THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part VIII The Abandoned Practice of Corporate Holiness. Sin affects absolutley everything---EVEN YOU!

INTRODUCTION TO CORPORATE HOLINESS.
This was supposed to be the eighth and final installment in this series on holiness. The topic I've saved for last is corporate holiness. I saved it for last because I wanted to start with the basics. Because we've forgotten holiness, we know so little about it. Christian holiness, personal or corporate, is the only logically and spiritually possible outcome of the holiness of God. God's holiness DEMANDS it. There is no such thing as a Christian who isn't holy. That's what "saint" means, a holy person. And there's no such thing as a people of God who aren't holy as a people.

There is just too much to say and it's too important to limit this to just a few paragraphs. The Bible doesn't. God is introduced in the first verse of the first chapter of the Holy Bible as the most holy thing-person-entity in all of reality. He is the Creator. All else is created, dependent on the Creator. From there we read of God separating Noah. Then God separates Abraham. Then God separates His people. Holiness, holiness, holiness until the Messiah comes for His holy ones and destroys all others. The actual word "to make holy" (קדש) means to set apart and first appears outright in only the second chapter of the Bible.

I can't possibly communcate to you just how deeply I mean every syllable of every word. Everything in me is about this.

And that's for two reasons. First, ALL of Christianity is about this subject. This is why Christ died. We worship because God is holy. We evangelize because He has appointed some to become holy. That which many currently call Christianity isn't Christianity for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with holiness. Holiness is a dirty word because we lie to ourselves and others that holiness is second to love and fulfillment and all the other things that we think serve us and not God. Second, holiness is the problem in what we assume to be the Christian church today. There is no more pressing need. We don't need fancier preachers. We don't need better churches. We don't need tighter apologetics. We don't need better evangelistic technique. We don't need more relevance. We don't need a better praise band. We don't need smarter packaging. We don't need better PR.

We need God.

And we can't have Him until we're holy............Hebrews 12:14.

A SIMPLE QUESTION AND SOME REALLY, REALLY BIG NEWS THAT SHOULDN'T BE
Do you believe you can be part of a nominally-Christian group that openly allows sin in it and be innocent?

Here is the BIG NEWS: There is no such thing as being part of a church or denomination or religious institution of any kind without sharing guilt in every sin and all sins they openly allow once you're aware of those sins. And there is no such thing as a little sin without far reaching consequences.

What happened in Eden? What were the shock waves made by Adam's sin? Did Adam's sin only effect Adam? Did Adam's sin only effect humans?

Sin is in the spiritual world, yet it effects even the material world. And I don't mean people in the material world. Yes, that's included, but that's not what I mean. And I don't mean it affects the material world by effecting the actions of people in the material world and thereby the material things those specific people manipulate. This is specifically what I mean:

The actual physical world is effected directly, without personal intervention, by the spiritual world.

Just as Plato and others saw the spiritual and material worlds separated into good and evil, real and illusory, modern man, including Western Christians, see their own false separation. The modern myth says that the spiritual world, if it exists, cannot directly affect the material world. The two realms are causally separated. Two independent spheres, each operating in its own way with its own forces and personal actors that inhabit them.

The pagans have this right. They believe the spiritual effects the material. They just don't acknowledge God, the Creator and sustainer of both realms.

Consider this passage from Paul: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..." One man sinned and so did all others at the same time because they existed only in the form of genetic information in Adam's material body. I'm not about to speculate beyond what Scripture says and the exact mechanism isn't clear to my little brain. Did the sin/death condition come directly through a change in Adam's genetics or did it come through some spiritual/mystical mechanism that effects all of Adam's offspring? I don't know. Either way, Adam's sin means my body deteriorates and dies.

The spiritual directly effects the material.

GUILTY DIRT AND REJOICING ROCKS
Yes, guilty dirt. So, how guilty can dirt be? Read this passage from Numbers 35:

Verse 31 'Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32 'And you shall not take ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to live in the land before the death of the priest. 33 'So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. --Numbers 35:31-33, NAS.

Notice verse 33. In the case of a murder the only "expiation" for the land will be the shedding of the blood of the murderer. I didn't say that. God did. Now, you may ask if "land" may mean the nation. No. No, for three reasons. First, Cain's blood cried out to God from the ground in Genesis. So, even the inanimate is seen as participating with the spiritual world somehow. Second, in Hebrew Bible "the land" refers to the land. The nation is referred to by terms like "the people", "the assembly", or "the congregation" and the book of Numbers is no exception. Third, the addressee in the passage IS the people. The object of the defilement of the people is the land.

In some way the very earth upon which we step is defiled and polluted by our sins and remains so dirty that it has to be atoned for. "Expiation" here is the same word translated "atonement" (כפר) in Leviticus and is the word in Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

Even if you think, "land" refers to the nation, this passage still demands that holiness is to be practiced by the group or the group is defiled and all because just one sin of only one man was excused and overlooked. And that point is made outright in Deuteronomy 21.

Another example of the material world effected by sin is the first chapter of Romans, where we read, "22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." Here, just as in Numbers, material creation is messed up until sin is properly handled.

Jesus told the Pharisees something when they were offended by the zeal of folks praising Jesus as He entered Jerusalem. The Pharisees were concerned about decorum, I suppose. They told Jesus to quiet them. He said this: "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"--Luke 19:40. Was He kidding? Was He exaggerating? Was He lying? Was He referring to only the innate testimony of the grandeur and detailed design of nature here? Not likely. Look at the statement. The rocks were expected to testify of Jesus Himself. That's much more specific than simply exhibiting the wonder and power of the Creator. The rocks were expected to praise the fulfillment of messianic prophecy.


THE POINT?
So why did I go through all this stuff about sin effecting even the inanimate material world? Simple. I started with a question and I'll end with one.

If one sin committed by one man can effect every molecule around you.......and IN you, and if false teaching is a sin, and if you keep spiritual fellowship with any person, group, or organization that openly allows that repeated sin over and over every week all the time........

........how in the name of God can you say that you're not deeply in sin yourself and not KNOW that you're lying?

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.

COMING UP NEXT IN THIS SERIES ON THE LOST DOCTRINE: Part IX The Abandoned Practice of Corporate Holiness. Common sense, common decency, and the unsin.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--April 19, 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:

HUNK NEXT DOOR GEEZUS NUMBER 3.


The standard for a geezus being officially designated Hunk Next Door Geezus is very high. Any Hunk Next Door Geezus has to exhibit a sexiness in tune with current trends in date movies, but has to look a little older than a member of the latest boy band. Girls must want to talk to any Hunk Next Door Geezus and every young guy has to want to look like any Hunk Next Door Geezus. As a result, a geezus may achieve the title of Hunk Next Door Geezus and then lose it as Hollywood and pop music change and it becomes like all lame and stuff you know. So the contemporary status of the Hunk Next Door Geezus is just as important as the actual looks of the geezus.

