've done. Mention the word "separation" to a pastor and watch him act like he just stuck his tongue in a light socket.

2. God's primary attribute is holiness, not love. From the very beginning, God is depicted in Scripture as unique and apart from all else, as the only uncreated Creator of all else. Genesis 1:1. "Holiness" and all the biblical words around "holiness" like "consecration", "dedication", and "sanctification", whether in Hebrew or Greek, have the central meaning from the very beginning of their usage of "apartness", "separateness", "uniqueness", or "devotedness to a particular use or state of being". And, by logical extention, these words often denote the concept of "purity". (1) When God introduced Himself in Scripture as the only Creator, He was telling us He is unique, holy, sole, and like no other. This is the historic understanding of the implications of Genesis 1:1 from the time of the Jews. (2) (3)

3. Because God is holy, we're called to be holy, too. In Leviticus 11:45 God said, "For I am the LORD, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; thus you shall be holy for I am holy." The reality of this plain command is buttressed many times in the New Covenant when the New Testament calls us "saints", a word that means "holy" or "holy one". The early Christians called themselves "saints". Imagine calling each other at church "holy man" or "holy woman". That's what the New Testament saints did.

So just how far are we from the Bible when the primary attribute of God and His people is a forbidden subject?

HOLINESS AS DONE UNDER THE OLD COVENANT
Under the Old Covenant, holiness received a very physical expression. Leviticus has many pages of purity laws. Most involved water immersion of some sort and some involved sacrifice. The purity laws had to do with pollution from all sorts of things. The most polluting thing was a corpse. Death and disease were the opposite of holiness, but it's wrong to conclude the purity laws were simply God's way of enforcing a primitive code of hygiene. They were mnemonic devices to teach the people of God the importance of holiness. The purity laws had only to do with the people of God.

The first symbol of holiness was circumcision. From the time of Abraham God's people were marked as different. Only those who took the mark were God's people and anyone who didn't were not God's people. Genesis 17:14 says, "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." Remember that phrase "cut off from his people". It's VERY important and will come up again in later installments.

The mark is personal. The mark is intimate. The mark is permanent.

The congregation was also involved in the purity of the individuals. Individuals involved in sin polluted the congregation, as well. That has been covered in the last installment.

THE GREATEST MNEMONIC
"Mnemonic" means having to do with memory aids, or something that aids memory. How did God keep His people reminded of His holy standard?

Simple.

You killed someone you love.

With rocks.....up close......with your neighbors and family watching.....even the women and kids.

Under the Old Covenant, the nation was to be purified of false religion by death. Foreigners or native Israelites who taught or encouraged false religion were to be killed. Foreigners were to be warred against until they were either dead or chased off the land. Deuteronomy 11 and 12. Numbers 33:50-52 says, "Then the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho, saying,  'Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places...'"

Native Israelites who encouraged false religion in any way at all were to be killed as soon as it was proven they were guilty. Deuteronomy 13 and 18. Wars and killings. Deaths by stoning. Blood on your hands. Screams. Wailings. Blood-soaked clothes. Broken bones poking through ripped flesh. Crushed heads with distorted faces. Smashed hands and feet. Dogs licking blood. A child crying as a dying parent screams. A mother wailing as a son dies one broken bone at a time. Begging. Terror. Fear.

Why is the Old Covenant method of practicing holiness important to New Testament saints? All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. That should be enough, but in this day when so many seem to think that holiness isn't a big deal, or that the New Covenant punishments for unrepentant sin and false-teaching are too harsh it's good to remember how intensely God hates. He hates false religion so much He wants false teachers dead.

And the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel."  Numbers 25:4.

HOLINESS AS DONE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT
So are we to kill false teachers? No.

But we aren't to be squeamish, either. There is no such thing as a godly man who's effeminate or timid.

What many of us have called "the church" today in America is deep in sin. And that sin is of the sort that marks it as a group of pagans, not Christians. Today's American "church" is no church at all. Few of the folks in either its pew or in its pulpit are saved people. The OC mark of circumcision was a mark on the body. With it, you're God's people. Without it, you're going to hell. The NC mark is circumcision of the heart. Obedience to God is the mark. Fidelity to God is the mark. Antipathy to falsehoods is the mark.

