X-Christianity

Should we argue and debate our faith?

2010-05-29T16:48:00.000-04:00

Here is another long citation from Bernard Ramm on the benefit and purpose of Christian evidences and apologetics.

“At this point the purposes of Christian evidences for the Christian should be made evident:

The Christian is established in his faith not only experientially, but intellectually and factually. He sees the Christian religion not only as that which gives him a blessed experience of salvation and assurance within his heart, but also as s system universal and factual in its scope. He sees it in its cosmic, historic and factual breadth. His personal experience is thus related to a universal and valid system of religion. The snipings of psychologists at his religious conversion are emptied of much of their pertinence, for although his religious convictions commenced with his conversion, they now no longer rest solely on such a narrow base, but are part of a comprehensive world view.

Further, the Christian well versed in Christian evidences understands the nature of many of the attacks on the Christian faith, and knows their invalidity. His knowledge of textual criticism enables him to silence the argument that the text of the Bible has been appreciably tampered with during the course of its transmission; his knowledge of literary criticism enables him to defend the trustworthiness of his documents; his knowledge of all the other items in the arsenal of Christian evidences is a powerful weapon for not only the silencing of attacks on the faith, but the positive evangelistic presentation of the Gospel of Christ.

Apologetic and Christian evidences are not the gospel, but if a person has a prejudice against the gospel it is the function of apologetics and evidences to remove that prejudice. The value of apologetics and evidences for evangelistic purposes (public, personal conversation, literature) is too frequently underrated usually on the grounds that people are won by preaching of the Word alone.

Two observations are pertinent to this assertion:

First, no well-grounded apologist will state that the philosophic demonstration of Christianity saves a man, but it is, to the contrary, quite evident that no man will give the necessary credence to the Word if he has certain notions and biased opinions about the facts and nature of the Christian religion. Apologetics and Christian evidences cut down these objections to enable the gospel once again to directly confront the consciousness of a person. Spurgeon’s oft-quoted remark that the Bible is a lion that defends itself is very pious of sound, but very fallacious of fact. The huge slashes of radical criticism into the Christian church reveal the Bible is defenseless unless defended by its believers. Is every cavil, every slander, every false accusation, every gross misrepresentation to go unnoticed, unanswered, unchallenged? Can the stabs at the vitals of theology be answered by quoting a verse or two of Scripture? We think not. Christian evidences and Christian apologetics are indispensible to the health, welfare and progress of the gospel.

Second, the opponents of Christianity figure that it is worthwhile to argue their case. It is the basic theory of all propaganda that successful efforts are possible by argumentation, specious or genuine. Lunn correctly observes that ‘Nobody is ever converted by argument’ is a formula as popular with Christians as it is unknown among politicians and political canvassers…Human opinion is not always formed from argumentation, but a good measure of it is, and therefore Christian evidences is the Christian arsenal of data and facts for any Christian who wishes to defend and debate his faith.”

Bernard Ramm, “Protestant Christian Evidences,” pp 14-16

Science against Christianity? Let's look again...

2010-05-21T21:49:00.001-04:00

Here is a long quote from Bernard Ramm that pinpoints a huge flaw in the naturalistic universe of natural science, at least that natural science that purposely cuts itself loose from theism.

“The scientist opposes the supernatural on two counts:

A. He opposes the supernatural on the basis that the supernatural is contradictory to natural law.

B. On the grounds that miracles do not fit into the universe the scientist works in.

A. However, the concept of natural law is not as simple as appears on the surface. Although the scientist may handle the law as a simple axiomatic notion, it does not admit of such simplicity upon analysis. The first premise of every natural law is the principle of the uniformity of nature. If the uniformity of nature is not predicated the law is meaningless, 1.e., it becomes provincially true of one experiment or a cluster of experiments at one point in time in one section of space. It is the principle of the uniformity of nature that universalizes laws so that what is discovered at one place and time may be predicated of many spaces and times.”

“Not only is natural law dependent on the principles of uniformity, but all predication is dependent on it. There is no demonstrable method of proving that the future shall be like the past. I can only be assumed in terms of the principle of uniformity.”

“It is recognized that the principle of the uniformity of nature is a dictum that comes from the medieval period. It was a theological tenet which stated that in that God was an orderly Person the universe must reflect His orderliness. The original source of the principle is to be found in the theistic undergirding of Nature. Now by the strange concourse of events the uniformity of nature is used to controvert theism! In the theistic system the principle of the uniformity of nature finds its rational justification and its metaphysical undergirding in the character of Almighty God.”

“Further, although the Christian may locate the source of the principle in his theistic metaphysics, the scientist has no method of proving the principle. There is no single experiment that proves it, for it the first principle of all experimentation. To extend the principle from one experiment to all is to use the principle to prove itself. There are two ways out. The scientist may give the principle full metaphysical status as a pervasive feature of reality, but in so doing he as become a metaphysician. Or, he may with the positivists state that the principle is one of the assumed principles of scientific investigation which one takes as true but does not bother to prove. In this case, the question is begged or dodged. Another variety of the positivistic position is to assume the truthfulness of the principle on pragmatic grounds. But if grounded pragmatically, it cannot then be used viciously to exclude the miracle in Biblical history. Pragmatic verification leaves it possible that other situations may occur in which the principle does not hold.”

" Finally, the Christian theist insists that the uniformity of nature is not the point of argument at all. For the daily routine of life, for he regular procedures of science, and for the practical needs of the commercial world, the principle of uniformity holds true. As will be noted in the discussion of miracles, the Christian insists on a regular order in nature for he very detection of the ‘irregular.’ That is to say, the Christian theist is not arguing for a chaotic or a spontaneous or a haphazard universe when he argues for the supernatural. At this point he only insists that science does not mercilessly and blindly extend the uniformity of all of human history without full appreciation of the nature of scientific knowledge itself, and the worthy contentions of Biblical theism.”