Hunk Next Door Geezus Number 3 achieves both wonderfully and I think Hunk Next Door Geezus Number 3 will stay current for a long time.

WHY WE SHOULDN'T JUDGE JOHN PIPER--REALLY

Recently, there's been a huge flap over John Piper's invitation of a false teacher to preach at a conference. I think I jumped the gun a bit. As soon as I heard that Piper had sinned like this I thought he should be censored.

Fortunately, cooler heads reminded folks like me that before we insist that a pastor like Piper obey Scripture we should wait and see if the false teacher might be reformed by the experience of preaching in Piper's conference. Some even suggested that Piper might just have a "plan" and we don't know what that is.


Ridiculous? Well, let me tell you a short story from my past that really is true and plainly illustrates just how a preacher preaching one religion can accidentally convert himself to another religion just so long as we all wait to see:

My Really True Story That Really Happened, Really.
When I was still attending a Baptist church, the board and pastor invited a Big Wig from the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach an evening sermon. AND just as you'd expect, for weeks before the appointed time all the little old busy-body ladies and the men who were self-appointed leaders of the more-biblical-than-thou crowd were in a fit. The pastor told them to wait and see. Fortunately for the pastor, there was no business meeting scheduled before the night the JW guy (Roger was his name) was to speak. I say that's a good thing because they were going to take a vote and they were hoping they had enough votes to fire the pastor or at least cancel the Spring Pastor Appreciation Potluck! And all that without waiting to see.

What a bunch o' bigots!

Well, when the night service came we did all the usual things, sing the hymns, take the evening offering--twice, etc. Under the Baptist facade, though, the tension was thick. I trembled with anticipation, antacids, and apprehension. I looked across the pews and could see that one old guy was ready to take notes to trap Roger in something he said. "What a jerk," I thought to myself. My heart was actually beating so hard I could feel it when Roger walked up to the podium.

He started by saying "good evening" and thanking the pastor for inviting him to speak and explain just why JW's don't believe Jesus was God. Jesus was a great and holy man. He was even a prophet. He just wasn't God. He was created.

That's went it happened.
All Baptist heck broke out!!!!! Four deacons rushed the pulpit area and wrestled Roger to the floor. Mics went everywhere, making electonic squawks and squeeks and thuds. Roger ended up with one deacon on each arm and each leg, carrying Roger to the baptismal. Roger was struggling, kicking, flailing. He had a bloody nose and an electic cord wrapped around one leg.

I heard one of the deacons cuss when Roger bit his hand.

Two other deacons headed for the baptismal tank and opened up the front. The pastor was already inside. The four deacons on Roger tried throwing him in the tank but couldn't. Roger fought hard. He didn't WANT to become a Baptist. The other two deacons headed in and helped. In went Roger, head first, yelling, wiggling, and not really happy. One of his feet hit Pastor in the face, breaking his glasses. Splash! Bang! Down went Pastor.

Water was slopping all over the place! Pastor and Roger came back up, sputtering and coughing. Roger was in better shape than Pastor. Pastor's glasses were hanging off one ear with one lense cracked and the other gone.

But Roger! You should have seen Roger. His face started glowing. He was giggling. Then he stopped giggling. Stopped breathing. Stopped like a statue. Slowly he started feeling his whole body from shoulders to knees as if he was looking for lost keys or checking for wounds. The whole place went silent...... Then Roger started saying something under his breath. No one could hear. Pastor leaned in, straining hard to hear. A fat lady up front leaned so hard the front pew fell over, spilling hymnals, Bibles, and unread-but-scribbled-in quarterlies. It was the only thing heard for what must have been ten minutes. You could almost hear yourself sweat. The deacons stood still, leaned, and listened. Eventually he spoke a little louder and a little louder..."Jesus IS God. Jesus IS God...." over and over slowly until he was shouting at the top of his lungs.

Soon the whole congregation was chanting with him "...Jesus IS God. Jesus IS God..." like they were in a strange sort of political rally. Ladies and deacons were crying. Pastor was speaking in tongues--yes, a Baptist pastor--tongues. The building was shaking, organ wailing "Just as I Am". Teenagers were being slain in the Spirit and small children were promising their parents never to be naughty again.

The next day the whole town was clean and fresh. The Kingdom Hall and the Catholic church were being boarded up and had for-sale signs. The bars were being demolished by wrecking crews and Roger had all the Kingdom Hall folks over at Pastor's door to sign up for new converts class.

So that's why I think we'd better wait and see if John Piper might have a secret plan to convert Rick Warren.

You never know.

WHAT!....why are you looking at me that way?.....it really happened....just like I told you......really.....I'm NOT lying....oh, shut up....you're a fundie, aren't you?......go away......I hate people like you......you could be more loving, you know.........

COMING UP: PART VIII OF THE LOST DOCTRINE. This wasn't planned, but the recent mess with John Piper and Rick Warren is a result of the rejection of the biblical practice of corporate holiness. The doctrine of holiness HAS been abandoned. As a result we can't do what Christians have done historically--get rid of wolves in the sheep.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--April 6, 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:

RIDICULOUSLY UNBIBLICAL GEEZUS NUMBER 1.
This is an example of the Ridicuously Unbiblical Geezus. Now, you may say, aren't all geezuspichurz unbiblical, since they're idols? Yes, but the Ridiculously Unbiblical Geezus is an attempt to pretend that its geezus depicts some biblical scene or theme, as opposed to most geezuspichurs which make absolutely no pretense of being anything but fantasy. So, while pretending biblical sincerity, the Ridiculously Unbiblical Geezus is especially dishonest, because it pretends to be biblical and then ignores even the most simple of biblical facts.

Notice Ridiculously Unbiblical Geezus Number 1 is carrying a cross. With no blood, no nakedness, no torn flesh, no being spat upon, no mocking crowd, no prodding soldiers, Ridicuously Unbiblical Geezus Number 1 works because it helps us to imagine that we believe in a geezus who died.........but in a very un-messy way.

Neat!

EXCURSUS: HOW THE HATRED OF HOLINESS PERVERTS WORSHIP

There's a subject that fits equally well in Part VII and Part VIII of the series THE LOST DOCTRINE, a series on the doctrine of holiness and its purposeful exclusion by MEism (Modern Evangelism). It's the cheap worship forms that crop up when a people don't know God. These forms are shared by almost all religions. As "Christian" circles become far from God and unregenerate, the worship is no longer holy worship for the Holy God. In fact, the worship is no longer for any god at all. Instead, it's for the worshipers and their desire for religious feelings. Individuals aren't holy (Part VII) and the group isn't holy (Part VIII, coming next).