Without it, you're not God's people and you'll spend eternity without Him.

And the sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll understand why the "church" is such a doctrinal mess.

Hebrews 12:14 names holiness (some translations use "sanctification") as the marker that defines those who will see God. Those without it won't see God. In today's "church" holy separation from false teachers isn't practiced. No holiness, no heaven.

The New Testament teaches us to keep no company with anyone in unrepentant sin. II Corinthians 6:14-18 and I Corinthians 5. Paul tells us,"...not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one."

That's plain. We aren't to treat folks in unrepentant sin, including false religion (idolaters), like brothers and sisters in Christ. They are to be put out. And if you read II Corinthians 6, we are to "come out from" those involved in sinful behavior and we are never to "be bound" with them. Then and only then will God fulfill His promise to "dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people." II Corinthians 6:16. Today's "church" isn't God's people because it isn't separate. Therefore, the "church" in America isn't the church of Christ.

A PHENOMENAL CONTRAST
So, I've stated that the "church" in America isn't Christian at all. I've noted that the Bible requires us be holy from sin and sinful teachings. I've also noted that the American "church" doesn't do that.

But what if I'm wrong? What if I've overstated the case? What if I've exaggerated in my own mind and I'm seeing what isn't there? What if you agree and you're wrong, too?

Well, you don't have to take our words for it at all. Harold J. Ockenga (1905-1985) claimed he came up with the term "New Evangelicalism". He listed for us the doctrinal changes that Modern Evangelicalism made from the historical faith they received in three areas:

1. Repudiation of the doctrine of separation.
2. Greater social involvement.
3. Theological dialogue with liberalism. (4)

Did you get that?

Point 2 replaces the Great Commission with politics. Point 3 tell us not to separate from false teachers in the so-called Christian camp, but to have talks with them. The Bible, though, says not even to offer a word of encouragement to a false teacher. II John 10-11. Point 1 tell us to abandon holiness. The Bible, on the other hand, says that without holiness, no one will see God. All three of these changes are sinful and antibiblical. God says without holiness no one will see God. Modern Evangelicalism forbids the doctrine and practice of holiness. Modern Evangelicalism is a heresy or God is mistaken. Modern Evangelicals are not Christians or the Bible is wrong.

You cannot be a New Evangelical and a Christian. The Bible says so.

And lest you think Ockenga was alone, he also listed four "agencies" to accomplish these changes. They were as follows:

1. National Association of Evangelicals (Ted Haggard's organization).
2. Fuller Theological Seminary.
3. The magazine Christianity Today.
4. The ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. (5)

AN IMPORTANT FINAL NOTE
Please note one thing. Conservatives have often advocated a type of separation that isn't Scriptural and it's due to a difference between separation as done under the Old Covenant and under the New Covenant. Under the OC Israel was to be physically separate from those who weren't God's people. They were to be put out of the land. Not so in the NC. Under the New Covenant, we are to draw sharp lines separating us from people who call themselves Christians, but remain in unrepentant sin. I Corinthians 5:10-13.

It's unbiblical for Christians to make rules such as "Don't go to a bar", "Don't go to movies", etc. The separation in the New Testament is from those who call themselves Christians and remain in sin. Unlike Israel, we are to go out into the world and share the gospel.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.
(1) Cohen, Abraham; Every Man's Talmud; Schocken Books; New York; copyright 1949 by E. P. Dutton; pp. 22-23.
(2) Telushkin, Rabbi Joseph; Biblical Literacy; HarperCollins; New York; 1997; p. 1.
(3) Jewish sources are given here to demonstrate that these meanings, and this particular understanding of Genesis 1:1 is ancient, not recent. This is not an endorsement of the particular theologies of the authors cited.
(4) Beale, David O.; In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850; Unusual Publications; Greenville, South Carolina; 1986; pp. 261-262.
(5) ibid. p. 262.

STILL TO COME IN THIS SERIES
PART X--What Do We Do, The Details What do I do about my church? With whom do I worship? Work? Fellowship? To whom do I give? Degrees of separation.

PART XI--The Great Unsin, Tolerance and The Great, Flaming Hypocrisy of the "Tolerant" Ockenga, the New Evangelicals, and repudiating the doctrine of holiness. Beale 262. J. Frank Norris and the University of Des Moines.