"The Christian attitude toward the principle of the uniformity is this: For the general routine of life and existence the principle is granted its validity. Its ultimate grounding is in the consistency of God’s nature. But the principle is not to be used to mercilessly rule out all conceivable supernatural events if for other sound and rational arguments such events can be shown to fit into the entire system of the universe.”

Amen, brother Ramm.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Go, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10: 4-5

2010-05-13T16:18:00.002-04:00

In his book “But I say unto you…,” John Reisinger frames the issues of the believer’s relationship to the law of Moses by a series of pointed questions which he poses in the first chapter. For the sake of our future discussion, I will list a summary – but only a summary – of those questions here.

“How are we to understand Christ’s teaching on the sermon on the mount? Is Christ contrasting His teachings with the law of Moses, or is He only contradicting the Pharisee’s interpretation of Mosaic law?”

“Is Christ really setting up a ‘new system’ of controlling personal behavior?”

“Is the entire thrust of the sermon on the mount merely Christ giving us the true and spiritual meaning of what Moses really meant, or is Christ also contrasting His teaching and authority with the laws and authority of Moses?”

Relentlessly drilling down to the crux of the matter, Reisinger asks:

“Is Christ [in the sermon on the mount: my note] establishing a totally new kingdom based on grace and giving a new and higher canon of moral conduct, or is both the foundation and canon of moral conduct of Christ’s kingdom the same as that of theocratic Israel?”

Drilling down even more tightly, Reisinger asks:

“Is Christ saying exactly the same thing that Paul said in Romans 6:14, “You are not under law but under grace?”

Leaving no stone unturned, Reisinger asks two more probing questions:

“Is there really no contrast at all in the sermon on the mount between law and grace?

“Are both Israel and the church under different administrations of the same covenant and therefore the same moral canon of conduct, or did Christ establish a new covenant that demands much higher and more spiritual conduct from His people?”

It is almost axiomatic that how one answers these questions will depend on the particular theological system and biblical hermeneutic the interpreter has adopted. Yet at this point in the discussion, we are not accusing anyone of anything, but rather trying to explain how new covenant theology has arrived at its understanding of the teaching of the sermon on the mount. For instance, traditional classical [Scofieldian] dispensationalism concludes that the sermon on the mount is not for the believer today at all, but is the rule of life for some future kingdom to be established at the appearing of Christ.

New covenant theology, to the contrary, believes that the sermon on the mount is a vital and integral part of the Christians rule of life NOW, TODAY.

Secondly, new covenant theology does NOT teach that Jesus in the sermon on the mount is contradicting Moses in any way that shows Moses to be wrong. NCT as much as any system of interpretation believes in the unity of Scripture and thus does not teach that one part of the Scriptures contradicts another. Often, covenant theology has been ruthless in their accusations against NCT along this very line, despite the denial and counter arguments made by proponents of NCT. I might properly call for a more civil discourse on this issue which refuses to demonize anyone that might differ with us.

Though Jesus does not contradict Moses as wrong in any way, Jesus DOES promulgate new and higher standards of moral conduct than Moses ever did, or for that matter, could ever give under a covenant of laws. But from this no one can charge or imply that NCT throws Moses under the bus, as the saying goes.

Yet it DOES mean that Christ is literally a new and superior lawgiver than Moses because He administers a “new and better covenant based on better promises,” (Hebrews 8:6). It surely DOES mean that a covenant of grace can – and does – make higher demands than any external law did or ever could!

Why can we claim this as true? Why can a covenant of grace appeal to higher motives and demands of believers today? We have arrived at the crux of the matter and an issue that I have come to believe that classical CT gets wrong, or at least minimizes: the ministry of the Holy Spirit of God under the new covenant of grace. Under the new covenant of grace the believer is enabled to do what the law could never do; by the Holy Spirit the new covenant believer is empowered to fulfill the new and higher demands.

A third distinction that NCT makes about the contrast between the sermon on the mount and the Mosaic code is that under a legal system, we cannot regulate and punish the thoughts and intents of the heart. A system based solely on external laws cannot, indeed, is unable to legislate, regulate and punish the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But God by the Holy Spirit under the new covenant can.

Under grace and the new covenant, the Holy Spirit is the personal guide [pedagogue] of every believer. The Holy Spirit can deal with the thoughts and intents of the heart in a way that the magistrates could not under the old covenant Mosaic law.

We can make some preliminary conclusions, then, as to what new covenant theology does in fact teach. We conclude that in the sermon on the mount Christ is saying much more than “This is what Moses actually meant.” He is saying that He is giving His disciples new laws that make moral and spiritual demands that are based on grace instead of old covenant external laws.

Thus we avoid either of the two extremes that lead to serious error. First, we protect the unity of the Scripture by showing that Christ is not blatantly contradicting Moses as if Moses had been wrong. Yet on the other hand, we will not limit the authority of Christ by making Him a “rubber stamp” of Moses. We will allow Christ to be the new lawgiver, “that prophet” prophesied to come, who can and does give new and higher truth than Moses did or even could give.

A bit later in his book, Reisinger uses the phrase that I chose as a title to my series of sermons and lesson on the sermon on the mount: “Moses is finished.”

We do not mean this in any derogatory sense, but only to say that Moses has been replaced by “that prophet” (Deut. 18:15; John 1:21; Acts 3:26) who would supersede Moses as the new and final lawgiver. This new lawgiver has established a new covenant, a new and better covenant with new and higher laws. He is NOT just a new administrator of the old covenant.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.” (Matt. 7: 28,29)

The problem with logic: a critique of covenant theology

2010-05-12T09:17:00.000-04:00

Over on FaceBook we were discussing a session which I recently taught which I entitled "The problem with logic: a critique of covenant theology." In that session, I challenged covenant theology in its use of theological constructs taken from logical inference and not explicitly from the Biblical text. My views have been largely influenced by the works of John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel. I consider Fred a friend, and John, too, but I have not had the same amount of personal contact with John that I have had with Fred. I consider both men as excellent examples of devoted Christian men and theologians. It was during a month or two of debating with John over on the Sound of Grace discussion forum that I first was persuaded to rethink my covenant theology, a system of Biblical interpretation that I had held for many years. Though I was not fully persuaded of new covenant theology at that point in time, after I left those discussions, I began to rethink the things I had come to believe.

