Type 1, Type 2

I am convinced there are two sorts of participants in the FG hot topics around the blogs. They jump in the conversation according to what they feel is most important.

Type 1 in this conversation prioritize (rank in importance) the FG hot topics like this:

1 - COSF (most important)
2 - purity in speech/conduct

Type 2 in this conversation prioritize topics inversely:

1 - purity in speech/conduct (most important)
2 - COSF

Neither Type 1 or Type 2 are wrong; they're just different to stress one over the other but I assume both Type 1 and Type 2 esteem COSF and purity. (Perhaps the difference in emphasis is due to different gifts or parts of the body?) I'm a Type 2. I think there are several who are Type 2 in the blogosphere and I believe the ranks are growing, converting and displacing a few Type 1s. There are many reasons to be a Type 2. Here's some my feeble mind has thought it could notice:

-- One could be hard-core (how shall we label these COSF doctrines?) FGA, GES, or Glorious gospel, but are so disenchanted through seeing ungraciousness that being dogmatic just isn't spiritually worth the cost anymore

-- One could have started off being either FGA or GES and may still believe that COSF is the most important thing, but because there is no pragmatic difference in what is being preached to the lost, or perhaps because one has been convinced by scripture there really is not much difference in the theology between the two, the result is the COSF "debate" doesn't really need to be "debated" like once believed

-- One has studied the COSF debate and does not believe the correct answer is any of those (three) COSF doctrines, but a fourth. And it was when these ones had to sit around on their hands for three years to even get a chance to share their mind they noticed and appreciated grace, and will stay on the cause for purity in speech and conduct because it is still worthwhile to have it as priority

-- One is a student who knows they can't even begin to know the answer to COSF, but one thing they can know for sure right now, which is what purity ought to look and sound like

Are there more?

Dr. Lybrand mentioned in a comment at his blog here (on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 am) how he believes he is observing a variety of people from different backgrounds and values. It is possible this is part of what he meant through acknowledging such. I would be happy to learn more on his thoughts. I noticed "ad hominem" and its purpose to discount the COSF views being contended, and, I saw how Kev wrote on his blog post that "pointing out the [weak points] of another man is plainly silly" if its not related back in to the issue of who should be persuaded by which doctrine. However - I disagree, and that's where I've been for a year and a half. I hope that makes sense. I think purity is its own important issue.

Read this post written over a year ago, sharing my own Type 2 priority which is unchanged:

My Own Conference Soundbytes

I suppose it's possible that one's reason for being a Type 2 is because they love ecumenism, and they choose blind "unity" at the expense of truth. I just don't know if that's anyone around here like we're being told?

How are we supposed to have real dialogue with any person who does "90% contending" when there are all these unique reasons to be a Type 2?

Fundamentalism and Faith-Righteousness

I've been thinking lately about assurance.

There is only one safe place to play the role of fundamentalist, and it concerns God's righteousness, which is by faith. Everything else may move and shift as we learn and grow and listen to one another. I notice the teaching of the gospel of justification is illuminated within God's framework of faith-righteousness. It is within the framework of faith-righteousness that Paul describes and proves the New Testament revelations concerning Christ, in Romans 4 (below). Faith-righteousness has been the only source of approval and acceptance with God, for sanctification or justification, since the beginning of time.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Our doctrines are open to correction and adjustment as we try to build our theology, our understanding of God and man, out of the Bible to a comprehensive answer for our hope. But there is one thing that will never change - the gospel of grace through faith in Him. And the second part to that is the gospel will never change for our sanctification: "The just shall live by faith."



The truth of faith-righteousness was the grounds on which Paul separated from, and got bitter with, the agitators.

Secondary Separationism, Part 2

Where are the Scriptures which Teach This?

On pages 250-251 of his text, "Biblical Separation" [1], Dr. Pickering quotes several of his opponents to this teaching, those who admit for example, "The scriptures say nothing about secondary separationism," and, "There is no such thing as first-degree, second-degree separation, etc." Pickering acknowledges that secondary separationism is not labeled specifically as such, in the scriptures. But that's not the end of it: Pickering also has to justify his teaching past this confession that it is no where directly taught in scripture.

Pickering insists that the practice can be drawn as a valid principle from the following scripture:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 thess 3:6, 14).

Pickering acknowledges that in context the Thessalonian Christians were merely shirking their responsibilities and had become busybodies. He then immediately rationalizes upon this scripture, saying (on page 255): "The question is this: Is that all this passage teaches? Does the principle go beyond the specific situation evident at Thessalonica, and should it be applied in other situations as well?" He then moves right in to pointing out Paul had authority from God to teach the truth. And he points out that those idle brothers, in their disregard of Paul, were called "disorderly." Through this simple but poor connection, Pickering gives his readers the impression that 2 Thess. 3 is calling all those who reject Paul's written authority, those who are idle.

Rather, I ask you to take a look at this passage and see if it is not saying that those who Paul is calling "disorderly" are those practicing idleness. It is the demonstration of idleness, which Paul is commanding the Thessalonicans to take note of, and withhold their company from.

Pickering nevertheless insists that "Their improper actions resulted from their incorrect grasp of doctrine." Friends, this next unabridged paragraph (pg. 256-257) is where you are going to see the door open up for a moral kind of legalism in the practice of secondary separationism....

The main question among separatists is this: Does this portion of scripture apply only and exclusively to people who leave their work, sponge off other believers, and live idle lives that contribute to spiritual confusion? Certainly this is the context of the passage as it is written. Is it not true, however, that the principle clearly seen here applies to other situations? The principle is this: When our brethren do things that are wrong - caused by an incomplete knowledge of or deliberate disobedience to some teaching of Scripture - we should not merely continue to fellowship with them as those who have done nothing wrong.... It is the principle of maintaining a pure walk that should be stressed. It is the principle of refusing to condone, honor, or utilize those who continually and knowingly are following a course of action that is harmful to other believers and to the welfare of the churches.

Can he defend his interpretation with other scriptures? He had none others. Following this look into 2 Thess. 3, Pickering quotes the commentary of other respected fundamentalists who happen to agree about this interpretation from the text, and concludes, "We cite them, however, to show that there have been a host of men through the years who have believed that the practice of so-called secondary separation has Biblical support" (pg. 261).



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

Secondary Separationism, Part 1

Secondary Separation: What is it?

In his book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" [1], Dr. Pickering explains the teaching of secondary separation. This is the position that maintains a man must not only separate from apostates. There is a second degree of separation one must take, by withdrawing from any fundamentalist who is known to cooperate in any way with apostates.

(Remember, in a previous post Pickering refuses to use the term "heretics" for those who err doctrinally; his word for those who teach doctrinal error is "apostates." Yes - in a future post we will look into this term categorizing those who are reckoned "apostate" according to Dr. Pickering... definitions are on the way soon!)

For illustration.... Imagine that you're a separationist. Though you may personally benefit from a relationship with an erring Christian, by affiliation you are not permitted to cooperate with or minister to such an erring (unrepentant) Christian.

But there's more. If you choose to invite your erring Christian, to, say for example give a speech on any range of other doctrines in which you are in agreement, you then become subject to separation yourself -- you will be separated from, by your fellow separationists. Separationists would invoke the second degree of separation, upon you.

A concise definition is on page 251:

Coined in the aftermath of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the term "secondary separationist" refers to those who will not cooperate with apostates or with other evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them.