PART XII--Who Are You? Three Types of People, or Only Two? The examples of Abraham and Moses.

SOME HOUSEKEEPING AND SOME ANSWERS

As many of you know, I’ve separated from Phil Naessens because of a constant bent to defend false teachers and spiritual charlatans. I’d hoped that would be the end if it. Naessens, though, has continued his haranguing at his blog. I’ve not read it since the separation, however, a friend of mine has and Naessens has made two accusations that need to be answered. First, he has said I refuse to answer his questions and challenges. Second, he has said that I’ve been hiding the fact that I was fired from Yellowstone Baptist College in Billings, where I once taught as an adjunct.

His claims are misleading in several ways on these issues:
1. The school where I taught isn’t an honest school. For instance, they were using a textbook for pastoral studies that promotes homosexual marriage, as well as other textbooks that approved of evolution, female pastors, and more. I wasn’t aware of all that until the end of the time I taught there. Thus, the split between the school and me was inevitable, because I won’t tolerate that sort of thing, and Mr. Naessens knows that. He also knew of the sin at YBC because we’ve discussed the situation over emails and the phone.

2. The “victim” was a fellow who calls himself “Iggy”, whom I supposedly abused, or whatever, was a self-proclaimed Emergent/Emerging nut. He also had a habit of claiming he was ordained. He wasn’t. He obtained his “ordination” from a scam website that makes a business of selling fake ordinations and diplomas, while posing as a legitimate school. I exposed Iggy with relish and continue to expose every liar I can find. Iggy got mad and wrote the school all about what a brute I was.

3. Phil N. pretends this is scintillating and new. Wrong. He’s known of this episode for some time and I’ve made it known repeatedly on a number of blogs. You can read the details of what happened between “Iggy” and me on my other blog, Zits Emerge. It’s on my blogroll. It’s a lot of reading, but you can do it if you're unemployed or a speed reader.

4. Phil N. is himself doing a very sinful (and even illegal) thing by trying to use embarrassing information about someone to get that someone to comply with his wishes. That’s what he did by threatening to unveil this. It’s a felony in the US, called blackmail or extortion depending on the jurisdiction. Yet he poses as a victim?

5. While he is currently trying to claim I refuse to answer whatever it is he’s doing on his blog, he has refused to publish my answers. That’s why I had to publish answers here on Al Tosap. So, I quit reading Naessens. The fact is he’s not contacted me with those challenges and questions. He just wants to fight even if no one else does.

6. This sort of behavior isn’t strange to Phil Naessens. He has commonly threatened others with lawsuits. I was aware of that and recently rebuked him for threatening another man with legal action over a personal issue. Since then others have come forward with stories that Phil Naessens secretly recorded phone calls and let others listen, published confidential emails without permission, and even taunted one fellow for a stuttering problem. As of now, all I have is a he-said-she-said, but if he did it, that’s childish.

7. Finally, Naessens evidently hopes no one will notice that all this started with his own dishonesty. James White admitted attending Fuller Theological Seminary in full knowledge that the school denied the reliability of the Bible on Naessens’ blog. In spite of White's admission, Naessens claimed there was no evidence White did so. And while White has publicly advertised “Christian” cruises, Naessens said there’s no evidence of that, either.

I started by recommending no one trust Phil Naessens because of his stance on many false teachers. I made no judgments about his honesty, allowing the problem may be because of a simple intellectual deficit. However, I now fear Naessens very well may be a very malicious man who will try to hurt you if you disagree with him. You decide for yourself.

I apologize for this nonsense, but I felt I owed an answer on these two accusations and a warning to others so they not be victimized by this fellow legally or otherwise. I won't revisit this topic again. You can do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

My next post will be the next installment in the series on holiness.

Phil Perkins.

GOD BLESS THE JEWS (A Lesson In What Matters In Life)

Here's a very interesting video about the miracle of Israel. When you watch it, listen for the role of biblical doctrine and it's outworking in practical life. (As if doctrine isn't practical, right?)


For a better screen shot, see the video here at youtube.