Among the things that I had great difficulty in defending about covenant theology when debating with John was the issue of the covenant of works. In fact, John argued that the entire covenant theology framework was built upon the [sandy?] foundation of the covenant of works, despite the fact that such a covenant is not mentioned in the very text from which it is argued by covenant theology, namely the first three chapters of Genesis. Indeed, John argued that I was creating the existence of that covenant by what the covenant theologians call “good and necessary consequences,” that is, logical inferences from the Scriptures rather than the Biblical texts. Later, I would fully agree with him on that point.

Since that time, I have come to recognize that covenant theology in fact bases much more [infant baptism, their doctrine of “church,” Sabbath, eldership, etc] of their system of theology on just such inferences, which are often not at all evident from the Biblical text. It is that which stimulated the title I used, “The problem with logic.”

Mind you, as I said, I am not dissing logic; indeed, I insist on proper logic as a foundational concept of Christianity. But logic is NOT Scripture, nor should we elevate logical consequences and inferences to the same authority as the Biblical text. Human handling of logic even in the best minds is uneven, even seriously flawed due to the fallen nature of man. Even the regenerate person is not rendered infallible in terms of logic and reason; we still tend to “grope along the wall” at times, and as a result we ought to be modest in our claims of understanding even logic. We especially need to caution ourselves to not allow us to elevate logical inferences which appear to be “good and necessary” to the same authority as the Biblical text. Here is the very crux of the “problem” with the logic of which I speak. Often, logical inferences are neither good nor necessary, especially when there are explicit Biblical texts that differ with or outright refute such inferences.

It is this discussion that I want to take up here on the blog. It will afford me to write some of the things that I have been unable – or perhaps unwilling –

to write up to this point. I am not sure why, but I have been reluctant to set forth my thoughts under the notion that all that I could say had already been said by men much better than myself. That still remains true. But those other writers do not always have the attention of those folks in my own network of contacts, and it is often unlikely that everyone that I speak to are going to read the many books I have read on the issues. So, perhaps there is a reason why it might be useful to set forth some of the issues here. It will afford a healthy and vigorous debate and an opportunity for some of us to hone our understanding of the issues.

With that said, I will begin to set forth some of my thoughts in the near future. I pray that God will grant us the needed patience and ability to describe the issues fairly and as comprehensively as possible. I look forward to the opportunity to express some things I have been holding in for a long time now. I do not change easily. Indeed, my transport from classic covenant theology over to new covenant theology has taken almost 15 years. Even now I have some questions about NCT [new covenant theology]. But at this point I can say that I am about a 95 percenter, as I like to call it. I have pretty much made the transition from CT to NCT by now and as a result I have more confidence in what I preach and teach.

Just a few notes before I go. During our conversations, I will purposely NOT capitalize the words Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. I have chided my covenant theology friends about their propensity to capitalize words which they give particular meaning. For instance, the word “law” is almost invariably rendered “Law” by covenant theologians. Knowing that they think that the ten commandments [which they also always capitalize] is the ultimate and unchangeable moral law of God, that capitalization has a peculiar effect of making the term mean a priori what CT wants it to mean rather than what the meaning of the word might be in the context of the Biblical text.

You will notice a slight inconsistency because I capitalize CT and NCT, the shorthand way of referring to the two primary systems of biblical interpretation in which I am interested here. I hope you will indulge me with that small inconsistency, though in the end I think it is actually grammatically correct to capitalize an abbreviation such as CT and NCT.

With that settled for the most part, let us begin.

No comment needed

2010-01-28T08:57:00.000-05:00

Here is one of those news items that make you cringe. It is a report of an instant poll taken after the president's State of the Union message last evening [1-27-10]

"According to an instant poll conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, 90 percent of Republicans who did not see the President's speech strongly disagreed with it."

"Additionally, 95 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement, "If I had seen the President's speech, I'll bet I would have hated it even more."

Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll, said there were certain difficulties in polling Republican voters: "Many of them would not let us finish asking the question before answering 'No.'"

Truly, no comment is needed.

And now for somthing completely different...

2010-01-27T20:03:00.000-05:00

I gave Facebook a try, but it was a disaster program that I could never master. I have a long web address, and I had to enter it like fifty or sixty times a day to access even my own site! It was also a quirky, buggy program that did strange things. So, I deactivated that mess, which leaves me only my blog as a site where I can perhaps contribute. It has been a long time since I got serious about my blog; indeed, I had forgotten my login information, but BlogSpot was quick to resolve that in a way totally different from Facebook.

Now that I have left FaceBook, maybe now I can spend a bit more time here to discuss things that I want to discuss - like things theological and Biblical. But I don't want to make my blog only a religious site, but I want to include materials and content on politics and social issues of our day.

So, I am glad to be back, and will begin in earnest soon to contribute content here.

Greetings to all my friends.

De Javu all over again

2009-02-24T15:05:00.001-05:00

Wow, looking at the date that I last posted, it is almost exactly a year ago! I just reread my posting then, and, my, it is so relevant today – and so accurately true to the developments over the last year! I intend to spend a bit more time over here writing both on things political and things having to do with Christianity.

First, though, I want to muse a bit about some memories over the last several years. I recall Yuri Volkov and me meeting most Thursdays in downtown Holland during the summer and fall when we weren’t fishing. We talked theology and we talked politics. My recollection is that we both spoke of things that have since become reality in our country.

The first thing was the war in Iraq. It was clear to us both that the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq because of sour memories from Bush 1’s perceived “failure” in the first Iraq war. We also were completely clear that there was no connection with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, they were competitors, if not enemies, but it was a stretch too far to make a case for the connection to justify war. Even two persons in Holland, MI, were fully aware that such was not true at all. And we were perplexed that Bush did not pay any attention to Al Queda and Osama bin Laden. In addition to that, there were UN expert inspectors in Iraq telling us that they did not have weapons of mass destruction. We all know where that went, right?