Pickering teaches why he believes secondary separation is necessary. In his book he explains how it is critical to maintain the purity of the truth through our times. To accomplish this, each one of us must take a clear stand against those who have become apostate. In addition, we must not keep company with those who do not also withdraw from apostates. If a teacher be apostate, the testimony of the truth is being attacked. How can we fellowship with those who are an enemy of truth? An apostate teacher may be a true believer. He may also be a gifted and many times accurate teacher; however he is nevertheless teaching some false doctrine. He may be well meaning. But we have to consider how he spreads untruths to the unsuspecting.

Pickering goes on to insist that those who are younger in the faith have no way of knowing for themselves whether what they have heard could be false, and they will assume it is true because of his position as a teacher. To permit a man to teach what is known to be error, implies to others that there is nothing wrong in him doing so, or at least not sufficiently serious enough to do anything about it.

Dr. Pickering has made a checklist to help his readers consider their personal responsibility to not only separate from apostates, but also from fundamentalists who will not keep their own fellowship pure from apostate teachers. I take this directly from his text, pages 276-277:

1 - Am I honoring God by my fellowship? "Whatever therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). When a believer remains in an apostate denomination, that believer is supporting the Lord's enemies through is or her money and presence. Is that believer honoring the Lord by "staying in"?

2 - Am I aiding or encouraging someone to continue a walk of disobedience? If a great preacher continues to remain within a group largely influenced by apostates and a separatist church has him speak, is this occasion helping or hindering others? Having them participate with us is not the way to assist them from the path of disobedience.

3 - Will my cooperation with a person or organization give the impression that I condone a lackadaisical attitude toward apostasy and compromise? Did not the writer of Proverbs say, "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" (prov 8:13)? Is the support of apostasy, its publications, schools, spokesperson, and missions evil? If it is, do I as God's child truly hate it?

4 - Will others under my leadership or influence be tempted to further compromise or be confused or weakened in their testimony because of my actions? We cannot live to ourselves. We are responsible for our brothers and sisters as well.

5 - What long-range effects will cooperation have? As previously noted, Bob Jones Sr. often said, "Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."

[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

The Teaching of "Secondary Separation"; Introduction

I've taken note on a legalistic characteristic comprising a substantial portion of the free grace community both on and offline. Paul called the infusion of legalism in the Galatian region at that critical time in their history, being "thrown into confusion". Confusion does seem to abound for FG, does it not? At least it appears the case in their interrelationships.

This infusion may have drawn many to mere confusion. However, for those holding staunchly, where you discern the practices and affects of legalism, you will also find the doctrines fueling it (just as you would with any other schism), if you dig around a bit. With Pickering's text, I am persuaded to have found one centralized source of FG legalism (though there may be two). It was the landmark nature and widespread adoption of his text which makes it a central point of examination.

In particular I wish to draw attention to possibly the most controversial portion of Pickering's teachings on biblical separation: The Teaching of Secondary Separation. As I said in the last comment in the previous post, I have always learned and participated better when the controversial aspects were discussed at the front. I realize that it goes in backward order; starting with the man-made assertions and working back to scripture, and I apologize for the sense of alarm that it might generate. Regardless if the teaching is biblical, it is popular and widespread and for this reason alone I think it is important to investigate.

With all kinds of biblical commands that attend godliness, they can be taken too far. They may morph as far as their Spiritual essence is concerned, creating bondage in the stead of health.

Take the command for water baptism, as an example of how any command may be used for good (Spiritual) or harm (legalism).

I've seen obedience to the command to be baptized in water, be Spiritual in effect to those who obey it. My own church is one such place - praise God. But I've also been a part of other churches, and witnessed for myself how the command to be baptized is used as a subtle tool of slavery and judgment within, and damnation to those without. People are slowly harmed by legalistic theology. Soon falls a trend of members escaping, or burning-out of living for God. With the trend the need is born to express to one another the legalism present in the command - more - its legalistic emphasis within or behind the command. Books need to be written. It takes skill to explain how a command from scripture crosses the line from being healthy, to being harmful (legalistic). It takes discernment and a gift of teaching to expose for newcomers, the nuances where the command had become obsession in self merit as opposed to gratitude for the accomplishments of Christ. Those sorts of books have been written - in the case of refuting the baptism-based legalistic doctrines.

This dichotomic usage of the command to be baptized expresses a principle concerning all commands, including the teaching of biblical separation. Separation is taught in the scriptures and is meant for our benefit. The question to ask, however in my thinking, is this: How do you discern when it has crossed the line, promoting legalism? Would an investigator take heed and note when the feel-good, sounds-right, stops becoming "good" and stops becoming "right"? It will require the whole counsel of God, and an understanding of the essentials of legalism - what legalism is as a generality.

"Heresy:" Pickering & Swindoll

In times passed it has been a confidence-booster to read only the scriptures long before consulting man-made commentary. I've been reading just the scriptures used in Separationist philosophy for awhile now. Recently I posted at Dr. Lybrand's Free Grace blog a comment exploring what the Bible has to say in definition of "heresy." Click here to read that comment.

By publicly sharing my conviction, it made me feel the committment of it all. It has become time for me, at least, to visit other writings, and test how far off my concept is compared to the experts.

Pickering

Dr. Pickering's book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" was originally published in 1979. According to Kevin Mungons who wrote the Foreword to the Second Edition, Pickering had "come to write a book that became the standard defense of fundamentalist ideas" [1]. Before it, there was no established text on the subject.

The word "heresy" is addressed in Biblical Separation, but to my reading I have only found one page where it is mentioned. It says on page 191,

It should be carefully noted that heresy (using the term in the strict sense in which it is used in the New Testament) is not apostasy. The word "heresy" is used only in Titus 3:10 and refers to a selfish choice that results in party divisions within the church. It emphasizes carnal troublemaking, not theological error.

Interesting.

Pickering's idea of false teaching and preaching falls altogether into the category of -- "apostasy" -- not "heresy." I may publish some excerpts soon on the subject of "apostasy," for, to Pickering this is where we would take the popular question of "what constitutes heresy?"

Okay. Now off to visit Swindoll.

Swindoll

In 1990 Chuck Swindoll published a text called, "The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace is One Thing; Living it is Another" Swindoll addresses what the word "heresy" means on pages 104-105: [2]

Legalists were disturbing others and distorting the truth as they spread doctrinal heresy. Their heretical message was that the Galatian Christians should let Moses finish what Christ began. ... We continue to hear that "different gospel" to this day and it is a lie. It is heresy. ... The problem is, it appeals to the flesh. Paul's twice repeated reaction to the one who introduced that doctrinal heresy is "Let him be accursed!" This is Paul's way of saying the person is doomed! The original word is anathema! It is the strongest single Greek term for condemnation. Nevertheless, the heresy goes on. Most every cult you could name is a cult of salvation by works. ... Please allow me to be straight with you: Stop tolerating the heretical gospel of works!

Both confirm the two variations of which I took note. In the case that readers have not read the original comment I made regarding "heresy," here were are two variations: One - the use of the word in doctrinal matters, designates legalism. Two - in non-doctrinal matters the word designates opposed camps of Christians attempting to be treated first. This would be opposed to Christ's teachings "For many who would seek to be first shall be last, and the last, first." It also is hypocritical to the practice which is under dispute in the context - The Lord's Supper - at which event Christ washed the feet of the disciples, setting an example for them to follow.

I do not observe further apparent liberty in using the word beyond those two variances. I should say, however, that the second variance may have many uses beyond the context's discussion of the Lord's Supper.

Summary

Can "heresy" mean what it is popularly said to mean?