THE LESSON ABOUT DOCTRINE
Hebrew Bible and New Testament both tell us God's people will be a light and a blessing to the world. Of course, the blessing has it's fulfillment in the coming and rule of Messiah.

But the Jews have never lost sight of their role as God's light to the world and the high place of knowledge and critical thinking in the life of the child of God. Even in their current state of denial of the Messiah Jesus, they still seek to fulfill these two doctrines. As a result of these two doctrines lived out by people who don't even know Messiah at this point, the rest of us are blessed. As a man thinks, so is he.

See the point? Study. Consider. Live.

Phil Perkins.

WHY I APPRECIATE JOHN COLEMAN

Here's a great audio from John Coleman to take in. The specifics of the false teaching he is exposing isn't important to you if that sort of falsehood isn't effecting folks in your circles. But listen to this man's heart and his commitment. John Coleman can use your prayers and he's really defending the faith. God bless John Coleman.

Click here , scroll down to find Ram Radio The Web Cast "Confused Minds Speak" 7-29-2010 and click on the date to listen.

His website is on my blogroll, too.

Phil Perkins.

WATCH AND READ AS JAMES WHITE AND PHIL NAESSENS DEFEND PAYING FALSE TEACHERS FOR THEIR SERVICES

As some of you already know apologist James White of Alpha and Omega attended Fuller Seminary long after just about anyone in any Evangelical church knew Fuller had begun teaching that the Bible can't be trusted. If you're like me, you may have wondered if White did so knowingly and if he has since repented of that sin. And one may ask, if he's unrepentant, does he openly teach that such sin is okay? Those two things make a lot of difference. On the one hand, he may be a totally innocent victim of dishonest people or he may have done so at a time when he wasn't yet saved or when he wasn't yet grounded in biblical doctrine. On the other hand, he may have knowingly helped pay the salary of false teachers, prayed with false teachers, had fellowship with false teachers, all very sinful acts.

For that reason, I've kept my mouth shut until now concerning my doubts about White. In the comment thread of the post I'm going to give you below, he gives no biblical defense. He refuses to admit such behavior is sinful and he excuses it with a touching story and an excuse about not wanting to attend a school out of town, like the rest of us had to do.

Phil Naessens defends White because, supposedly, no one has proven White did these things. Phil does so even though White's educational background is public knowledge and inspite of the fact White admits and defends it in the very comment thread in which Naessens makes his defense of White.

Is Phil Naessens lying or does he not comprehend things so simple as this?

Is James White honest, or is he defending sin?

See what you think by reading here:

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/why-hasnt-god-moved-in-the-dr-ergun-caner-situation/

and here:

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/new-comment-policy-at-theology-today/

TWO ANSWERS PHIL NAESSENS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ--EVIDENTLY
Some of you have warned me about Phil Naessens. You were right. I was wrong. I counted Naessens as a friend and excused his nonsense as simply a result of a somewhat non-logical mind. He has stomped around the net verbally abusing folks who object to false teaching, pretty much as long as the false teachers weren't Word of Faith. He called folks defending the faith harsh, mean, hateful...you know the routine. Until now, whenever he did this and I knew about it, he seemed to take correction from me on the issue. That impressed me and I chalked it up to Phil not being a clear thinker and have defended him to some of you as such. Now, I'm not so sure. Either way, he needs to be called to account.

He actually started making accusations against me and just murdered Deuteronomy 13 in order to do so. Therefore, it seems certain that thought and purposeful intention is involved. And he doesn't want to publish my answers to  his accusations.

Here are two of my answers he has so far refused to publish:

1.
Phil N.,
You said this:
“… you failed to provide us with is any evidence to support your assertions, insinuations and opinions on this thread.”

You’re wrong for two reasons:

1. He (White) admitted attending Fuller with full knowledge. Is he lying? What do you think–does that satisfy Deut. 13 rules of evidence? He confessed it and defended it. Do we need it in writing? Well, he even did that for us.

When you mention the Old Covenant standard of evidence, read just four more chapters. Deuteronomy 17. The standard for proof in a capital case was two or three witnesses. Public knowledge meets that quite nicely. The public has at least two people, right? That’s the biblical standard for proof. But more on that next.