Then Yuri reminded me that the way to assess these kinds of situations was to follow the money, or figure out who it was that would profit from such a foolish intervention. It did not take us long to figure that out! We were fully aware that Cheney had never left Halliburton really, but had continued to take retirement and other investment benefits [and luxurious ones at that! I remember one article that claimed that Cheney was making something like $58,000 an hour while working in the Bush administration]. We knew also that there were Bush administration designs for the oil in Iraq, though right-wingers would howl if you were even to suggest that the war was over oil – it was, actually, but it did not turn out the way that Bush and Cheney, the oilmen, wanted.

We also noted the economic indicators over the last 5 years were ominous and seemed to portend something bad coming over the time horizon. Wow, were we prophetic on that point! I think it was I that came up with a slogan to suggest how the government ought to handle the oil crisis: Just Say No!

Sure, I know that that slogan was Mrs. Bush’s slogan for anti-drug programs, but I adapted it to read Just Say N.O., meaning “nationalize oil.” In retrospect, I wonder if we had nationalized oil production and refining and gotten some control over that “shock doctrine” debacle, would we have had the deep depression that we face in 2009 now? One wonders.

But my “Just Say N.O.” was a bit misdirected, it seems. I should have known that banking drives the oil business, too. So my lack of economic expertise showed up, much to my chagrin. But I was not far off.

Enough for my re-baptism into the blogosphere. I will return soon with some more rumination about current event and religious disorder in our nation in a bit.

ttyl

Under the radar

2008-02-16T21:10:00.002-05:00

Today the New York Times mentioned in an article that Chelsea Clinton was now fully involved in her mothers campaign. Whereas she had previously been a mere stage prop, holding the coat of a supporter on one occasion, now she was in Hawaii touting details of her mother’s economic policies.

What whisked by, though, under the radar, was the offhand comment that Chelsea was an “associate” of Avenue Capital, a huge unregulated hedge fund controlled by Marc Lasey, a long-time Clinton friend and donor. I guess Chelsea has taken a few personal days off, or some earned vacation to assist her mother in the campaign. [I would personally be very interested in what Chelsea Clinton actually does in her position of “associate” with that hedge fund.]

Why does any of this make any difference? Well, let me tell you. Senator Clinton has posed as a “change agent” in the primary season of the race. Some of the change the nation is looking for is a change in the corporate control and seemingly unfettered power of corporations to avoid any regulation by the federal government. These massive hedge funds are prototype examples of the worst abuse of unregulated corporations and multi-trillion dollar funds, and apparently Hillary is fully supportive of such arrangements, as long as they have her name on them! But all this is what the Republican administrations have created for their own advantage. Am I to believe that Hillary is simply a Republican in Democratic garb?

I think so.

Sure, she and Bill came from Arkansas, but once they moved to Washington, they became East Coast elites, as much as the Kennedy family, the Kerry Family, etc, etc. She boasts of 30 years of experience in Washington, but what is really the outcome of that 30 years of experience? Personal wealth and walking with the well-heeled elites. This is not what America needs.

The Huffington Post did a story not long ago that revealed the true metamorphosis of the Clintons, from chicken-pluckers in Arkansas, to international magnates. The article details the Clinton relationship with Yucaipa Global Holding, a company that belongs to Ron Burkle, the billionaire investor. What was funny was the way in which the press was impressed and surprised when Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million, giving the impression that they were on the ropes of funding source. Pure nonsense. If she had pleased, some of her investors would have ponied up hundreds of millions of dollars! She is no less wealthy than Mitt Romney, and if the truth were known, is probably much, much richer than Romney.

A New York Times article detailed Bill Clinton’s connection with an attempt to corner the uranium market in a shady deal involving Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Guistra flew into Kazakhstan, accompanied by who – you guessed it; Bill Clinton, former president. The two proceeded to meet with the despotic president of Kazakhstan, [who, by the way, has been criticized by none other than Hillary Clinton, Bill’s wife and candidate for president of the United States!], supposedly on a philanthropic tour. But within two days, Mr. Guistra’s company signed agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom. Now, that seems to be real philanthropy in action, does it not?

Long story short, the Clintons are so connected with the abusive business practices around the world that it is impossible that she could represent any kind of “change” in that status quo.

I am sure that these revelations were inadvertent, and that the Clinton’s have already chastised someone for revealing them, but they are likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, with a huge hidden lode of intrigue involving the Clintons. It does not bode well for Hillary Clinton’s campaign to be so hypocritical as to talk about change and anti-corporate control of the economy when her husband [and thus she herself] is up to his proverbial neck in the very things that need to be reformed!

In recent news, we now see that in her desperate last throws she is willing to sacrifice the long-term welfare of the entire Democratic party for her own personal grandiose goals. She will unleash all the learning from the many years that she has learned how to win from the likes of Karl Rove and others who will do anything short of murder (?) to win for their own aggrandizement and financial gain.

I post this to try to demonstrate to the Hillary defenders that not all of us are Hillary-haters, as they maintain, criticizing personal stuff like the way she dresses, the way she looks. I just despise her dishonesty, two-faced deception, hypocrisy, and her false outrage when someone speaks of “pimping out” her daughter, which is, in modern parlance, exactly what she is doing. Perhaps it is Hillary’s own attitude toward the Democratic voters that comes the closest to being pimping out. Enough already.

A huge disconnect

2008-02-16T21:04:00.001-05:00

A couple of weeks ago [February 1, 2008, to be exact], it was announced that the U.S. economy lost 17,000 jobs, a serious downturn for the first time in many months. Articles that appeared in many newspapers and online news sites repeated this story ad nauseum.