Can it mean an invasion of untruths against any biblical doctrine?

I don't know what freedom there is to use the word in this generalized manner, since the scripture only uses it to reference the schismatic effect of the teachings of legalism. Legalism is so easy to fall back into. John Maisel, with all his incredible life-experience in church-planting, confirms this sort of disappointing phenomena in his FGA National Conference presentation. I can imagine why Paul wished to be rid of it, yet it kept creeping back in, even affecting Peter for awhile. If there is truly a "Christian's slippery slope," I imagine legalism would be a top contender for destructive things to keep one on constant lookout.

I am very interested to hear what others think "heresy" means in the scriptures.



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

[2] [2] Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening. Walker & Company, New York; 1990.

My Introduction to Separationism

Legalism of Belief vs. Separationism

Before Zane Hodges coined the phrase "Theological Legalism" I was describing the same thing calling it "Legalism of Belief" here at my blog. Being someone who has been in and out of cults many times I got quickly tired with seeing the scriptures abused, through their use in endless variety of arrangements to show me that "Because you don't believe this, this, and this just as I do, you cannot have been saved!"

Well, thanks be to God that I am able to recognize that my salvation is not predicated upon precise or advanced doctrines that can only come through being a student of the Word for many years - though there are still many Christians who either believe or else act as if this is the case. What I am more interested in at this time, is to examine the same allegation made by those who might measure who is walking blameless before God by faith, through orthodox beliefs and confessions. Again, they would say to me, "Because you don't believe this, and this and this just as I do, you cannot be in right relationship with God!"

I'd like to think it is true, from the foundation I have so far in the Word, that believers who have fellowship with God by faith in the Spirit, also have rights to full fellowship with one another in the Body of Christ. What do you think? Would you place any restriction on fellowship with such an obedient believer?

Dr. Pickering, in his landmark text called, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church," did. On the grounds of one requirement if not more (I'm still grasping this as I share this in blog posts). He has found reasons to bar from fellowship other Christians who are walking in the Spirit. And he bases this upon whether they confess or teach orthodoxy.

Is Dr. Pickering justified in teaching this? I want to lay out his concepts and let readers conclude. I tentatively plan to post brief excerpts from his text on these topics:

Apostasy
First Separation
Second Separation
The Holiness of God
Ecumenism

And then as a summary, I would like to of course examine the scriptures to see what they say... without all the commentary.

Concluding Comments

I want to re-submit two comments of mine in a post last week at my blog: First; at this time I am convinced that there is a conservative Baptist disagreement in how seriously Christians should retreat from error. Therefore, it may be a free grace problem. I'm not sure if that's right but I'm hoping to explore if this might be the case.

The second comment I resubmit is that I have had a change of heart about my own "legalism of belief" perspective. There came a place for me to rescind, probably in conversations with Kev, that doctrines are designed for my sanctification, not my bondage. The world may use the Word of God for evil but I should not give off aires that His Truth is anything short of freedom to the child who is growing up in the LORD. I'm not bashful to admit that I went too far.

Also: (this is just me, but) it is interesting to note that a 298-page textbook can be written on a topic which includes... what, maybe 15 relevant scriptures, total? How can it be drawn out to fill so much space - I wonder this, then wonder the same thing of all the other texts which have done the same thing on the same short supply of biblical mandate. And then to think that some Baptists will set these books out as the markers for why they do what they do as they engage in ministry. But, I am learning, as I post through this. Which is most unlike the educated reader that my blog most fortunately takes now and then. I pay forward gratitude if or when they should contribute in explaining things if I would overlook something significant.

a testimony of "exit"

The following is an interview with a good friend and fellow congregant with me. After becoming a believer he joined an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church in Idaho. Both he and another member of this church left to come and attend Oregon Theological Seminary. I asked him to share his experiences with the leadership and belief system of this denomination.

Q: Are IFB congregants permitted to join another para-church organization with the intent to implement their own doctrinal distinctives?

IFBs believe in the cohesiveness of the church. To split a christian organization is contrary to their belief. I do not think it is likely that they would think to join some other organization just to split it apart.

Q: What opinion do IFBs have of other congregations and their teachings? Do they believe they are the only churches who have the truth?

To some level or another others are heretics. They don't believe that they are the only church in the city teaching the truth, but they do believe they are the only ones teaching the full truth. Other conservative Christian churches may have begun with biblical truths but through association with the world, their doctrines have become corrupted.

Southern Baptist churches are an example of churches who have compromised God's truth. They are set up so that their convention (SBC) runs the churches. Because they are not independent, therefore they are considered the "whore" described in Revelation 17:1. They listen to the spirit of the world instead of remaining loyal to Christ alone.

The IFB churches, when they think of approvable true New Testament churches, speak of "the church in this city."

There is one church for one city, although in some cases larger towns may break up in branches, being geographically-organized. This comes from the scriptures where the epistles were written "to the church at" Rome, Galatia, etc. The model in scripture is one singular church in one singular locale or region.

Q: What other beliefs make IFB churches distinct?

IFBs stick to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible mostly. They consider it another breath of God, the only inspired version of the Bible. When they observe other Christians such as [our own CBA church] also teach from the New International Version, they would say that our church is lost and misguided.

There are some IFBs who do not believe in the KJV in this way. Some believe it is fine to use the NASB. Maybe there are a few who will use the NKJV, but according to them there are some errors in those.

Q: Have you ever heard of the "right-pastor" doctrine? Did the IFB churches you witnessed believe in one pastor for life?

The "one pastor for life" practice is extreme. Most IFB pastors don't have a problem with a pastor leaving to serve at another congregation. However, they are hesitant to search for a pastor for themselves. Typically what happens is a pastor will himself appoint someone before he leaves.

Q: Why did you leave this IFB church?

[He discussed the particular situation of his church at that time when he attended. Many of the details are not relevant and not edifying. What remains are a few details.]

We were aware of litigation against the church to provide that homosexuals may hold paid positions in the church. Legal counsel sent a recommendation that all churches rewrite their constitutions to protect them from lawsuits. At that time, our pastor decided that everything else in the constitution was up for rewriting, and made some changes. He researched other constitutions from other places and pulled out a few new features that he wanted to implement. All of these new ideas for church organization came from the constitutions of much larger IFB congregations. The pastor did not suggest these changes, but instead claimed these things would protect their church. It actually gave him sole authority over everything for the church. Singular, sole authority. Technically, the role of leading the church had been left to elders, plural. But larger IFB churches do not have a plural elders rule. Usually in IFB constitutions, one elder, is the rule. The only reason why examples of more elders can be found is because the head pastor wants help making decisions.

Q: What was the nature of your concerns for your church?

Mostly I had theological concerns, not church organizational concerns. As time went on, more and more I became concerned with the abuse of leadership and centralization of power. But in the beginning, the pastor would always say about his teachings, "If I preach from the pulpit, and from the scriptures, and what I say does not line up with scripture, you should talk to me about it." That was his method for checks and balances on teaching. Technically it's up to him with the burden of proof to show he is correct. I wanted to discuss the Greek with him, but I needed more education with the language, so I could never make a convincing case.

A couple of weeks after the pastor announced his changes, that new constitution was put into place. The deacons all wrote it up, assured it was biblically correct, but really it was more a pastor with personal aspirations for supreme control. Within a couple of weeks of its implementation, he let go a part-time associate pastor. The reasons didn't jive with what he was saying, and there were too many conflicting things going on there. While another deacon was on vacation a whole lot of other changes were made and when he returned, he was asked to leave quietly.