2. James’ education and cruises are public knowledge. All you have to do is check the public record. It’s not done in secret. His education is public knowledge. He publicly advertised the cruise, didn’t he? The idea of the probing in Deut. is to find the truth. If it’s public knowledge, we know it’s true. If you had a question, you could have asked or googled it yourself.

On the “insinuations”, what insinuations? I’ve not been sneaky. I said everything outright. That’s why I’m hated.

Why should White touch on the issue of the cruises? You know the answer to that, Phil, better than most people. He takes the role of a teacher and the attendant authority. As such, he’s accountable to the body of Christ. He’s answerable, just like the rest of us. Galations 1:3, again. (As well as about 40 other passages.) And if we’re to test every spirit, who is he to stonewall and stop us from doing what God has commanded? That alone is sinful.

Is the Scripture on this to be obeyed? Is White an exception?

And that actually wasn’t my point. My point is there’s no good defense of such stuff. As such, it makes sense to divert, instead of answer. It’s good debate strategy. It’s also not very honest. Challenge me on anything and you get an answer because I’m not sneaking.

I missed Katie’s apology about the hypocrisy. Sorry about that, but I’m still not clear on what she meant in that last comment. I was, however, one bringing up these things. It’s pretty natural to understand it as she said it. If these things are hypocrisy, I’m a hypocrite for the simple reason that I did them. She doesn’t need to name me personally. Your objection here seems contrived in order to make a point. Do you really think she didn’t mean me along with others who had some of the same questions?

Now how many times have I repeated that I had never heard White present the gospel, Phil? The first time I brought it up, I framed it that way. Accusing me of lying or stating as fact something I didn’t actually know is wrong. And he does not follow the NT example of either teacher or evangelist in form or character.

As to Paul, he obviously is a supporter, if not a personal friend. That’s what I meant. And the point still stands, whether or not Paul is on White’s side. White knowingly fellowshiped with and helped pay the salary of false teachers who deny God’s Word. He rushes to defend his own reputation, but it’s okay to pay those who spoil the reputation of God’s Word?

Phil N., I asked if he knew about the false teachers, didn’t I? And I defended him if he was innocently ignorant, didn’t I?

You’ve not dealt at all with any of the Scripture I’ve brought up. Is it okay for James, or Boyd, or you, or I to support false teachers? Is false teaching a sin? If so, is sin allowed to continue untouched in the body? If not, is false teaching a special sin that isn’t subject to excommunication like all others are?

And you haven’t dealt at all with the historical position of the church. I’ve brought it up at least once on this thread alone. The Reformers wouldn’t allow White in their assembly unless repentance was demonstrated. Calvin didn’t allow it. Spurgeon didn’t allow it. Read about the Downgrade Controversy. Christians in Evangelical churches before the early 1900′s didn’t allow it. I can give you two histories on my shelves if you wish documentation about the early 1900′s. Jesus didn’t allow it in the churches. Rev. 2 and 3.

Were all these believers before us wrong? Did Carl Henry come up with a special doctrine all these people didn’t see in the Bible? Tell us from the Bible why our spiritual fathers going back to Moses and Joshua were wrong. Tell us why Matthew Henry was wrong on this. Tell us why J. Gresham Machen was wrong.

And don’t say these things are still unknown. James said he attended Fuller. And I googled this for you, though it has long been public knowledge: http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2007/

You DO have to take a side, Phil. In the past you’ve defended John Piper, Rick Warren, and Richard Abanes even though they’ve actively brought false teaching into the body. Everytime I have to defend the Scripture on this issue I lose confidence in you as a brother. How many times (do I have to do this)? On the other hand, you’re so quick to jump on anyone who defends the faith for their tone, their words, or whatever is the diversion of the day. ODM seems a dirty word to you, even though you do the same thing often.

When you told me you were teaching at a Greek Orthodox school, I was highly disappointed and I thought you probably hadn’t understood what they believe or that you hadn’t yet understood the biblical commandment to separate. I’d been so adamant for so long, I just didn’t do my duty, I guess. I didn’t remind you one more time. So, it’s not like I jump all over you at the drop of a hat.

Take this thread for example. You go from one side to another depending on what? For the life of me I don’t know what makes you go back and forth so. Here’s the sad fact: Not everyone will like you. You can’t please everyone.