What was probably overlooked was that on that self-same day, the NY Stock Market exploded upwards, with a nearly 100 points gain for the day on the news of record profits by Exxon Corporation. Indeed, this news about Exxon was so important that the Evening News of NBC had an item on the program in which Jim Cramer from the Financial News Network appeared with Brian Williams to comment on that report. Long story short, when Williams asked why regular people should not be outraged at such profits when high prices for gasoline were wrecking havoc on the budgets of families, truck companies, airlines, etc, Cramer basically said that since the poor oil companies had been through rough times before, it was okay that they were finally getting some good news and good profits, and that he did not hold it against them.

Some capitalist thinking, eh?

Indeed, it is mind-blowing stuff, really. But it points out a phenomenon that I think we as citizens need to be aware. There is a huge disconnect [thus my title] between the stock markets and real people in our country. When the news is almost universal that the U.S. economy is tanking in a serious way, slipping into full recession, the astute observer must surely note that the stock market and Financial Channel pundits are glowing, and corporations are posting major gains and profits.

I have for a long time held the view that the stock market corporations, huge retirement funds and other huge investor class funds flourish on human misery. This is, in my view, so profoundly true that the average citizen can correctly conclude that when the stock market is flourishing, the average citizen is hurting and experiencing economic misery. In other words, reality in capitalist America is that when the stock market is up, average people’s lives are necessarily down, as the markets flourish on human misery. Misery of citizens is the fuel of the stock markets, and the markets are directly but inversely related to the people of the nation. That is to say that the stock market is related to our lives in a completely topsy-turvy way that when the stock market is up, we are suffering, and when the markets are down, the consumer gains and profits.

I don’t know how long it takes to make people see this, as it has been true for all of my own life [I am 65]. I suspect that it will be true forever, really, and that human misery has always been the fuel of American corporatist capitalism. For instance, during the Reagan years, my own recollection is that it was one of the most difficult eras that I can remember for our family and the average family in our country. It was in fact a time of huge transfer of public wealth [tax money, if you will] to private pockets that then had been in the world to that time. For some of us, Reagan was the worst president in our nation’s history, yet the conservatives taut him as nearly the Second Coming of Christ! In fact, the Constitution suffered some of its worst assaults during the Reagan disaster years, serving as a mere prelude to the all-out warfare against the poor of the two Bush administrations [don’t tell me you don’t remember the Savings and Loan debacle! http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/99614.php ]. Reagan’s budgets and the deficit were the largest in the history of the nation, and Conservatism took on a new image as the party that reduces taxes and yet at the same time spends, spends, spends our nation into oblivion. In fact, this political tactic of the neo-Conservatives had a name; it is called “starve the beast.” http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp It is still the unspoken tactic of the Republican party, and especially of the Bush administration and will likely be the policy of any Republican that takes office in 2009.

The Savings and Load government bail-out and rescue package made the Bush family mega-rich, and elevated the Bechtel Group and other multi-national corporations to the level of world powers, most all of which was due to Reagan’s all-out assault on regulatory agencies and a massive killing field against labor in the United States [don’t tell me you have forgotten Reagan’s breaking of the Air Traffic Controllers union by government fiat!] Later mine disasters would reveal that the Reagan-Bush assaults on regulation and control of dangerous corporations extend much further than the Air Traffic Controllers union.

There is something rotten about America’s version of capitalism. Whatever the American system is, it is NOT free market capitalism: it is a highly regulated system designed to severely regulate and control any input except for capital. Translated, this means that money controls the nation. When Jim Cramer comes on the TV and sheds crocodile tears for the poor corporations, we are in a world of hurt. Those same corporations are the ones that have moved trillions of dollars [that’s right, Martha: trillions] to off-shore shelters so that they do not have to pay taxes in our country. In another era, we would have held such organizations to be traitorous and summarily prosecuted for treason – and likely executed! But today, they are held out as heroes!

It was amusing – while at the same time frightening – to hear one of the presidential candidates talk about his tax plan [the so-called “fair” tax, which is not fair at all] as a plan that would bring back into our economy the $12 trillion [that’s right, Martha; $12 trillion] that had been squirreled away in off-shore tax shelters by mega-rich funds, individual, corporations, etc, so as to avoid paying taxes in our country, because, if you listen to them, the tax rate for corporations is way too high in the U.S., and those corporations are only doing the responsible thing. Duh.

The truth is that American corporations pay far less taxes than just about any nation’s corporations. The American corporate tax rate is 35%, but there is not a single corporation [at least intelligent ones] that pays that rate. Indeed, the richest corporations pay sometimes the lowest tax rates, as Warren Buffet has said, so that an absurdity arises. Warren Buffet commented that he made $46 million in a year [an off year for him, as I recall] but paid a lower rate of taxes than did his secretary in his office! http://sunspot.mercedsunstar.com/?q=node/3883

Here is a link for the reader to follow that will give the true percentages of taxes on top earning corporations in America, http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corptax.html, Microsoft being one of the most profitable and most recognizable, a company that anyone who uses a computer can relate to: it makes hugely inferior products. It is the “China” of software products, funneling huge rivers of inferior products into a controlled and managed market designed especially for Microsoft and other mega-monopolies [What? Don’t tell me you forgot about laws against monopolies!]. The reader will immediately note from the website that for the year 1999-2000, Microsoft paid an effective tax rate of 1.8% [yes, Martha, that is right] on profits of nearly $22 billion! The reader can browse the other companies for some even more astounding facts. All of that information is put into proper relief by comparing with the average American family’s rate of around 17%. Plainly put, Microsoft Corporation paid 1.8%, you paid 17%. And Bush [and now McCain and every other Republican candidate] wants to cut corporate taxes again!

Given all this, would it not be at least logical, if not kind hearted, to wish for a stock market crash? I think so. When the stock markets are up, you are down, average citizen. Read it and weep.

A Budget Surplus? Whaaaa?

2008-01-15T16:12:00.000-05:00

How about a non-religious item?

We are in the middle of a primary election season in our country, and stuff is flying around like a wind storm. Some of those things relate to our state, Michigan. And some of that stuff is very smelly stuff indeed.