I had been teaching an adult Sunday school class. After one Sunday, he made an announcement: come for a teachers' meeting. He said to us, "From now on, scripture says you have to wear a three piece suit (as a man)." I told him I couldn't do that because of my occupation and time constraints. His response was, "Then you shouldn't be teaching."

We later had a discussion about deacons and the constitution. I essentially said to him that we're supposed to do these things in love. But instead you've done it in a way that is brash and nonchalant, with unrighteous authority. He got pretty belligerent about my opinions.

I left the church on my own, but afterward he told the church not to have fellowship with me and my family. He said about us to the entire church that we had "broken fellowship with the true faith."

The pastor said that not only of us, but everyone else who was concerned and had ended up leaving. The pastor told the congregation that "these people have broken fellowship with our chuches. Do not have fellowship with them anymore." Basically, we were shuned in a small town. If someone saw us, they were told "don't say hi but go the other direction, and do not have this list of people in your house." In a split second, we lost all our friends at the church.

Q: Where did you go after you left?

We left and I became a part of the construction and leadership of a new church in Idaho for three years. All of the people who worked on creating this church came with baggage from other churches. They knew they needed to make some serious changes in the way we prioritize our Christian life. It's first and foremost about a relationship with Christ, not about religion. Christians should be forgiving one another, just as God does us. Relationship is key. At that time in that area, this was a novel concept. We believed that if we gave the people solid biblical teaching, combined with putting relationships with people, community, and God first, membership growth will come as a result. Sunday school was our main reason for growth. As of right now this church I helped seed has already grown so large they have needed to reconstruct it for more space.

During those three years I was still looking for a way to learn the Greek language. Every seminary school has a language program, but 99% of seminaries teach only two semester courses each for Greek and Hebrew. After taking these classes, it is still unlikely you can sit down and read the texts in their original language.

Oregon Theological Seminary was the exception. Instead of two semesters, they had an incredible two year course series for Greek, and two year course series on Hebrew. At the end of these two years, I would actually be able to read the words and have 90% comprehension of what I read.

Q: So you came to Oregon for the teaching. When you arrived at our church, did it feel any different from your former IFB church?

OH yeah, we felt the difference in grace. The first person we met was [our former friend from our IFB church]. He wanted to take us to lunch. The church body took us underneath their wing, instead of leaving us sitting out in the cold.

It didn't take long after I left my IFB church that I started to realize that the way I practiced my faith was unbalanced. Back then being a Christian was more about liturgies of the church itself, than the relationships. Our faith was rote, and we wore it like a mask and then acted differently when we were someplace outside of church.

Being an independent church is not in and of itself, bad. But the question then becomes, if you aren't dependent on outside contribution, you are still dependent on something to tell you what is right and what is wrong. They are fundamental in understanding scripture. Their point is that Christians should know the basics. Everything builds on those things, and so they want to make sure the fundamentals are right.

Being independent actually makes them unhealthy. They aren't really independent, but even more dependent! All the people willing to stand up and disagree on errors in relationship and in scripture, are slowly taken out. Their place in the church is slowly removed so that they cannot speak and cannot have power. It is akin to Russia in the Cold War era with their prisoners. Whoever spoke against leadership were shipped to a remote colony.

When we're only accountable to ourselves, we set up ourselves as god. Independence means they are not willing to let you hold them accountable, even if the church comes to them. If they just refuse to listen, then let it be between that person and God. You should let them go.

Acts 24:4-21

Paul was accused of creating dissension before Governor Felix. How did he answer for himself concerning those charges?

The high priest Ananias used his orator Tertullas to evidence the charges. Tertullas declares in verse 4:

"Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us. For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so.

Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.

“Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult. They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me. Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council, unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.’”

"Spiritual Traps"

I quote a bit from this text to provide a diagnostic tool.

In a very real sense, the spiritually abusive system is a spiritual trap. ... As we've already seen, spiritually abusive systems are hard to leave. The leaders assume power and demand obedience. They foster loyalty to the organization with implied or overt scare tactics and threats. Leaving the system is equal to leaving God and His protection. Paranoia about the evils outside the system makes people afraid to leave. This begins the building of a trap. Then comes the bait.

There are many kinds of bait in the spiritually abusive church, family or organization. "Right standing with God" is probably the most common bait. In 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul says that false apostles "disguise themselves as servants of righteousness." The abusive system gives people an opportunity to earn God's approval with their own positive self-effort. In fact, this bait is so appealing that people fail to notice several things.

For instance, they learn to ignore others around them who point out that they are being neglected or mistreated. They overlook it when they grow more tired as time goes on. They ignore the fact that people close to them are leaving and urging them to leave. They are oblivious to how it is becoming easier to justify the things that not too long ago they abhorred.

Other baits might include: the approval of people; religious status or position; a paycheck; the promise that things will improve; or an opportunity to be shamed or mistreated in a way that is consistent with their sense of deserving to be punished for being so "bad."

In addition to everything else these people ignore, they overlook the fact that their goal keeps moving out of reach. ... If they want to stop struggling, a voice within "warns" them: "What if you give up now, just when you were about to have a spiritual 'breakthrough'?"

{1}



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pp. 184-185

Something that haunts me

1. Free speech gives you the right

2. The Word of God makes what you say, true; therefore....





I suppose it's even possible to be fundamentalist about being anti-fundamentalist...

The Debate Underneath What is "Crossless"

I must make it known I have not read this book. I am humbled to be careful in speaking about it. Instead I'd like to use the weakness of it all to encourage visitors here to read and investigate this alongside me.*

What I would like to share with you is the concern and awareness that has been building on my part for several months. This book serves as a powerfully illustrative tool. The free grace "crossless gospel" debate is nothing really new. From what I have learned it is a reincarnation of a more primal and longstanding dispute. I considered the reviews and summaries of the book, available online, which threads I link here:

good reads
amazon.com

The title of this book is: The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace Is One Thing. Living it Is Another by Chuck R. Swindoll.

This reviewer[1] describes the content of the book:

Exhibiting candor and conviction, Swindoll contrasts liberty with legalism and warns readers to be wary of the three tools of legalism, or grace-killers, as he calls them: doctrinal heresy, ecclesiastical harassment and personal hypocrisy. As he explains it, legalists disturb and distort by twisting truth, spying and enslaving, and lying and deceiving others.

In the chapter titled "The Grace to Let Others Be," Swindoll compares the two different dimensions of grace. "Vertical grace centers on our relationship to God. It is amazing. It frees us from the demands and condemnation of the Mosaic Law," he writes. "Horizontal grace centers on our human relationships. It is charming. It frees us from the tyranny of pleasing people and adjusting our lives to the demands and expectations of human opinion."

To encourage readers as they awaken to grace, Swindoll reminds them that at least three things are involved in the process: it takes time, it requires pain and it means change. He also includes a helpful chart listing qualities of shame-based spirituality versus qualities of healthy spirituality, highlighting for readers the distinct differences between the two.

Swindoll is associated with free grace theology, and was the editor of the book titled "Salvation," by Dr. Earl Radmacher. Read his biography, here.

On page 563 of the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, by Randall Herbert Balmer, it says that Swindoll was heavily influenced by R. B. Thieme before attending seminary at DTS. In one of the reviews rated mediocre in the thread at Amazon.com, someone makes a claim which I do not have means to verify that in his book "The Grace Awakening" Swindoll has Thieme's orthopraxy in mind as he describes those forces that hinder the practical living out of grace amongst fellow Christians. Pastor Stegall and Pastor Rokser's congregations are theological descendants of Thieme teaching. Though, at this time there are no professional publications measuring the preservation of Thieme distinctives by these pastors.