And now, you’ve said that there is no evidence of the very things White confessed to, those things which were public knowledge long before he admitted them here. Are you kidding me? And now that we all know what he did, you’re still on my case.

Why?

In addition, you make up some sort of standard of knowledge about White I must achieve before I expose the sins he has done publicly. Where do you find that standard? In Scripture? No. It’s not there. If a prophet lies, I don’t have to know all he preaches, only that he lies. Deuteronomy 13 and 18.

Do you find that standard in any legal system? No. I don’t even have to know a man’s name to testify about what I know. I did that in the case of a killing. I didn’t know the name of the defendant or the victim and I still don’t. But I saw what I saw and I testified to what I saw.

Guess what? I saw White’s ad selling a cruise and pretending it was a ministry. And I saw his attendance at Fuller reported. And now we all saw White admit he did these things knowingly.

Did you see that, Phil. Do we need to send you a report in Braille?

And you don’t follow that standard yourself. You don’t know all I’ve preached, do you? Do you know my position on the days of Creation? And you didn’t seem to know a lot of things I brought up here. Did you know about Ockenga? Dan Fuller? Nancey Murphy? How about the first president of Fuller and his obsession with the approval of heretics? Did you know? You would call me ignorant for much the same.

In fact, you did.

You don’t have to answer that. Here’s my point: the “ignorant” excuse doesn’t change anything about the facts of what White stands for (your word, I’ve treated you with more respect than that). It’s just a way of smacking me, Phil. That’s obvious.

I’ll put it the same way August Toplady did long ago, in paraphrase. If I concede for sake of argument that I have ten heads and seven tales, what has that to do with the matter at hand?

I know the pull of what our culture, secular and religious, wants us to do is hard. Nevertheless, obey the Scripture. You aren’t grounded, Phil. You’re pulled by the Scripture and by the culture and by whatever was said last by whomever. That’s why you vascillate.

You will be more comfortable with yourself when you pick a side. For Christ or against Christ. You can’t keep doing what you’re doing. If you wish to follow Christ, it will take a daily conscious decision to ignore the culture and follow only the Scripture (dying daily), come what may. You’ll have a lot fewer readers and listeners. If you wish to follow the world, secular and religious, do what feels good at the time.

That’s my advice.

Finally, on your last post, I see you’ve said, “Opinions about issues are one thing. Opinions about people are another.” Do you know how unbiblical that is? Do you know why? Jesus commanded us to make opinions about people (teachers, to be specific) in Matthew 7 and Paul did the same in Galatians 1:3 and I Corinthians 5. John commanded it in his epistles. Moses did it. Paul warned us to avoid or endorse folks as teachers based on an evaluation of their character. II Timothy 2: 24-26. Proverbs 31 asks us to evaluate whom we marry. Psalm 1 tells us to form an opinion about our potential friends. It’s all over the Scripture, but banned in the world. Paul commanded Timothy to form opinions about teachers. II Timothy 2:2, I Timothy 3:1ff.

And have you stopped to think just how illogical this statement is? If it’s wrong to form and express opinions about folks, what have you just done? (For instance, I’m ignorant so I have to shut up, right?) You’ve just told us how you will form an opinion of folks and how you will decide if they’re allowed on your blog based on those criteria.

And I see we can’t say a lot of words anymore. That disqualifies much of Scripture. John the Baptist called out the Jews at the beginning of his ministry and offered absolutely no documentation other than public knowledge. Or is that okay now? Jesus did the same thing often. So did Paul. And, Phil, honestly I’m not sure you’re logical enough to evaluate that sort of thing. “Paul”, who defends all the false teachers at Fuller, accused me of writing things I didn’t and, when I called him on the deceit, you wanted me to apologize.

HUH?????

Sorry to be so harsh, but you need to pick–God or the religious world we swim in.
Phil Perkins.

2.
Phil N.,
I over stated something. You have dealt with some of the Scripture I’ve mentioned. Sorry. You just quit to applying it to White because I’m ignorant and because I have no proof (other than public knowledge and his admissions right here on this thread). I don’t think those are the real reasons, because they don’t make any sense.
Phil Perkins.