One such odorous claim is that Michigan is, according to one national GOP candidate, a "one-state recession." Mind you, we have our problems, what with unemployment being above 7 percent and prospects for new jobs being dismal [ask anyone who has been trying to find work here]. But there are also some very positive things going on here, too, such as state-level leadership in Lansing.

Lest the readers and hearers of these presidential candidates be fooled that Michigan is about to go under, let them read the recent article in the Michigan Daily, entitled "State has surprise $350 million surplus." I wonder how many other states can make this claim. And that comes on the heels of a dismal fiscal state of affairs here in Michigan where previous administrations [read "Engler" here] had incurred a $1.7 billion [That’s BILLIONS, friends] deficit.

Governor Grandholm has successfully grappled with the serious fiscal problems of this state in an exemplary manner, in my view. Yes, it has taken some courage and has required some very difficult decisions, but she has demonstrated the courage and fortitude to take on the special interests that had benefited from the profligate largess of the previous administration. The amazing thing is written in the article:

"The surplus is for the 2006-07 fiscal year, a period in which a deficit of more than $1 billion was filled by delaying payments to state universities and community colleges, dipping into funds set aside for job training and substance abuse treatment and selling off the state’s future tobacco settlement. Taxes were not raised to deal with the shortfall."

What? A Democrat, fixing the budget by fiscal prudence? Shades of Bill Clinton!

Indeed.

The article goes on:

"The surplus is not part of this year’s budget agreement, under which taxes were raised by $1.3 billion and spending was cut or restricted by more than $400 million to help wipe out a $1.75 billion state budget deficit and place the state on a sounder financial footing."

Indeed!

I admit that there are remaining serious economic issues in our state. But fiscal irresponsibility and profligate spending of the past administrations are not now among those problems. Yes, we need to begin the really hard work of developing jobs and restructuring the bases for the new Michigan economy, but we can be thankful that we have the sound fiscal policies of the Grandholm administration to lean upon to leverage our efforts to restore our state to its former economic condition and productivity.

What I fear most is that, God forbid, De Vos might become governor one day, and like his close friend George Bush, be inclined to wipe out any surplus by a gigantic giveaway to his corporate friends. The people of Michigan must resolve to prevent this almost certain eventuality if De Vos is ever elected as governor.

And, by the way, giving more money to Detroit auto makers is NOT the answer! What they need to do is to give us a quality car and we will buy them out of trouble. So far, it hasn’t happened.

Of carts and horses

2007-12-23T17:29:00.000-05:00

Okay, it has been a while since I have posted to my blog. In fact, it has been so long that I have forgotten exactly how to do it! But I will muddle through somehow, with a little help from my friends.

What I want to talk about is the current political race. I am not so interested in candidates, but rather in the role of religion/Christianity in the race. There is a way in which I could care less about the candidates and the political process altogether. But when some candidates start using their religion and particularly Christianity as a marketing ploy and campaign tactic, I get not a little incensed. It would appear that religion and/or Christianity is little more than fodder for the cannons of political warfare, to be used here and there for effect, but which will actually go up in smoke when its nefarious job is over.

Such a cynical use and abuse of religion and/or Christianity [the two are NOT the same] is repulsive and in fact brings reproach on genuine Christian faith. Two political endorsements that illustrate this cynicism caught my eye, as the political races relate to religion. First, a dyed-in-the-wool religious fundamentalist [in the bad sense] reactionary institution, Bob Jones University, has endorsed Romney. [Surely the reader must know by now that Christians can only be Republican, right? :)] This endorsement is nothing less than stunning. That a so-called conservative premillenial, dispensational institution which believes in the Antichrist would turn and actually endorse the spirit of antichrist is mind-boggling. But that is exactly what has happened with that endorsement. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world in the way that evangelical Christians do! Huckabee [I do not support him, if you want to know] was right on target when he asked, “Don’t they teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

It was actually kind of humorous to me, frankly. Either Huckabee knew full well what he was saying or he was the worst studied pastor in the world. His question is nothing less than true. That is one of the lesser errors of Mormonism, however, though a very serious one indeed. Mormonism is polytheistic and denies the Trinitarian nature of God. Such a doctrine puts them completely outside the stream of Christianity and makes them a non-Christian sect, if not a cult [though many consider Mormonism just that, and Mormonism appears on many listings of cults on the Internet]. But even that would be just fine for a candidate, for I do not believe there should be any religious litmus test for running for the office of president; it is and ought to be open for Mormons. Let the Christians defeat them at the polls, not by smearing them with religious rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction that seems to have become part and parcel of the right wing Christian political movement. But for a so-called conservative evangelical protestant institution to endorse a polytheistic and heretical religionist is simply mind-boggling. In so doing, Bob Jones University repudiates just about every Christian tenet which they claim to believe.

The second endorsement that boggles the mind is that of Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Guliani. That fits, eh? An evangelical Christian endorsing the non-evangelical, non-practicing, womanizing, adulterous Catholic with mob connections and business interests with the enemies of the United States! What it does, really, is call into question the integrity of Robertson and all the things he has preached and raved about for decades now. All those years of so-called preaching were thrown aside for the expediency of a political endorsement, which obviously was a play for some renewed political power that Robertson had lost over the years. – and that by being a complete nutty character! That being said, I suppose I should really not register such surprise, eh?

Also, a concern that I have is the way in which the misrepresentation of genuine Christianity by the right wing so-called evangelical Christians has given opportunity of every atheist and unbeliever to rail against the bitterness and hatred expressed by the “Christian” right. Daily I read about 15 newspapers and constantly read the letters and articles written by atheists [the New York Times, in my opinion, could be termed the Atheistic paper of America on the basis of the dominance of the atheists on its opinion pages]. The atheistic venom is constant and, sadly, often far more accurate about the counterfeit “Christianity” of the Christian right political movement than we like to admit. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would believe, for instance that the pop psychologist James Dobson is a genuine Christian, for his views are so liberal [yes, you heard me right. He is conservative on social issues but liberal in reference to theology and religion] that there is little reason to believe that he is a regenerate believer. The same can be said of Tony Perkins, the leader of some kind of political lobby for evangelicals. These doctrinaire and bigoted partisan Republicans are driven by power needs, not by the Word of God. Anyone who claims to have been regenerated by God ought to repudiate these sleazy characters and return to the Word of God for their guidance. These are partisan political operatives, not ministers of the Gospel or likely not even Christians at all. Let’s face it: the homosexual Haggart was and is not a regenerate Christian; Jimmy Bakker was and is not a regenerate Christian; Benny Hinn is no regenerate Christian. Who believes that Charles Colson is a regenerate believer? These are all men who relish and do obeisance on the altar of power. Of all the fakers, perhaps because of his position, George Bush is the most recognizable likely unregenerate pseudo-Christian, a victim of Pentecostal decisional regeneration, as are most of the others [except the out and out pagans, who could care less about God except that god and religion make for a powerful marketing tool].