On November 6, 2008 Rev. Lou Martuneac wrote a post titled, "Continuation of Discussion over the Closing of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College." In this post readers may notice that the "Grace Awakening" so-called mindset is said by Martuneac to be influential. Beginning in 1987, the college's president began to shift in approach. Swindoll's book is the representative reason why this fundamentalist college shut its doors, Martuneac alleges to his fellow Independent Fundamentalist Baptist brethren.

Readers might also notice in his post, that Dr. Earnest Pickering has written a critical response to Swindoll's "Grace Awakening." According to his biography Pickering is associated with Independent Fundamental Churches of America and also the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.

At the time serving as a board member of the Grace Evangelical Society, Ed Underwood wrote a review of "Grace Awakening." In it, he writes:

One of the primary frustrations of the Free Grace Movement has been the popularization of Lordship Salvation over the past decade. Though many high-profile evangelical leaders have voiced their personal concerns privately, none has been willing to risk alienating his audience by standing up for the pure Gospel of Grace. Until now.

At the outset Swindol refuses to treat grace as simply another "theological football kicked from one end of the field to the other" (p. 4). "Enough of this," he cries. "It’s time for grace to be awakened and released, not denied … to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated" (p. 4).

The purpose of this volume, to infect believers with the liberating grace of God, makes it one of the most effective weapons available to combat the bondage of legalism that the Grace Evangelical Society was founded to arrest.

I find it curious that Swindoll's experience with free grace (dispensationalist) fundamentalism (i.e. Thieme), inspired him to publish this book. His personal exit from the "grace-killing" qualities of our churches took place some forty years ago. This teacher of free grace has written the book on the matter. Here we are today, standing at the brink, considering taking the same step... for the same origination of conflict in the "crossless gospel debate?"

On the other hand, I recall Martuneac asking me not to accuse fundamentalism of legalism, and I think there is an avenue in which this is wise. (After all, if we had a well-saturated environment of grace, perhaps we could handle a staunch brother here or there who had an eye for the drift of compromise and error. Especially as new doctrines are written free of Calvinism and bad hermeneutics, I imagine men with discernment will be indispensable.) I am curious whether Pickering discusses this in his response (which is available through the links provided at Martuneac's post).

There are so many which need Spiritual liberation as taught by scripture. In online reviews of Swindoll's book, Christians of a variety of denominations acknowledge that grace is missing in discussion and practice while confessing Christ.

How can we be men and women of a free grace gospel, without demonstrable grace? It's base hypocrisy if we do not find it.



* Several anonymous readers of this blog have emailed me, encouraging me that I am roughly on the right track regarding fundamentalism. I apologize because just within free grace issues there are many interests I have and I am only one person. I know I just don't know all the issues which some readers would. I appreciate your grace. I also encourage you to fact-check my posts on any items in discussion here. This is material meant by me to encourage readers in awareness and to deeper investigation.


[1] Review written by Sean Fowlds, "FaithfulReader.com," NY, NY.

A Plea for my IFB Brother

I don't know for sure all that IFBs believe. Let me attest that it becomes much more intricate and distinct, the more one inspects.

This evening I stumbled upon another helpful yet less than scientific article regarding Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (IFBs).

The author begins by quoting an outsider. This outsider expresses a typical opinion of superficial commonality between normal and fundamentalist evangelicals. Next the author begins to disspell these superficial commonalities in several points to illustrate the marked differences between the two sects. I have taken only two of the author's brief points to illuminate how different the sects are upon a deeper dig. *

Somebody said to me,

"As far as I can see, fundamentalism and evangelicalism are really the same thing: You are Bible-believers, and you will only change on some point of teaching if you believe that your previous biblical understanding was in error (though you don't do that too often!), but you never change in order to be more 'in tune' with modern society (unlike liberals)."

While there is rather more than a grain of truth in that, and I take that person's comments as a compliment, there are some important differences between the two groups which we should be aware of.

1. The attitude to scholarship
One occasionally hears disparaging comments about 'theology' from some Christians; this tends to betray a fundamentalist prejudice. Fundamentalists often tended to see all academic learning as an enemy of biblical truth! They felt that the study of theology would only lead to giving Satan an entrance into our biblical reasonings; one still finds this approach among the cults and sects such as 'Jehovah's Witnesses' and among various more extreme charismatic groups. But most evangelicals would smile at this. After all, that word 'theology' simply means 'God speech' or, 'God's words,' nothing more sinister than that! While it is certainly true that some theology is liberal or otherwise distorted, much theology is wholly Bible-based and is simply an attempt to better understand the Word of God! So evangelicals are prepared to respect education and learning and not necessarily feel that these are ungodly activities.

7. Separationism
Fundamentalists have been tragically quick to separate from other equally sincere believers in areas where separation clearly appears to have been avoidable. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have more often adopted the attitude of agreeing to disagree in various areas, whilst agreeing on the necessity to preach the Gospel, and on all the vital teachings of the Christian Faith!
But fundamentalism always tended to be more exclusivist in approach with members rarely being prepared to work with other Bible-believing Christians where even quite minor areas of doctrine separated them. In our day, we have a very vivid and lamentable example of this in the move by a large group of churches in the United States to re-affirm fundamentalism upon the tragic battlefield of Bible translations!!
The ''KJV only' movement has divided churches in an argument which appears to have been especially avoidable! One could have surely agreed that some Bible translations are a little stronger than others, but that most translations have something to offer.

-Robin A. Brace, 2002

Here is a list of all the worldly Christian music artists, according to some members of the IFBs. Can you see in worship music, how different their idea of ecumenism and compromise is from the rest of evangelicalism? *

Lou Martuneac links his article labeled, "Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples," in his last comment for Tuesday at JPs latest blog post.

"Perverse"
TRANSLATION:
"Perverse" does not mean a cultural connotation of "sexual or social deviants" -- an unnecessary word-offense that happens over and again in these miscommunications. "Perverse" simply refers to "errors" including, to us, the most minute matters. See omission or new translations of words from KJV to other versions. In this case, it is simply another expression of a fundamentalist to express that the promise-only gospel, through omission, causes children to be led astray.

This famous question is asked at the end of his article:

Where does your first loyalty lie, to God and His Word, or to your friends and fellowships?

Any dose of warmth and friendliness will be seen as compromise, or as he successfully depicted things, the "slippery slope" on the way to eventual compromise. It must be difficult to have any friends, or few -- imagine how important agreement over scripture is, before fellowship, before friendship.

Any movement on anyone's part, toward even a new perspective on solely biblical grounds, such as JP's recent explanation of the greek meaning of the word "heretic" as he explains in his latest blog post, will be misread, and probably go unnoticed. It may very well be tacked up purely as a move of compromise. Only the closest of friends, those securely on the inside, have true freedom to suggest their grounds in the Word of God for honest disagreement.

Does this make sense?

The principles of 2 Timothy 2:14 apply just as much for a fundamentalist in their beliefs regarding biblical separation, as they apply to the crossless advocates in the appeals made on their behalf to abandon ecumenism:

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.

If no one has ever gone to a IFB brother, and preached and taught in a lowly and patient manner, showing him his error, how can that IFB brother be guilty of intentional discord? If you are convinced he has known better, then he ought to at least be able to repeat back to you, the charges he has heard you give. At least, if he has heard, he would have a choice, but, I bet even this is not at all possible. He has not comprehended it, so long as those who have preached to him have been disobedient, overthrowing the "hearing" of the words of correction found in scripture by their own manner.