If you're a regular reader, you know I don't believe the god of MEism is actually the biblical God. All created gods have two characteristics. First, they're unhinged from reality/truth. They're imaginary. Second, since everyone, including their worshipers, know it they need a physical representation to help the imaginary god feel real to its adherents. There's a cognitive reason for this and I'll take that up later. These two characteristics have two corresponding sins in their worship. Here they are:


THE NO-THOUGHT ZONE
MEer (singing):
Were you there when they crucified my lord?
Were you there when they crucified my lord?
Oh-oh-oh-ooooooh.
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble...
Were you there when they crucified my lord?

Christian: Well, I don't think so. When did your lord die?

MEer: My Lord is Jesus Christ.

Christian: No way. Jesus died 2000 years ago. Nobody here was there.

MEer: What? Of course you weren't there.

Christian: So why ask if you already know the answer?

MEer: It's a great song.

Christian: What's so great about it? It's nonsense.

MEer: It's not nonsense. It's a great song. I thought you said you were a Christian. You should love that song.

Christian: I hate that song. It's nonsense.

MEer: What are you talking about? It's all about how Jesus died for us because He loved everyone so much! How can you make fun of Jesus?

Christian: I'm not making fun of Jesus. It's just a stupid song. Unless you think I'm 2000 years old, you know I wasn't there.

MEer: Yeah, I get it. You weren't there. It's not about that. It's about the love of God.

Christian: Now, wait a minute. That's exactly what it's about. It says it. "Were you there...?" Why did you ask if I was there when you know I wasn't? And how can you say it's not about that when it asks it four times? Words mean things in my world.

MEer: Because it's about the love of God.

Christian: Okay, God loves me. What does this song say about God's love or about Jesus' death?

MEer: It says God loves you.

Christian: Why not just say that?

MEer: You're being stupid.

Christian: I'm just asking what this song means. It's a nonsense question.

MEer: Well, I know it's a great song. You can just feel the spirit. You obviously don't have the spirit. If you had the spirit, you'd know how real this makes Jesus.

That's a fictitious conversation, but not much different from many I've had with church goers. What's the problem these two are having? They have two very different worldviews. The MEer doesn't believe truth is objective. Jesus, God, and salvation need to be "MADE" "real". As a natural result MEism enshrines any worship practice that "makes" religion "real". The definition of "real" is different for one than for the other.

I'm sure, if asked, many MEers would say they believe that Jesus really lived, really died, and was really raised from the dead. (But some will have that other definition of "really".) However, that's not how they live. They evaluate spiritual things mostly on emotional impact, not reason and history. The photo I chose to illustrate this section isn't isolated. That motto is being promulgated and is popular on church signs. It's the natural outworking of wanting religion without having to deal with the objective truth of the written Text.

While Jesus intro-ed His retorts with "Have you not read..." or "Is it not written...", the ME response is usually rooted in experience. And why not? That's all they have. Studying the Divine Textbook is hard work. Going to religious entertainment is much easier. We actually now have MEers "gifted" to play in a "praise band" and instead of believers coming together to hear the Word explained and applied, we have "Christian concerts"! Emotive affect trumps truth.

As a result, holy worship is gone. One of the holiest aspects of biblical worship is its unique rootedness in reality, in real historical facts and a worldview that corresponds with science and history. But since thought is second to affect, ME worship has become pagan in that the job of the pastor is to use trinkets, incantations, special words and rituals, dance, song, and movement to bring to emotive recall and enhance religious feelings. The centrality of the Word is gone and the centrality of truth in general is gone. ME worship is just like any other, just change the name of the god and insert the correct words and rituals.

The pastor now functions like a shaman.

Do you think I've gone too far with the paganism analogy? Well, let me take you to another song and this is an old one, so this trend away from truth isn't new. Have you ever falsely claimed to be a prophet? "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord..."

REALLY? Have you ever sung that? If you did, you lied. You have claimed a vision you never had. I did when I was young. You may not have intended to do so, but you did. And if you say, you're just singing that which the lyricist attested, did you check out Julia Ward Howe? She wrote that. Did she really see Jesus at His return? Or did she construct it to whip up war pathos for an army? Research it. Think it through. If she took liberties, that doesn't excuse you.

And beyond the specifics, look at the fact and fiction in both songs I brought up. In the first song there is some factuality, but it's so minuscule that it only serves the affect. In The Battle Hymn of the Republic, I'm not sure any facts are present. It seems to be an entire set of fantasies designed to imbue Union soldiers with a sense they were fighting God's war. Only in the latter verses, not often sung, is there any biblical material and that is no excuse or moral cover for the heresy of the first two verses.

Think about this: The Civil War ended nearly 150 years ago, so even if that song contained facts pertaining to the situation at the time, it's irrelevant today...but it doesn't seem to be. It's still used today. Why?

The affect. Just the affect. That's all that matters.

Fantasy and affect aren't Christianity.


THE EASTER BUNNY VS. REALITY
Imaginary things are for children and crazy people. And children need visuals. Visuals to help us imagine God are expressly forbidden in Scripture. Here's why: God is holy.

Well, now that the ME god isn't holy, but primarily loving, we could use a visual or two to help us get all that holy, fiery, righteous God stuff and all those passages with Jesus saying things about eternal fire, gnashing teeth, weeping in torment, and dumping religious folk like us in hell out of our minds.

And we like pichurz cuz we don't hafta readum.

Why do we get Easter Bunny candies? Why do we put up pictures of the Easter Bunny? Simple. It isn't real and we want to humor the kids. The easiest way to humor the kids is to help them picture what we want them to believe. Why do we take the kids to the mall santa?

To quote a Catholic priest I heard on the news this morning, the reason for the pictures is to help us "imagine" what Christ was like. He was jacked because some (evidently unemployed) scientists were working on the Shroud of Turin, using some special method to create a three-dimensional image. Interestingly, the priest admitted the whole project may be irrelevant because we have no direct evidence the Shroud was Jesus' shroud. It's all a guess.

Play John Lennon for a moment and imagine the work on the Shroud is fruitful and we get an accurate portrayal of the man to whom the Shroud belonged. You know for a fact it will be venerated and worshiped. And we don't even know for sure who it is. If it isn't Jesus and folks worship the man of the Shroud, they aren't worshiping God. They're idolaters.

Here's a NEWS FLASH: You don't get to imagine God.