I added three explanatory parentheses, corrected some spellings, and may not have broken the paragraphs at the points I did when I submitted these answers.

AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
Finally, I need to take some responsibility for my own lack of diligence. I removed White from my blogroll about the time I saw he was promoting a "Christian" cruise. Naessens has been on my blogroll for a long time. I considered removing him for some time, too, because of some of the nutty things he's written. I didn't want to hurt a friend, and he has been a good friend. That is a wrong priority on my part. Friendship is no excuse.

After this episode, I can no longer recommend anyone read or listen to him. If he's innocent and simply not a very logical guy, it's like the old saw about the anvil. Drop on anvil on my toe on purpose, my toe is broken. Drop it by accident, and my toe is still broken.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

This is a sad thing.

Be holy, because God told us to--no excuses for any of us,
Phil Perkins.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--July 28, 2010

In the prophetic and apostolic tradition of ridiculing the ridiculous and scorning the superficial, I present to you this week's example of the god of the refrigerator, the deity of the dashboard:

FLASHLIGHT GEEZUS NUMBER 2.

We here at Al Tosap love any geezus from the Flashlight Geezi category because nothing says biblical truth like pretending your god has a flashlight duct-taped to the back of his head.

Peace, Baby!

QUOTE OF THE WEEK--July 19, 2010.

Here's a great quote from a fellow named Boyd Miller. His little gem of wisdom is just about worth memorizing.

Here’s how this religious cruise stuff works. Sheeple A books a $1000 cruise with Mega-celebrity preacher. Sheeple A expenses the cruise as a donation to Mega-celebrity's ministry. Mega-celebrity bundles his attendees and gets a deal from cruise company for $500 per. Jesus has nothing to do with it.--Boyd Miller.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING (on Modern Evangelicalism)

Here's a really great article I ran across today that explains some of the history I related in this article.

The author, Dr John C Whitcomb, is much more generous to Charles Fuller than I have been and he was there. I wasn't so, perhaps, his word is better than mine. It's a great read and explains a lot.

Phil Perkins.

SOLVING A PUZZLE

Yesterday I posted an explanatory article. If you've ever wondered just why all our Evangleical institutions are so negligent in ridding themselves of false teaching, the answer is in the birth of Modern Evangelicalism. Unlike historical and biblical Christianity the vision of founders of the New Evangelical movement was to include false teachers in our midst and to go into their midst.

So, for that explanation please read yesterday's post.

A VERY IMPORTANT EXPLANATION

This article is a follow-up to two posts here and here about the classism that is rampant in Modern Evangelicalism. It isn't just a coincidence that there is a deep parochialism in MEism. Pride of class is actually the reason it came into being. The object was to draw a sharp line between the New Evangelicals (I call them Modern Evangelicals) and the original Fundamentalists. Here's the story in a nutshell:

A MATTER OF DISOBEDIENCE
It all started with a sin we don't even recognize today. It's an invisible sin. No one committed adultery or murder or theft. No one ran through town drunk screaming profanities.

It was all very civilized, very buttoned downed, even erudite. Upper crust, as it were. And that was the point.

In the early 1900's the Protestant church in America was splintering. Two warring parties formed, led by opposing cadres of preachers. They hated each other. One was biblically conservative, the other was the beginning of Liberal Protestantism. American seminaries looked up to European scholars and European scholars where following a German influence which sought to wed Christianity to secular science. They were embarrassed by the miracles of Scripture in a culture that was quickly becoming philosophically materialistic. Modern scientists believed that all things can be explained in terms of natural causes and processes.

Christians--real Christians--have always been hated and derided for what they believe. That much was normal. The new thing happened when other churchmen, with whom they had broken bread, worshiped, prayed, given, and toiled, began to hate them just like the rest of the world hated them.

The clergy most influenced by German scientism, of course, were the more highly educated ones. Princeton was a solid rock of biblical commitment. That changed as the influence of philosophical materialism came. Being the anchor Presbyterian school on the eastern seaboard, the Presbyterians were among the first to have an open split. The biblically faithful came to be known as Fundamentalists, because they sought to defend what they called fundamental doctrines of the Scripture.

Soon this war split all the major denominations and associations.