Can you judge a man guilty who has not yet heard?

One day they will hear it, and when they do I believe they will rejoice. I was about to make this same argument from 2 Timothy 2 on behalf of the crossless people attempting to be reached.

There is "no profit" in correct and true broadcasts made without compassion. The Word of God has convinced me that there is no profit to be had. That is what 2 Timothy 2:14 says. It says, there has been no listening, so long as there has been strife, word-fights, or quarrels. These men are not guilty! They are innocent.

I beg consideration of our LORD's example:

1 Cor 1:27

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

1 Cor 2:2-3

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.

2 Cor 13:4

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power.

Phil 2:3-5

Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus....

1 Pet 4:8

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

1 John 3:16

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

* There is a quotient of potential error on my part, because I'm still working on understanding and researching the IFBs and normal, or common evangelicalism. I'm willing to admit that and take correction or have dialogue concerning it. It remains true as well that any one individual belonging to the sect may or may not hold the expressly stated beliefs of any website being borrowed upon as these articles describe. Forgive me for inaccuracies, I'm trying to secure more reputable materials.

The Hearer's Destruction?

I must make a note that according to the scripture that says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" 1 Tim. 2:12, I do not assume authority with the Word of God, nor do I wish to be known as a teacher, but, I do want to bring out things I have found in the Word, and draw attention to them for others to discuss with me.

I wish to look a little more closely at the greek word: "hearers"

1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand

What happens to the hearer if the "words" become "strivings"?

There is:
--"no profit"
--an "overthrow of a spirit of consecration"
--an "extinction" of sanctification

If one who "hears" is "destroyed," can there be any "hearing"? There will be no more "attending," no "considering," no "perception," no "finding out," no "learning," no "comprehension."

The guilt for "not hearing" lies with either the hearers, or the teachers. So often we point to the hearers as the ones who are disobedient, but, I believe that 2 Timothy makes a case that the failure for accepting the message can fall upon the disobedience of the teachers.

Let me share with you a personal experience.

Four years ago I had been babysitting on a regular basis, a 5-year old boy whose mother has been my friend since we were both 12 years old. She had never really ever responded to the gospel as I had shared it with her, and since I cared deeply about reading bible stories and sharing prayer with children who came into my home, I began fielding her overall opinion of me doing likewise with her own son while in my home. She gave me mixed signals. She appreciated the moral messages of veggietales. Though she expressly made it evident that at least her husband did not think it was a good idea for his son to be told that there is a God, until he was an adult and able to handle the scary stories of "wrath" and "hell" properly.

Meanwhile I had been building in my own prayer life, a zeal for the opportunity to share Christ with this little boy, who was even asking me questions about God on occasion. What did I do? Well, the next time this boy asked me about a creator, I told him what I tell all little children: "He made everything, and He lives up there, behind the clouds, behind the sun, behind the moon. You can't see Him, but He's there, always watching us, and always loving us. We can talk to Him whenever we want because of the cross." At least, that's how I introduce the gospel to children.

Later that evening my best friend, his mother, called me and told me that her son was distraught, and calling his mother a liar, for denying to admit that there really is a God.

...

My best friend was furious. She did not talk to me again, for... several months. I remember sharing my pain over this with a few prayer partners at church, and they applauded me in their consolations. They said, "We are amazed that He has called you to lose a friend just so that this little boy might know the truth!"

At first, I thought they were right, I thought I had done well. But then I realized this: It shouldn't have to take a wrong action to make a right result. There is no such thing. I betrayed someone's trust. Not just anyone, but my long-life friend! How could I taint the name of Christ by violating our friendship?

What had I overlooked? I can tell you now, and I told her months later.

I overlooked the fact that the authorities who have been established, have been established by God. God did not give this little boy to me, to care for, but to her and her husband. The LORD must know what He is doing by granting... atheists, to raise children according to their beliefs. The LORD gives children every day, to atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, and many, many others. I overlooked the fact that the LORD still answers prayer. He does not need to bring this child to faith, today. He doesn't have to use me. Perhaps God's plans for this boy's life include a salvation that is introduced later on, to much joy and by deep conversion with gratitude.

In the meantime, I just knew that her values, were violated. Sure, she may not have specifically stated "Don't do that," but I should have known her overall heart and, if I had been looking to know what she really felt, I think it would have been obvious.

I call her values, the values of others who seem to be less than conformed to scripture, as "culture." I ought to move within my friend's culture, in a non-violating fashion, to secure a good name for the gospel of Christ. I ought to live out my Christianity, knowing that God can save and that He hears my prayers.

Hebrews 11: 1; Hebrews 11:6:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

And without faith it is impossible to please God....

I once said that I used to have a lot in common with fundamentalists. Fundamentalism says, "scripture gives every right in every occasion, to tell others of their waywardness." Do you believe this? I no longer do.

Several months later, my friend and I recovered over my violation enough that she actually let me watch him again. I have spent many years since, however, listening to the perception of my beliefs as I myself have corrupted them. They find God to be disgusting, and they place my glorious gospel of a free gift by faith alone, in the same bunch with Catholicism and every other works- and service- based pseudo-christian proclamation. It appears to them as nothing greater than oppression: of the mind, of the heart. Because the selfishness, the self-righteousness, the hypocrisy of my own actions have been made clear. I told her not in words, but in actions: my thoughts are more important than yours, my feelings and priorities are more important than yours.

Luke 22:24-27

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

Matt 11:28-30

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

I am not eager to make a public tale of this but, for His glory I would, for He alone is just and true.

The Ruin of the Hearers

2 timothy 2:14 (NKJV)

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.

The KJV translates the same verse as this:

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive 3054 not about words 3054 to no profit 5539, but to the subverting 2692 of the hearers 191.

3054:
strive λογομαχέω logomacheō
1) to contend about words
2) to wrangle about empty and trifling matters

Root Word (Etymology) from a compound of G3056 and G3164; "word" and "fight":

3164:
fight μάχομαι machomai
1) to fight
a) of armed combatants, or those who engage in a hand to hand struggle
b) of those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute
c) of those who contend at law for property and privileges

5539:
profit χρήσιμος chrēsimos
1) fit for use, useful

2692:
subverting καταστροφή katastrophē
1) overthrow, destruction
a) of cities
2) metaphorical of the extinction of a spirit of consecration

--The only other citation of the word "katastrophē" (2692) is in 2 peter 2:6, which says:

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow 2692, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly....

191:
hearers ἀκούω akouō
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand

I see these things pop out in the Greek:

-- "word-fight" (3054-3054)
-- "overthrow" of "that which is received and perceived"
-- contending for property and privileges

This verse in 2 Timothy asserts that striving for word privileges causes the message once perceived to be destroyed.

There have been many months dedicated to giving a fitting label to the "consistent" or by another term, "crossless" gospel. The CG (consistent/crossless gospel) advocates occasionally testify that they are offended and repulsed at the "crossless" label. The ones who have applied this term make a case that it is fitting. The CG advocates have asked one of many other options be used in its place. But the ones who coined it insist in keeping it, justifying its use by pointing out that, by their understanding, the term is accurate & truthful.

Let's presume the term "crossless" is accurate and true as a summation of that gospel message. Is "true" the one and only important quality in speech? No; there are other roughly-equally important qualities inherent to a message from the Word and so should our own language model after its teachings. Therefore the term "crossless," while perhaps (or perhaps not) being true, is not yet a finished product.