So, just why do you think some folks insist on all these lying, false, and just plain stupid pictures that are supposed to be pictures of Jesus? Are we children? I'm not and I don't want to be treated like one. I refuse to be treated like one.

TOP FOUR REASONS GEEZUZPICHURZ ARE BAD:
4. They try to make us God. They do that two ways. First, they always reflect the culture of the folks painting the trinkets and the folks buying the trinkets. I have found a couple geezuspichurz that portray their geezus as a homosexual. You'll say that's blasphemous. It is. It portrays Jesus as a dirty, sinful, filthy person deserving hell. You're right. But if you paint your geezus to look like you, who do you think you are? The Scripture (Remember the Scripture?...all words..no pictures...) says you're a filthy sinner, too, just like the homosexual--just change the details. You're not God and painting Jesus to look like you doesn't change that. It's blasphemy. And by the way, have you ever noticed how mad white "Christians" get when a black geezus is painted? Are whites God or is God white? Add racism to blasphemy. That should make a tasty pudding.

Second, when we think we can imagine God, we arrogantly imagine we are in His place. HE, AND ONLY HE, thinks things into existence. Remember Genesis? (An interesting insight here, I think, into the basic sin of postmodernism and the so-called Emergent.)

3. Which geezus are you going to pick? Remember the first law of logic you learned? The law of non-contradiction tells us the whole geezuspichur thing is stupid. Why be stupid? And when did stupid become an acceptable form of worshiping God? You can get skinny geezi, fat geezi, black geezi, white geezi raised in Kokomo, Idaho, sad geezi, laughing geezi, plate-head geezi, flashlight-behind-the-head geezi, flat-hair geezi, breezy-hair-like-a-girly-model-photo-shoot geezi...

GEEZZZ...I...get to pick...I guess...

AND, yes, there's even a Dan Haggerty geezus for all you Grizzly Adams fans. BEEElieve it or not. Google it.

Look. If one geezus is actually Jesus, all the others are imposters. No way around that. There's a whole lot of lying going on. Only one can be right. I think it's the one in the Bible.

2. God is holy. This is the reason most prominent in Scripture. The uniqueness of God is the reason for the prohibition. Conversely, I believe, the rejection of holiness naturally makes the embrace of images natural--sinful, but natural. In Deuteronomy 4, starting in verse 14, we see an exhortation to keep the commandments, starting with the second and it's based on God's uniqueness and the unique relationship between Him and the assembly. Specifically, we're told images are forbidden because no image was revealed to man. No image was available because God is outside space/time, unlike anything seen. A physical image of Him is nonsense. Interestingly, we have no idea what Jesus looked like, other than the fact that He wasn't much to look at, according to the prophets. Deuteronomy 4 is presented at the end of this post to read. Please do. God pounded the second commandment over and over in that passage and it was based on the fact that depicting God is really impossible. He is like no other.

Why do we think, then, it's okay to find some guy, put him in a sheet, pose him, take a picture, and lie to our kids? Or why is it okay to just make it up? Making things up is called lying, isn't it? "...lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female..."

When you paint or buy or hang a geezuspichur, you're not being spiritual. You're acting "corruptly". That word is from the root "shachat", meaning corrupt, blemishing, destructive. And look at the backend of the second commandment. If you raise your children on images, instead of the scriptural God, you will destroy them to the "third and fourth generations". And doesn't that make sense? What do you expect to happen when the kids get a load of the femmy guy outside the door with no knob and very little of the manly carpenter who warned folks of hell and refused to back down for the preachers of His day pictured only in Scripture? Remember the Easter Bunny?

Well, your kids do.

1. It violates black letter Scripture. Isn't that enough? Can't we just obey the second commandment?

IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH?
Let's play John Lennon again. Imagine teaching a math class. Imagine you're teaching the kids the Pythagorean Theorem. You tell them to sing a song about the theorem. The song is fun and the kids love it, but it doesn't delineate the theorem. Then you tell them all to imagine Pythagoras and draw a picture of Pythagoras. Then tell them the theorem has to do with triangles. Tell them to imagine and draw a triangle.

Now, have you taught the kids anything?

Why do we do that in church?

Is that coherent with worship of the God of Truth?

Come let us emote together?

I'll end here. God is the God Who decides truth by His smallest thought. He cannot lie because whatever He says is truth. We have no right to imagine anything in our worship. We are called disciples, not dreamers. A disciple is a student, not an aspiring artist. And that's appropriate because God is the truth, not a dream.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins. PS--Read this:

Deuteronomy 4:15-40 15 ¶ "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, 16 lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. 19 "And beware, lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 "But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today. 21 "Now the LORD was angry with me on your account, and swore that I should not cross the Jordan, and that I should not enter the good land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. 22 "For I shall die in this land, I shall not cross the Jordan, but you shall cross and take possession of this good land. 23 "So watch yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the LORD your God has commanded you. 24 "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. 25 ¶ "When you become the father of children and children's children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD your God so as to provoke Him to anger, 26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you shall surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but shall be utterly destroyed. 27 "And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you shall be left few in number among the nations, where the LORD shall drive you. 28 "And there you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. 29 "But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. 30 "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and listen to His voice. 31 "For the LORD your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them. 32 ¶ "Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it? 33 "Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived? 34 "Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him. 36 "Out of the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire. 37 "Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power, 38 driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in and to give you their land for an inheritance, as it is today. 39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other. 40 "So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."--NAS

UNTYING A VERY PRODIGAL KNOT

Dear Prodigal Knot, I've enjoyed communicating with you over the last couple years alot on these blogs. However, I really think you need to be straightened out and I think I know just the fellow to do it. His name is Dr. Darrell Cox.

As it happens, he is speaking at a Baptist church here in Billings and I know he's qualified because of the poster I found in our laundromat made on a home computer with a cheap printer and pinned over some other guy's poster advertising his little home based business, because Dr. Cox is much more important than the little people. The poster listed Dr. Cox's accomplishments. Here are a few to help you understand just how big a wig he is in the religious boobeousie :

1. Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church for over 20 years.

2.Membership of his church is approximately 900 members.

3. Averages over 885 per Sunday in Sunday School.

4.In the year 2004, there were 9,370 souls saved & 1,347 people were baptized.

5. Runs 19 bus routes with an average of 600 people or more per Sunday.

6.Church supports 120 missionaries.

7. Trinity Baptist Academy (Christian School) was started in 1995.

Now, pay attention, PK, because any man who saved over 9,000 folks in one year all on his own ought to be heeded. I mean, Paul didn't even do that. He had to depend on the power of the gospel. Kinda a crutch, I'd say. After all, who needs God's Spirit. We got Darrell, bib overalls-n-all! Hummmm, wonder if he has one of those Southern Baptist puffy hairdoes, where great amounts of effort, hairspray, and prayer are used in a sincere attempt to make an old preacher look like he has the same hair he did in 1963.....? Perhaps, you could come to Billings, where Dr. Cox will be inflicted upon us here and mean preach the gospel of gaaaawwww-duh......at the Gospel Baptist Church at 1246 Cook Street at 7pm March 29 and 30.