Fundamentalist clergy, as I mentioned above, were often the less educated for a number of demographic, as well as religious, reasons. The stereotype was lie, though, as many who weren't formally educated, were supremely self-educated in the Bible. And very educated men like A. W. Tozer and Cornelius Van Til were counted among the Fundamentalist hord. Van Til was likely the best mind in theology since Jonathan Edwards and perhaps earelier than that. Many can't even read Van Til. The Fundamentalists insisted that the Bible was the authority by which things were to be tested. That was the theological basis for the split. The ethical basis for the split was the biblical doctrine of holiness/separation. The Fundamentalists actively obeyed the Scripture on the issue.

The Liberals plastered the Fundamentalists with two stinging stereotypes. One was (see if this sounds familiar) meanness. Separation from false teachers and false teaching was not obedience to God, the Liberals said. It was just provincialism and anger. The second smear can be summed up in the word the Liberals often used, "obscurantist".

Just as early Christians were killed, tortured, dispossessed of property, and reviled for being fools and worse, Christians in 20th century America were smeared as fools and bigots. As young people were born into Fundamentalist families, some wanted to remain Christian, maybe even Fundamental, but not be seen as stupid, small-minded, and of a lower class. Upperward mobility of some Fundamentalist families caused a bind, too. While gaining social status economically, all social gains were more than lost when neighbors and colleagues found out they were nutty Christians. Many bruised egos tempted many to semi-abandon their faith, to distance themselves from their families and churches. They wanted to feel welcome at church as well as at work or school.

They sought what was often called at the time, a "middle way".

PRIDE OF CLASS OR HUMILIATION WITH CHRIST
That was the choice back then. (Sound famailiar?) Being born in 1957, I personally remember a lot of this struggle and understand, by very personal experience, just how this all worked in families and in churches. I could be liked at school and at work or I could pray over my food and not laugh at bawdy jokes.

Liberal Protestants didn't have that problem.

I'm old enough to remember when we were actually taught that if we didn't take the hatred of the world we weren't worthy of Christ. It was a sign of an unsaved person. We were told we were supposed to be hated and shunned. We were told to expect to be considered lower class.

The New Evangelicals refused to take that lower seat. The sting of being seen as uneducated is intolerable to a man not yet dead to self. They refused to obey. They wanted to be Christians, but they simply wouldn't be associated with uneducated Fundamentalist obscurantists.

A UNIQUE NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT
In the minds of the MEists, it was good that they were both Fundamental in doctrine and liked by the world and  by Liberal Protestants. Separation became a sign of failure. Popularity showed God's blessing. It was a strategy. If folks liked us they would convert. Of course, that didn't happen, but they've only been trying for about seven decades.

This failed strategy has left us a legacy. Unlike the New Testament doctrine that we aren't to present the gospel in our own wisdom, ME's dress it up. Unlike the biblical idea that we aren't to pose as wise, but to bring the foolishness of God to men, in dependence on God for the fruit He ordains, ME's want to be regarded as successful and educated.

So, this sin isn't a simple misunderstanding. It was purposeful disobedience and it comes down to us today in three ways. First, we can't seem to imagine God working without huge, unbiblical institutions. Second, we measure spiritual stature and spiritual truth by numbers. And, third, the Modern Evangelical continues in a deep betrayal of Christ and His brethren.

It was preening, prideful, and dishonest. And that was the birth of Modern Evangelicalism.

Paul didn't start a seminary. He taught Timothy personally in the local church. Peter didn't shop for a publishing house. None of that. Just the Holy Spirit. Just the gospel. Just suffering with Christ. They were very unsuccessful measured by today's standard.

While we take pride in large institutes, Paul took pride in a body broken by the hatred of a violent world because it demonstrated his fellowship with Jesus. Philippians 3.

DOES THAT HELP?
I hope that helps some of you understand just why Modern Evangelicals are the way they are. The whole movement was born out of pride of class and disobedience to the sufferings of Christ.

So the next time you are perplexed by a "Christian" who just won't separate from a false teacher who happens to be very popular, you'll know exactly why. Don't be discouraged. They're different from you. You're a child of God. They're not.

It's a test.

...you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 13:3.

Be holy because He is,
Phil Perkins.