I have purposely been using the word “regenerate” to designate a true Christian convert. I have done so because the phrase “born again,” though certainly Biblical language, has been so misunderstood and tainted by the evangelical community that it no longer has its Biblical meaning. To them, being “born again” is an act of their own wills, a decision they have taken to “receive Christ into their hearts.” But true new birth is not an act of man’s will, a fact that is made crystal clear by the Word of God:

“So then it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Romans 9:16.

“…who were born [those who believe, that is], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

“But God, …even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, has quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved).”

What I am suggesting may seem revolutionary to some, but is absolutely elementary and rudimentary to Biblical Christianity. I am suggesting that the very notion of the new birth as understood in evangelical America is so far gone from the Biblical teaching that one can almost – almost – judge that anyone who claims to have been born again has misunderstood what it means to be “born of God” to the extent that they are not likely genuine believers who have been regenerated or born of God in the sense of Titus 3: 4-5:

“But when the kindness of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

Most all of those representing themselves as evangelical Christians are in fact those who are putting their trust in their decision to receive Christ for their salvation instead of having been saved by the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” They clearly have gotten the cart before the horse, and are sadly mistaken. Therefore, when they mix perverted politics with their unbelief, we get a poisonous mixture of perverted politics and perverted religion. That is the condition of the religious right in America. They in fact trust themselves [their own free will, to be more exact] for their salvation, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. In their jaundiced view of salvation, God just did what He owed them for being willing to accept Him. This is nothing less than salvation by works, which any self-respecting evangelical would reject out of hand if they knew at all what they were talking about. But most don’t.

Modern evangelicalism is a big mess. The 20th century was a dismal time for American Christianity. C.H. Spurgeon warned in the latter part of the 19th century of a coming “downgrade” in religion. We in the 20th century have witnessed the progress and ultimate end of that downgrade; the beggaring of religion. What passes for evangelicalism today is a sad shell of pretension, I dare say. Genuine faith can be found today, but one must, as the saying goes, sort through a lot of garbage to find it.

But sorting through the garbage is very difficult itself, since there is a profound ignorance of spiritual things in today’s world. If I talk of spiritual things, the natural minded fellow thinks I am talking about voodoo or something. To the modern carnal mind, for instance, something like the virgin birth seems a fairy tale. The reason is that they know nothing about our sin nature and depravity and the need for a spotless, sinless sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice and to make atonement for sin. If they had any notion of that, the virgin birth would not only become meaningful, but absolutely essential, for anyone born as the seed of Adam is unqualified to be Savior or the Lamb of God. When seen in true light, the story is not a fairy tale, but the actual account of man’s fall and need of a Savior, God’s justice and righteousness, reconciliation, and God’s gracious provision of a Savior for all whom by faith believe the Gospel. What to the carnal mind is silly nonsense is to the enlightened believer the very essence of love, faith and eternal life.

Why should we be surprised at this? The Bible tells us very clearly that this will be the very response we will get from an unregenerate mind. Here is what the Bible says of the carnal [meaning natural, unregenerate, un-renewed, un-quickened] mind as it considers the facts of Gospel of Christ:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

There it is in stark relief; the natural mind, unregenerated by the Spirit of Christ, thinks the things of God and of Christ and of the Bible are “foolishness.” Further, the same text asserts that the natural, unregenerate mind “cannot” know spiritual things, for such spiritual things are “spiritually discerned.” Put in plain language, many of the people claiming to be Christians are in fact in the condition of a carnal mind and simply cannot discern spiritual truth. Think though they might, study though they might, there is no way under the sun that they can arrive at a spiritual thought because such things are spiritually discerned, ergo, one must first be made spiritual before one can discern spiritual things. Jesus said it in another way: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see [or enter into] the kingdom of God.”

What Jesus was NOT talking about was a decision of the human will to “receive Jesus into your heart.” What He was telling Nicodemus was that it is God Himself who determines who will receive the regenerating work of the Spirit [the new birth]. The Apostle Paul put it this way:

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Jesus was even blunter with his words:

“Do no murmur among yourselves. No man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The great majority of all people today claiming to know Christ as Savior have it entirely backwards, it seems. They have the cart before the horse. They are putting their will and their acts of obedience before God’s acts of saving, thus in essence saving themselves, with God being just the compliant gift giver of salvation to those who are wise enough and good enough to seek him. The bottom line is, if this be true, that they themselves have saved themselves by an act of their will to receive Christ. In fact, theologians have coined a name for this error; decisional regeneration. It is they who give God permission to save them, for as one free will preacher I heard said, “God can’t save you without your permission. God would never force you to be saved against your will.”

Well, there is a way in which that is true and a way in which it is totally false. If by that one mean that it is human will that finally determines who is saved, then it is totally false. If you mean by that that God changes the will of man in such a saving way that the man wants and desires Jesus Christ, then that is very true. Man is never saved against his will; God just makes him willing. Again, the bottom line is that it is God who saves; it is God who enables man to repent and believe, and not man himself. Indeed, the very faith through which man appropriates salvation is by grace, a gift from God.