You could see his hair!

You know how to get hold of me. You can stay at my house. Come and let Dr. Cox bless the devil (and the doctrines of grace) outta ya.

Tongue in Cheek,
Phil Perkins. PS--For those of you who haven't met PK, he's a great guy, a solid and serious student of Scripture and Christian. His website is here.

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.

REGISTRATION FOR CLASSES STARTING IN MARCH, 2010

Class Registration.

As you may know we want to start classes on the weekend of March 20. Before that, I want to have a face-to-face on oovoo with each student. At this time we will choose a class time that’s at the student’s convenience and exchange emails, phone numbers, and oovoo user names. Also, at that time, we can spend time getting to know each other a bit. I’d like to know your goals for learning.

Saturday, March 13, is the day I’m going to make myself available for an oovoo face-to-face. From 11 AM to 1 PM Mountain Standard (That’s 1-3 Easter, 12-2, Central, and 10-12 Pacific.) Time, I’ll be on line with oovoo. My user name is philperkins. Add me as one of your oovoo contacts. Then, call me at 406-672-7450 to set up a specific time. If the two hour window listed here isn’t convenient for you, simply call me and set up another time and we can do it any time that weekend. If that weekend isn’t good for you, then we can set up on another day. I want to do this so that we don’t have glitches during the first class times.

Here are the steps to do before you call and set up the face-to-face:

1. Go to the Catalog of Courses and choose your class(es) here.

2. After choosing your class(es), go to the Course Descriptions here and find your course.

3. Evaluate whether or not you can afford the costs of the books, computer and internet, and the time commitment.

4. Decide on a time or two you can do a face-to-face to register over oovoo.

5. Call me.

Thanks, Phil.

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

There is a doctrine that Modern Evangelicalism has purposely stolen and hidden from the folks. It is the doctrine of holiness and this is the sixth installment in a series on holiness here. Don't believe it? Do this (I know I've suggested this before, but it's really worth trying--really--DO IT!!): Go to your neighborhood ME bookstore. Ask for books on personal finances. Ask for the section on marriage. Even ask for specific books that will spice up your sex life. You'll find them. The clerk will know exactly which shelf they're on unless he/she is a newbie. Then ask for the section on holiness. For best results use the term "sanctification". When the clerk can't find the section, ask him/her if he/she knows what "sanctification" means. Especially if he/she is under forty, he/she won't even know what the word means.

I recently spoke with a man who wanted me to teach him Greek. I'll call him Gil. I refused because he only thinks he's a believer and because he refuses to learn Hebrew, which tells me he isn't all that into the Bible. Our conversation turned to holiness. (Imagine that!) I quoted Hebrews 12:14 to him. He considers himself a Christian, but unknown to Gil, he hates the Bible. He doesn't think so. Gil thinks he loves the Bible. Gil says so. He doesn't and I know that two ways. First, I quoted a very old memory verse to him. No only did he not know it, he didn't know the content. Now, not knowing a verse I know doesn't mean anything. I'm sure he knows verses I don't. The shocking thing he didn't know was the content. "Pursue peace with all men and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord."--NASB. He actually started arguing with a Bible verse! I told him it was a quote. He STILL argued! Which brings me to the second way I know he hates the Bible. He had actual scorn for the idea that holiness/sanctification was so integral to God's people that you couldn't be one of God's people if you don't practice holiness.

The hatred flashed and his mind was off to the no-holiness races. He had a ready argument against this concept and he had already started rattling off his debate points, spittle flying.

He hated it.

Which brings me to another thing I think is amazing. Namely, I get that same reaction a lot from people who would be considered Christians. Their friends consider them Christians. They consider themselves Christians yet they VISCERALLY and INSTINCTIVELY HATE the doctrine of holiness!

They aren't and can't be Christians. (Unless Hebrews 12:14 is wrong!!!)

Let me relate just one more short story before we actually get down to the levy on brass (brass tax--get it? Yeah, I know--it's tacks.) There's a pastor in this town. I'll call him Todd. I seriously considered joining his church. After this experience, I won't even consider it. We had talked a lot to each other. He is solid in the doctrines of grace. He is knowledgable in theology. He is smart and he seems to really base everything he does on Scripture. I had sought his advice on a number of things. I respected him. Until that afternoon. I forgot exactly what the conversation was about, but I mentioned "separation". That was the trigger. Todd's a soft-spoken, gentle, even-tempered guy. You might even call him mild. What I admired about him was his ability to be firm without being mean or emotional. A characteristic I lack at times.

You shoud have seen it. "Separation" was all it took. Todd's face scrunched up, his voice got tense and angry like I've never seen, and he told me in stark terms that separation was just an awful thing and he'd have nothing to do with it.

NEVER had I seen him ejaculate venom like this.

How do you explain this sort of hatred of a doctrine? Well let's take a look at some of those brass tacks.

In the fifth installment I gave a list of four corollary doctrines that have been lost along with The Lost Doctine of Holiness. Because holiness isn't appreciated, these other doctrines have been ignored, too. Here they are:

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

2. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SINFULNESS OF OUR SIN. (The Lost Doctrine of Our Moral Filth and Our Spiritual Hopelessness)
This is also called the doctrine of human depravity and flies in the face of much of MEism.

I know that I often refer to things from my youth. I don't mean to bore you or to talk to you like your grandpa who yearns for the good old days. I don't. On the other hand, I've been blessed and, perhaps, especially equipped to minister at this time because not only do I see these things in Scripture, but I also have seen the changes as these doctrines were declared outdated, stupid, too stodgy, and irrelevant. I lived through it.

I was there in Evangelical churches when we decided that we must learn to love ourselves. I was there when we decided that "hellfire" preaching was the reason unsaved folks hated us. I was there when we decided to believe the doctrine that doctrine was the problem. I was there when we decided to seek unity by forgetting doctrine.

I was there. I know by experience. This is partly personal testimony, a witness to what I've seen and lived.

One of the first things to go overboard was all the sin talk. I remember going around "witnessing" to folks with a Campus Crusade for a Very Effeminate Christ staff member using The Four Spiritual But Not Totally Biblical Laws. One of his very favorite lines, his opening line to segue the conversation from small talk to the little book that was going to save this guy, was this: "We're not here to talk to you about the terrible ten, the naughty nine, the dirty dozen..." This was usually followed by laughter from the staff member. He certainly wanted to assure our victim that we weren't there to point out his sin. Then we started with Law One, God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

That's a lie on three levels.