What goes alongside truth?

Ephesians 4:29

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Non-ministering communications and other strivings over words, are sinful. We now know what not to do. What does it look like to have communication work a redemption? What did Jesus do?

Luke 7:37-39

And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.

It is unrecorded exactly what this woman had known of Jesus and His teachings. Nevertheless she came literally in a break-through. His declarations made her come running. Imagine a ministry of the Word of God that made the people come running in gratitude, like a sheep at the shepherd's voice....

How do we go from here, "corruptive" to there: "ministering"? I am not sure myself. But I know that with the help of the Holy Spirit we might learn to hold our tongue during those times where grace is practiced. There is space for grace by means of not always demanding truth in every detail.

The very next verse after 2 timothy 2:14 is a famous verse:

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Five verses later is another famous passage. It says that not all people teach with success. Not all are like a vessel of honor in usefulness. A servant of the Lord may discover victory in capturing those ensnared in error, through applying grace to their message.

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Can the Word of God be used in such a way as to generate strife? I believe it can. I ask again: can a holy blameless Word, even though it never returns wholly void, be used in a quarrelsome manner? I believe it can. Perhaps not every manner of preaching is equally redemptive.

Preaching and teaching and other uses of the Word of God may or may not be sanctified, on an individual basis.

Baptist history: Fundamentalism vs Ecumenism

I am having a good time not only learning what it means to be an Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB), but also what my own affiliation is, at least, according to where I attend church, which is part of the Conservative Baptist Association.

Here is a short and sweet synopsis of IFB's and the CBA's history, written by a pro-IFB site[1]:

(read FBFs=IFBs)

The FBF traces its roots to the formation of the Fundamentalist Fellowship of Northern Baptists in 1920. A more militant segment of these early Fundamentalists formed the Baptist Bible Union in 1923, which in 1932 separated from the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC) and formed the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. The Fundamentalist Fellowship men, however, stayed in the NBC and tried to reform it until the 1940s, when they were practically forced out. The issue that caused much of the conflict was the foreign mission society's adherence to the "inclusive policy," which meant that it approved liberal as well as evangelical missionaries.
In 1943 the Fundamentalist Fellowship (FF) was instrumental in starting the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society. In 1946 the FF changed its name to the Conservative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), and in 1951 by public resolution it disavowed any further relations with the American Baptist Convention (formerly the Northern Baptist Convention).

In 1948 the CBF organized an association of churches, the Conservative Baptist Association of America, and two years later it helped bring into existence the Conservative Baptist Home Mission Society.

In the Conservative Baptist movement, the CBF stood against the ecumenical evangelism, exemplified by Billy Graham, and New Evangelicalism and its compromise with liberalism. The beginning of the end of the CBF's involvement with Conservative Baptists occurred in 1961, when it helped to form a mission board that would appoint only premillennial missionaries, the World Conservative Baptist Mission (now Baptist World Mission).

In 1967 the CBF felt compelled to break all ties with the Conservative Baptist movement it had founded. The Conservative Baptist Fellowship was finally completely independent. To distance itself from the Conservative Baptist movement, the CBF changed its name to the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. Since that time it has continued and prospered as a loose fellowship of individual like-minded Baptists.

You can see in this article that in their mind there is a clear thought of "compromise" of the truth in what comprised the teachings of Billy Graham in the 50s and 60s.



[1] Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, history.

Sanctification through Faith: my Free Grace Instruction

As I already mentioned in a post last September, my sunday school teacher (who is free grace, in theology), is still teaching in concert with "The Finality of the Cross," by Bob George.

He and I have been discussing via email, the chapter ahead of time, because I read ahead and discovered the content of chapter four, titled "Reconciliation is Experienced by Faith." I was so excited! We begin this material on this upcoming Sunday. Many of you who have read here in recent months have noticed that I am preoccupied by the topic. This is a portion of the excitement I recently shared with my pastor over this material:

Have you ever like, known something, like, you knew it, you just didn't know how to verify and explain it well? This is why I always catch you to try and work on this with me, because I think I needed to explicitly hear this. Here it is in this chapter! This guy gets it. This guy gets the same kinds of truths that I've been trying to say, and he's bold about it! This is the message I have "never heard" out there in evangelical Christianity, even in so close a place as other sunday school classes here. I knew... that it had to be faith (alone). I got that part, down, in my letters years ago. What I just couldn't get is how and why and the scriptures to really explain it, when Calvinism was also on board in my thinking. ...

I received his AMEN in conclusion after further discussion I share below. It's what I wrote as my idea of distinguishing sanctification by faith alone:

I just want to use Rom 8 to describe how to be sanctified: "walk according"

This one is superior because it explains that the flesh and the Spirit are dominating natures, and that we have a choice for which we will obey, and whatever one we obey it is completely for, or completely against, God. NO guess-work, no self-introspection. "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." rom 8:6-8

I just want it to be clear, crystal clear. At the Seminary I heard it described as "an on and off switch." I really grabbed on to that illustration.

The gospel should not be complicated, but the church has made it complicated and impossible to be sure how God sees us in faith.

Why is it important to be clear about the sufficiency of sanctification's faith? Because with doubt people turn back to measuring their progress by other things; law or comparing to other believers. And if they buy this as their doctrine of sanctification, the gospel of justification often follows quickly behind it for corruption in the same manner: they have turned the gospel into "another gospel."

But our assurance in knowing that we are blameless because we walk by faith with God, is not based in ourselves, but upon the promises in scripture.

Now, dear ones, I want to share with you the study material from chapter 4 so that you may objectively decide for yourselves what you think of George's teaching. This is going to be long, but worthwhile I am convinced. Enjoy, and, begin[1]:

"God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son..." (John 3:16). Out of His love for you and me, God sent His Son into the world to reconcile us to Himself by "not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19). It is not enough, however, just to know the message. God desires for us to experience His love and forgiveness, and to "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). The Bible says that we can come to Him and experience His reconciliation by no other way than faith!

Key Verse: Ephesians 2:8,9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.

1. How does this verse say we are saved? By ______ through ______.

2. What does "grace through faith" mean?

3. According to Romans 10:17, from where does your faith come?

4. Would you say that grace refers to the work of Jesus Chrit in providing, through His death and resurrection, everything that we need to become a child of God?

5. We can conclude, then, that our salvation is not of _______, it is the _______ of God.

Faith is not General, but Specific

We often hear it said of someone, after experiencing a particularly trying ordeal, that it was his or her "faith" that pulled them through - only to learn later that he or she was referring to something like "faith in the destiny of man," "faith in an ideal," or "faith in a dream." While some of these generic "faiths" may be of some questionable value in keeping one "focused" for a time, the Bible is much more specific in its definition of "saving faith." The grace of God has provided an object for our faith in the Person of His Son... that whoever believes in Him (not in an ideal nor an ethic nor a dream - but in Him) should not perish but have eternal life. Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17).

And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not those who disobeyed? So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

(Hebrews 3:18-4:1)

1. In this account, what disqualified those in the desert from entering into His rest?

2. What, specifically, was their disobedience?

3. What do you think they did not believe concerning entering the promised land?

4. What did the writer to the Hebrews mean when he said, "since the promise of entering his rest still stands?" (4:1)

5. What do you think "entering his rest" refers to?

6. How could you be found to have fallen short of that promise?

7. What is the work of God according to John 6:29?

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

8. In John 6:40, what is God's will concerning those who look to His Son?

"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

9. How could we "fall short" of God's promise of eternal life?

Walk in Him Just as You Received Him

So, then, just as you received Jesus Christ as Lord, continue to live in Him (Colossians 2:6)

1. How did you receive Christ Jesus as Lord?

2. How does the apostle Paul say that you should continue to live in Him? "... just as _______________, that is, by _______."