First, it's simply wrong to say carte blanche to people on the street that God has a wonderful plan for their lives. The Scripture doesn't say any such thing. Starting in Genesis, God's plan for individuals varied. Read the blessing of Israel for his sons. It wasn't all wonderful and they were the chosen people. The first book of Samuel tells us that God's plan for Saul was an ingominious end. And even for the saints headed for heaven, God's plan for our earthly lives could be suffering and rejection. Oh, wait........I was wrong on that. God's plan for the saints IS persecution. Philippians 3, II Timothy 3:12.

Why are we lying to folks? Aren't we supposed to be telling them about the God of Truth? Does this make sense? And what if this guy does get saved despite the ham-headed misrepresentation of the gospel? What do you tell the guy when he reads in Scripture that he is heading for earthly misery because he's a Christian? Worse yet, what are you going to tell him when he EXPERIENCES it? (And he will experience it.) Unscrupulous salesmen lie about what they're selling. Christians aren't supposed to.

Second, this implies that God's plan needs your approval. The Four Spiritual Laws says that to get God's plan on track you have pray the magic prayer in the back of the tract. The Scripture has another opinion. Psalm 135:6 says, "Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps."--NASB. Hummmm....who's Brighter? (Pun intended.)

Third, to represent the first "Spiritual Law" as part of the Gospel is false. Jesus said that God hates people and plans eternal judgment for most of them. Where did Jesus say that? Pretty much all over the gospels. Read 'em, I dare ya'. Find all the passages where Jesus proclaimed God's love for sinners. Wait...I'll help you. John 3:16. That's pretty much it as far as I can see. If you know of another passage or two, please leave a comment. I want to be right. In Luke we read that He felt compassion for the rich young man and He spoke a lot about love. Other than John 3:16, though, the passages can be split into two categories, commands to love God and people and declarations of God's love for the saints.

When Jesus evangelized He always spoke of the wrath to come and the need to repent and believe. In other words, God hates sin and sinners and has a terrifying plan to punish both forever.

Here's another story. A few months ago a co-worker wanted to talk Bible and God. He said he believed in a loving god. The God of the Old Testament who killed all sorts of folks was just not right. I reminded him of the story of the whore and the other whore. The whore came into the other whore's house. The other whore was entertaining Jesus. The other whore thought he was acceptable to Jesus and God and when the first whore I mentioned came in anointing Jesus' feet with her tears and kisses and wiping His feet with her hair, the other whore got mad. He was upset that Jesus even talked to the first whore. Luke 7.

What was the difference between the two whores? HOLINESS. The crying, kissing, and hair-wiping whore knew about the galactic difference (holiness) between her and God!!!! The other whore didn't. As a result one was so thankful she couldn't express it in words and had to resort to abject self-humiliation at Jesus' feet to come close and the other one.......well, the other whore, the Pharisee, was just......smug.

For us today, we have a very odd message, this gospel. I told my friend to remember this story from Luke 7. He was familiar with it. I told him that the Scripture tells of both the love and the hatred God has for His sinful creatures. We're on a knife edge. On one side, without repentance, there is hell and God's hatred for evil forever. On the other side, there is mercy forever. BOTH are there. And Jesus emphasized the first side because that's what we must act upon. We're all headed for hell unless we act now and repent. Ephesians 2:3.

Take the Luke 7 analogy back in time. Just as those who realize something of their sinfulness are more thankful for God's grace, those who come to realize their filth in God's eyes and the hell to come are much more likely to repent.

Notice the repentance she wore that day. Men paid to kiss her lips. She kissed His feet. Men paid to run their hands through her hair. She wiped Jesus' feet with it. The very things once thought of as precious and used for self are now abased and used to worship God!




Be like the wise woman who came to repentance at Jesus' feet. Know that you're not the snow. Can that other stuff become snow? Can it smell like snow? Can it taste like snow? Offensive? Yes. I am more offensive to God! I need His mercy and I need it now and I need it deeply!

3. WE ARE NOT HOLY. (The Lost Doctrine of Personal Holiness)
This is the start of the brassiest of the brass tacks. Here, the rubber of holiness hits the road. God willing, I will take this on in the 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. But first things first.

A CHALLENGE: Speaking of the Lost Doctrine of Holiness and how it contrasts with the Modern Evangelical "gospel", go here. Here you will find a commercial that leads to a "gospel" presentation that has been applauded by the ME church profusely. Watch the commercial and then go to all the links. Thoughtfully evaluate it. Is it the biblical gospel? Why or why not? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

Worshipping the Holy One of Israel,
Phil Perkins.

CLASSES STARTING IN MARCH

Classes will be starting in March for Just the Bible Academy. Learn the biblical languages, hermeneutics, and apologetics. Check here for course descriptions and class times and schedules.

THE LOST DOCTRINE--Part V The Lost Practice of Separation

REMEMBERING
For new readers, I was in the middle of a series I called The Lost Doctrine and was interrupted by a nasty work schedule last April. I had done four installments and you can read them here. If you pick up this series here without reading the first four installments, you won't get the entire picture. So please read the first four. Pay particular attention to the definition of holiness and how that affects the definition of God.

WHAT'S A COROLLARY?
The Bible is a miraculous book. Written by dozens of authors over centuries, it is nonetheless logically consistent, a seamless whole. The doctrines presented in Scripture don't stand alone like stalks of wheat so that one may be pulled and the others remain. They aren't independent ideas that can be mixed and matched. If you change grace, you change sin or the nature of God. If you change sin, you change the atonement. If you change the atonement and sin, you change the sin nature and, therefore, regeneration. And the doctrine of holiness isn't any different. The octrine of dholiness has a direct affect on what we believe and how we behave in the here and now.

So far, we've looked at the doctrine of holiness, a doctrine purposely abandoned and lost to most church goers in today's churches. And so far, we've primarily looked at the holiness of God. And the holiness of God, like all other doctrines, has logical consequences that can't really be avoided. If God is truly unique, radically other, completely separate, how can we be His progeny and still be just like our neighbors, but simply go to a particular place we call "church" one day a week.

In this installment I'd like to begin explaining four doctrines that are corollaries of the doctrine of the holiness of God. Because these four doctrines are logical outcomes of the doctrine of the holiness of God, and because we have abandoned the holiness of God in my generation we have four corresponding deficiencies in our lives.

1. WE HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. (The Lost Doctrine of the Ownership of God)
The problem of evil can be succinctly stated this way: If your God is good and if He is all powerful, then evil things shouldn't happen to us. Or, why do bad things happen to good people?

As I often hear or watch "Christian " leaders in the media being asked questions and responding to situations, I am alarmed and saddened by how little they know of God. For instance, I recently read in my local paper an article written by an ME (Modern Evangelical) college professor who claimed that Jesus healed everyone He met who was sick or lame. Did he read the gospels? Or you will hear ME preachers on the national stage say that God could not possibly have meant some disaster as a judgment on an evil people. Why? Why does the world have to ask the church if God might be judging them when calamity comes? Don't they already know? They certainly already know what answer they want. And if, in their hearts, they didn't already know that it's likely that human evil just might be a cause for God's wrath, they wouldn't be asking. After all, the whole point of asking an expert is to get the comforting answer they already decided upon. And if the expert gives the wrong answer, we'll just ridicule him and ask another who, by now, certainly understands that to please us he'd better say God doesn't send disaster anymore.

There's a technical theological term for this sort of thing:


HOKEY, HOKEY HOGWASH!

I won't take time to get into this right here, but let me say that this is so unbiblical that it's actually heretical and it wasn't preached that way by Evangelicals even 50 years ago. Folks were actually told to be scared of God's wrath. Not now. In fact, it's official. Their god has purchased and donned a brand new poodle dress.

Recalling what I wrote in the previous installments, God's holiness is His uniquesness, His apartness, His otherness, and here is the reason we have no answer to the problem of evil: Going back we saw that on the holiness of God was a major theme of Genesis 1:1. Remember that? When the Scripture introduced God as the Creator, and the rest of all things as created, it was also a claim of differentness, apartness. Some of thoses differences include non-contingency vs. a completely contingent and dependent creation, Author of all that is vs. small beings that can only discover what is, Be-er of good because good is what He is vs. small beings that must be told moral principle and follow it or suffer the consequences, Owner vs. the owned, eternal vs. small beings closed into and dependent upon the space-time God created graciously for us.

There are two ways a Christian can answer the unbeliever when the objection to God is the problem of evil. One is to defend God. He didn't cause the evil...He caused the evil but for very good reasons...etc. Arguments of this first type may or may not be valid. In particular, the argument that God didn't cause the evil can be dangerous. Currently most of our leaders have opted to defend God. (I'm sure He's glad to have us on His side!) That would be okay if it was combined with the second type of argument, and if it was a biblical defense. It's often neither. The defense is often simply that God doesn't send judgment anymore.

Really? Where do you find He stopped hating and punishing evil in Scripture?

The second type of argument is foreign to us but is common in the Bible and Jewish thought. This second type is basically just one argument. In a nutshell this is it:

God owns you, so get used to it. After all He created you and lends you the air you breathe.

Until the last few decades and the appearance of MEism (Modern Evangelicalism or the New Evangelicalism) we preached a God who was a consuming fire. We preached a God so different from ourselves that the very idea that God should be measured by the same moral code we measure ourselves would be considered ridiculous. I contend it is ridiculous and the problem of evil, rather than being insightful and profound, is just whining in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches.

In the Scripture we have the common analogy of the potter vs. the clay. The clay simply has no right to complain. Every decision is the prerogative of the potter. Any decision the clay is allowed is a gift, not an obligation on God's part. The clay has no standing to sue the potter.

The Scripture is a Jewish book. The Messiah is the Jewish Messiah. The One True God is the Jewish God. So how do (or did) the Jews see God and His relationship to men?

Let's finish with a passage of Jewish tradition written hundreds of years after Christ. This is oral tradition called Midrash, or exposition of Scripture, not recorded in writing until at least the second century. It comes out of the Jewish idea that God owned the creation, Israel, and each individual. Here it is:

"The Holy One, blessed be He, created days, and took to Himself the Sabbath; He created the months, and took to Himself the festivals; He created the years, and chose for Himself the Sabbatical Year; He created the Sabbatical Years, and chose for Himself the Jubilee Year; He created the nations, and chose for Himself Israel...He created the lands, and chose for Himself the land of Israel as a heave-offering from among all the other lands, as it is written: 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.'"--Midrash Tehellim 24:3. (1)

Please notice a number of things. First, notice the title "Holy One". Imagine going to church and talking about "the Holy One of Israel"! Your peers would, no doubt, think something was wrong with you. You'd not be welcome. Yet, the unsaved Jews have traditionally thought this way. Why don't we? Second, notice that even before modern physics, the Jews saw time as finite and created, just like Augustine. All other worldviews have seen time as circular and infinite in duration. Some theories of modern physics and the Scripture agree that time had a beginning. God even owns time. That means He owns our lives.

God, then, has the right to end your life when He is pleased to do so and you have no right to call it evil.

That is the lost doctrine of God's ownership of each and everyone of us. The lost doctrine of the holiness of God effects everything. It is the cause for us losing God's ownership and explains why so many of us have no answer to "the problem of evil".

The next installment, God willing, will start dealing with three more lost doctrines that are the direct results of our sinful abandonment of the doctrine of the holiness of God.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1) Johnson, Paul; A History of the Jews; Harper and Rowe; New York, NY; 1987; pp. 18-19.

NEXT TIME:

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

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

4. WE FAIL TO SEPARATE FROM FALSE TEACHERS. (The Lost Doctrine of Corporate Holiness)

PASSING AN IMPORTANT BILL

Here's a logical chain for your consideration:

1. Bill is very religious, but he doesn't know much Scritpure.

2. Scripture is God's word to us as a group and to each one of us personally.

3. When one person loves another, the first listens to what the second has to say and reads his/her letters with great interest.

4. Scripture says the saints are new creatures, including a great love for God.

5. Because of point 1, we know Bill must not read much Scripture.

6. Because of point 5, we know Bill doesn't love God.

7. Because of points 4 and 6, we know Bill isn't regenerate.

Don't be a Bill.

LANGUAGES, TRANSLATIONS, PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND OTHER LIARS

Conservative vs. liberal. Which are you?

A BIT O' HISTORY
In the time of Jesus, there were liberals and conservatives, too. The Sadducees believed only in the material world. No spirit world, no afterlife, no resurrection. The Pharisees believed in all that Hebrew Bible had to say about the afterlife, resurrection, angels, and the spirit world. But then they went further. Not only did they believe in the Hebrew Bible, they also believed in the Oral Torah. Oral Torah was a set of oral traditions. The Hebrew Bible was the Written Torah. The Sadducees were idealogical descendants of the famous priest of Daviddic times, Zadok. They were aristocratic and wealthy. The Pharisees appealed to the lower classes, the every day man. Their name told you what they were about. It meant those who practiced holiness, those who separated themselves.(1) They were very like the theological conservatives of today. The Sadduces called themselves Israelites who loved the Torah, but felt free to pick and choose the Torah doctrines they wished to believe. They are like today's liberals.