3. How are we to live according to Hebrews 10:38?

But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him."

4. What do you think it means to live by faith?

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

1. How did you receive the Spirit?

2. Did Christ come to live in you because you observed the law or because you believed what you heard?

3. Based on the above passage, could we ever experience, through our own human efforts, the reconciliation that God has provided?

4. Could we experience forgiveness through our own human efforts?

5. What is the only way then for us to "be reconciled to God"?

6. What does it take to please God according to Hebrews 11:6?

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

7. If faith is the only way to be reconciled to God, why do you think faith is the only way to please God?

8. What is God's desire for you and me according to 2 Corinthians 5:18-21?

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

9. What is the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1?

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

10. List some things that you would hope to receive from God concerning sin, punishment and forgiveness?

11. Through the death of Christ on the cross, can you be sure that God is not counting your sins against you, that Christ has taken all the punishment for your sins, and that you have total forgiveness of sins?


We must walk by faith; however, faith must have an object. It is like swallowing. You can swallow wholesome food and live to grow or you can swallow poison and die. The same mechanism is used for both. It is not the swallowing that causes life or death; it is what you swallow that determines life or death.

In the same way, it is not your faith that saves you. It is your faith in Jesus Christ that saves you. It is not your faith alone that sustains you in your Christian walk; it is your faith in the love and grace of God demonstrated in Christ Jesus. The object of the Christian's faith, therefore, is Christ's unconditional love and his finished work on the cross.



[1] George, Bob. "A Closer Look at The Finality of the Cross," People to People Ministries, Carrollton, TX, 2006; pp. 23-27.

Sanctification through Doctrine: IFBs

In my study into the belief structure of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect, I have discovered some indications that there is more or less a tendency to believe that one is sanctified by means of having correct doctrinal points of conviction.*

Let me provide some explanation (all following quotations are from the article sited below) [1]:

Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have fellowship one with the other and often cooperate in such endeavors as evangelism. However, practicing biblical separation they will only fellowship or cooperate in joint meetings with churches of like faith. They will not participate, as a church in any outside function with churches which do not also strictly base their faith and practice on the New Testament. They will not engage in joint meetings, or evangelistic endeavors, with Protestants, Catholics, or other doctrinally unsound church groups, who do not hold to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. Fundamental Independent Baptists churches will remain separate from unsound churches, as well as other Baptists groups who join in with the unscriptural churches. They practice the biblical teachings of separation as taught in Ephesians 5:11, which state, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Independent Baptists believe that to join with churches that teach and practice false doctrine is to tolerate and approve of errors. True, New Testament churches strongly believe that all doctrinal error is sin as the New Testament teaches.

With such a construct of error it is no wonder that any good IFB Christian would practice togetherness with other believers and therefore willingly, consciously choose to sin? You see that their clear conscience before God, hinges on "biblical separation." How far have they taken this separation? Are they just separated from those who have abandoned a belief in the inerrant Bible such as Catholics and liberal Protestants?

The name Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is used traditionally by churches which pattern themselves strictly after the example of the early church, as found in the New Testament. Today the name Baptist is used by many churches that are not following the teachings of the New Testament. Thus the words "Independent" and "Fundamental" have been added by many Baptist churches to further identify themselves as true Bible believing churches and to show a distinction between themselves and Baptist churches that were not following God's word. Most Baptist churches were in the past founded on the sound doctrinal teachings of the New Testament; however, many of them have in varying degrees drifted away from many of the teachings of the Scriptures. Some of these churches have gone so far to even deny the fundamental teachings of the Bible, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and salvation by the Grace of God, through faith. Others have to a lesser degree compromised the Word of God by their teaching, practices and church polity trying to confront to popular religious tends. These worldly churches still call themselves "Baptists," but in fact they do not believe or practice what true Baptists have historically believed and more importantly what the Word of God says. The true Independent Fundamental Baptists have NO ASSOCIATION OR FELLOWSHIP with these churches because they teach or practice things contrary to the New Testament.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

Such a quest to be rid of the sin of error must suppose a location where error has been eliminated. Do IFBs believe their own group is completely absent of error? Yes:

Fundamental Baptists use the name in its strictest sense as meaning to hold soundly the fundamentals of the New Testament teachings without error.

Sanctification by doctrine is said here, again:

Many Anabaptists churches were strong New Testament churches believing and following the Word of God. Other Anabaptists groups were in gross error and corrupted. As with any true New Testament church, its validity as a true church approved of God, does not, nor or has ever rested on its name or on a succession of churches. A true New Testament church must be SOLELY discerned based on its adherence to the principles of God's Word.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

TRANSLATION:
"We stay clear of sin by adhering to correct [our] doctrine."

I just wonder, what's the difference between "the church," "the body of Christ," and "a New Testament church"? Think about that one for a little bit and make a comment if you see my point.

Here is another statement distinguishing the IFB mindset, on how churches begin and how they are found approved:

The Gospel is to be preached throughout the world by believers empowered by the Holy Spirit as Acts 1:8 plainly states. When a congregation results from the preaching of the Gospel, AUTHENTICATING that congregation as a New Testament church rests solely on its doctrine and practice....not in its affiliation or succession.

[emphasis in caps, mine]

These Christians have to demonstrate their true conversion to walking with Christ by coming up with "correct" doctrine & practice! And what constitutes "correct" doctrine? No other group's theology outside of their own. Stunning.

According to the author there are "five distinctives of a truly biblical new testament church." To these more common points, this IFB preacher (Cooper Abrams [1]) adds one more "historically unsupported" but mandatory distinctive; that distinction of correct doctrine proving "acceptance" by God:

Though, not a historic distinctive of a Baptist church, one other characteristic is necessary for an assembly to call its self a true New Testament church. This distinctive is based on the truth that God will not, nor can He bless or be a party to doctrinal error. A true New Testament church will believe and follow the correct and proper instructions of God's word. There are many churches that believe and practice false doctrines such as tongue speaking, do not practice biblical separation from worldliness and hold to other unbiblical views. A true New Testament church's doctrine and practice will correctly follow the word of God, thus churches that put themselves at odds with the Lord. The New Testament stresses purity in faith and practice as Revelation 2-3 clearly teach. To five of the seven churches of Asia Jesus said He has things against them. He warned them strongly to correct their failures or He would take action against them. A true church that has the blessings of the Lord will diligently seek purity in faith and practice. Those who refuse to repent of their errors will not have the approval or the blessings of God.

Thoughts?

You know, I'm all for making a case that those who believe are biblical in doctrine and those who are biblical in doctrine make evident their belief, even fellowship with God. The work of God does indeed include conforming believers in the truths of the Word. But, what does the bible say about how one is sanctified?





* There is a quotient of potential error on my part, because I'm still working on understanding and researching this sect. I'm willing to admit that and take correction or have dialogue concerning it. It remains true as well that any one individual belonging to the sect may or may not hold the expressly stated beliefs of Cooper Abrams as his article describes.

[1] Cooper Abrams III; Independent Fundamentalist Baptist missionary and pastor, ThB, MBS. From A Brief Survey of IFB Churches, Sept. 2007.