AND TODAY?
Fast forward to today and visit the issue of Bible translations. On the one hand, we have those who have almost no regard for the sanctity of Scripture. The most important thing in translation philosophy to these folks is whether or not some folks like the translation. The big issue these days is gender. Instead of simply translating the Scripture in a straightforward and honest way, translators are sometimes actually instructed to shade the text to make it seem that men and women have the same role or that God is just as feminine as masculine.(2) They call this "gender neutral" translation. This is a lie.

More conservative folks believe the Scripture is inviolable, sacred. Translation is to be as literal as possible, as accurate to the text as possible. This much is good. Some however, like the Pharisees, add to Scripture. The Pharisees added the Oral Torah to the Written Torah, the Hebrew Bible. Some conservatives go beyond holding to a standard of straightforward, accurate translation without agenda. They have decided that a traditional translation is the only translation that can be used by real Christians. They have added their tradition to Scripture.

CHOICES YESTERDAY AND TODAY
So which of these two groups is closer to the truth? Neither is really biblical. One discards biblical ethics regarding the Scripture. The other honors the inviolability of Scripture. They just add a specific rule about exactly which translation to use and insist we all agree it's better than all others. It, in fact, is the Word of God in English, in their view..

Being a conservative Christian who affirms the inerrancy, sufficiency, necessity, and practical value of Scripture, I have long held a sympathy for the King James Only movement. I don't agree with them. I thought that they are trying to preserve the truth, but in a ham-handed way.

I WAS WRONG
Here's how I decided that. It took two definite steps.

The first step was biblical and logical. Biblically, it's evident in both Testaments that God disapproves of those who add to the rules and laws God has already placed on His people, just as much as those who discard part or all of them. Logically, if the answer to a math problem is missed, does it matter that my wrong answer was too high or too low? In most cases, no. And if God gives ten commandments, is it better to keep only eight or to keep all ten and add two of my own? Both disregard God's commandments. One says God is too harsh. The other says He's not harsh enough. Don't both implicitly criticize God?

For the last several years these thoughts have been rolling in my bald head and I can't find a way to excuse one while condemning the other. Indeed, in Deuteronomy 4 adding to God's words is condemned right along with taking some away. Both are wrong. Jesus, in Mark 7, confronted the Pharisees about the unbiblical requirement to baptize one's hands. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees hated Him. Romans 14 and Galatians both prohibit adding rules that aren't biblical.

A GREAT IRONY AND AN AWFUL DANGER
There's a great irony in the King James Only Movement. While they see themselves as preserving the Scripture, they aren't. They don't have all that much to do with the Scripture. Their rules actually prohibit them from studying the Scriptures, or at least from studying it well. For most of them, studying the languages isn't necessary. The KJV is inerrant and totally accurate, they say. This leads to a radical laziness. Biblical scholarship is limited to the study of the KJV. They steadfastly refuse to lift an finger to learn the languages so they can do proper exegesis. Further, in my experience most KJVO pastors simply aren't intellectually equipped to learn the languages. This, too, is sin. The leadership is to be made of men able to teach. And, yes, the KJV says so--II Timothy 2:22-24. Their pastors are mostly ignorant of the Scripture they say they are preserving and honoring. In my experience most don't even know the KJV all that well. I recently asked a KJVOer what he knew about the Divine Name. His answer had to do with "theos", the Greek word for God. He didn't even know the Divine Name. It's in the KJV, just like all good translations and "theos" isn't it.

How can purposeful ignorance be worship and obedience of the God of truth?

The King James Only Movement is a microcosm of something hideous in conservative Protestantism. This serpantine monster is a modern Phariseeism, the hubris that sneaks into a life or a group and adds rules God hasn't given us as if He'd forgotten them. This monster is dangerous. It can send you to hell while convincing you you're more righteous than anyone you know.

Conservatism is a term that tells you just what it is. Whether it's in politics, religion, or one's personal finances, it's an effort to conserve something valuable. It's a good thing.

That is, unless the thing conserved isn't all that valuable. And what if it's downright harmful or evil? That kind of conservativism has no place in the life of one who wishes to follow Christ. There is only one thing a Christian is to preserve, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nothing else. Pharisees add things.

SO WHO'S LYING?
It's easy to point out that the liberals are lying to us. They claim to be Christian, but deny the very doctrines of Scripture that have defined Christianity for 2000 years. It's a no brainer.
But can a good conservative be lying? Surely one intent on preserving truth and all the doctrines that make real Christianity can't be dishonest. Perhaps they are mistaken.

Well, how did Christ deal with the Pharisees? Did He try to correct their mistakes or did He call them sinful? He called them sinful. The King James Only Movement is a sinful movement, just like the liberal movement along with their so-called gender neutral movement. Both are lying and both are liars. The KJVOers are no better than those twisting the Scripture to make gender points. The liberals want to discard God's commandments about the inviolability and sanctity of Scripture. The KJVOers keep those commandments and then add a few. You have to read only the KJV and you have to affirm the inerrancy of that translation. And with some you have to affirm the inerrancy of the underlying Greek text of the KJV New Testament, the Textus Receptus. None of these rules are in Scripture.

RIGHT UP TO DATE--THE SECOND STEP
Recent experience has confirmed what the Scripture says in regard to the danger in a godless, unbiblical conservatism, a conservatism of white knuckles and black souls. There is no such thing as a separation between our theology and our conduct. Creeds are deeds and deeds are the natural fruits of our creeds, Rick Warren not withstanding. Romans 12:2. KJVOers hold to a false doctrine. Can they hold to a lie and not be liars as I had once thought?

Not that long ago, right here on this blog a liberal named Frank Turk lied. He pretended to know the languages. He was defending gender-altered translations. This isn't surprising. Liberals lie. However, in the last few days, I've interacted on Facebook with a few KJVOers. They were calling anyone who uses other translations things like heretic and corrupt and accused me of denying the deity of Christ. One pretended to know all about textual criticism and actively plagiarized other websites, posting entire paragraphs as if he'd written them. Another pretended to know Hebrew. Yes, they lied and they lied a lot and they didn't seem embarrassed when I caught them. AND they didn't see the irony of lying in defense of truth.

Proverbs says this about those who add rules in addition to those given:
Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar--Proverbs, chapter 30, verse 6. In other words, adders are liars.

I'm a slow learner.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.
(1) Johnson, Paul; A History of the Jews; Harper and Rowe; New York; 1987; pp. 100-109.
(2) Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version; Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, TN; in the "To the Reader" section.