There is a sobering truth, though, that every person who believes that he is saved or a believer because he or she “accepted Christ” ought to realize. It is a Scriptural truth that blows the top off the claims of many Christians. “There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.” Yet the very essence of many people’s claim to be Christian is that they were seeking God! That ought to give all those who confess to be Christians pause, and cause them to reconsider their true spiritual state, and to “make sure your election and calling.”

In summary, I really don’t care about the political races in themselves. But I do care how our precious Christian faith is distorted and abused and made to serve as marketing material for the sake of political campaigns. It is high time to put these folks to the true test of the Word of God. Let’s start asking the hard questions.

Coming later: Can there be true morality outside the Christian faith like some secularists and atheists say?

I'm baaaaaack! -Redux

2007-12-23T17:12:00.000-05:00

Wow, what a journey it has been! It is with gratefulness that I return here to post again. This has been one difficult year for me, suffering another heart attack and spending more time than I like in the hospital, medical facilities, rehab programs, and the like.

But God has been merciful to this sinner, and so I return rejoicing at His great grace to me. I have decided to take up posting to my own blog here and to our church website at www.spurgeonheritage.org. I had thought that I might go back to the Theology List and contribute, but for the time being I will rest content to do some stuff here on the blog.

For my friends I will review a little of what has been happening in my life. This is not one of those annual letters that people send out at the Christmas season, but just a bit of summary of why I have been somewhat absent from the world for a time.

Wintertime is very difficult for me, with my heart condition and all. So each winter we face the winter weather with some fear and trepidation, recognizing that over the last several years I have experienced strokes and heart attacks during the months of December, January and February.
In the fall of 2006, my health was already falling off and I was struggling to keep up with my duties and responsibilities. I was limited in what I could do physically and chose to concentrate on ministry and preaching, leaving all my writing and other activities [like bowling, golfing, fishing, etc] to be resumed later, if God willed.

My doctor decided to send me back to cardiac rehab, even though I had “graduated” earlier. So I began working to restore some health to my heart. It was during this time [March-April, 2007] that I was having much physical distress and heart pains. My doctor was doing what he thought was right for me, and ordered a sleep lab, after which I was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea. We had problems getting the report from the sleep lab and thus could not get the C-PAP apparatus as soon as would have been desirable.

In fact, before we could get it, I took a trip down to Illinois to visit my grandsons, and to spend a few days with them. On the very day we set out to go, I had an appointment with my cardiologist. As I was sitting on the examination table, I reported to the nurse that I was having chest and back pains and was fearful that I was having a heart attack right there in his office. She quickly went out and reported to the doctor, but he came back in and made light of my concerns. So I left and went to Illinois. I fought serious pains the entire time while there and was unable to sleep but for short stretches of time, measured in minutes rather than hours. And I kept feeling worse and worse as the time went on.

We returned to Holland on Saturday and we had our regular services on Sunday. I could hardly stand and was enduring almost constant pain. On Monday morning, 9:30, I was scheduled to work out at cardiac rehab there at the hospital. When I arrived, I was in serious pain and was quite irritable. The head nurse there [Cheryl is her name, and she is an angel to me] knew intuitively that I was not my usual jovial, joking, smart-alec self, so she would not allow me to exercise and took me down to the ER. There I was diagnosed as having suffered a heart attack some hours before. I personally suspect it was back in the cardiologist’s office, actually.

Well, I seemed to recover some, but this one left me far weaker than what I had experienced in the past. The doctor told me that one of my bypasses had blocked off, causing the attack. He indicated that there did not seem to be anything that he could do, and that there were “no targets for revascularization.” In simple terms, he was saying that it was impossible to do any more bypasses. His advice and medical plan for me was that I should complete an advance directive of DNR [that’s Do Not Resuscitate, if you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature]. Nice medical plan, eh?  In plain language, he was saying that if the guy has another heart attack, let the old boy die!

Mind you, I am not at all afraid of dying. Indeed, as the Apostle Paul put it, “to die is gain.” But I was not at all convinced that I should give up the ghost that easily or without at least a second opinion. So I sought a second opinion from Prairie Cardiovascular Center in Springfield, IL, who had done my original bypass surgery. They were confident that the DNR “plan” of action [or inaction, more accurately] was unwarranted and that they felt there were other interventions that were not so dire. Long story short, I underwent two procedures to unblock some old arteries, but both procedures were unsuccessful. The cardiologist at Prairie was quite disappointed in himself and seemed far more discouraged than I. But he still felt that there was hope and that there were other interventions that might be warranted. With that thought, I returned home to Holland, MI.

Since that time, I have once again graduated from Phase 2 cardiac rehab. But as the summer wore on and winter time approached, I became again concerned that things were not going well. This time, I self-referred myself to cardiac rehab, phase three, and am still busy at that. There has been some good progress, and I am feeling fairly well at this time, though I am certainly not back to “normal.” I am back to bowling and fishing, but other than those activities I am pretty limited.

So, here I am, back again, hoping that I can recover and still contribute something to this life. So far I have not had to curtail much of my ministry, and have only missed a few Wednesday evening sessions and not a single Sunday service, no matter how serious my problems have been. For this I am very thankful to God for His mercy to me.

As if this were not enough, my dear wife Bev underwent hip replacement after several years of debilitating pain and discomfort in that hip. She is home recovering quickly and we are hopeful that both of us will resume something akin to normal life soon.

I wish to thank those of you who prayed for us during our travail. We would covet your continued prayers, actually. We have many, many friends across the nation and even around the world, and we are thankful for their shared fellowship in Jesus Christ. Their love and prayers have made our tribulation more tolerable and even joyful.

It is good to be back. Drop us a line if you can and visit our church website, which I am about to update soon.

2006-10-14T13:33:00.000-04:00

Free Will

Lately the topic of freedom of will has arisen among the saints here at Spurgeon Heritage Church. In my own mind, that is a good thing, for it requires all of us to once again go to the only place that speaks authoritatively about human free will: the Bible, the very Word of God.

Our church holds to the doctrine of the total depravity of man, sometimes also called the total inability of the will of man to choose the spiritual good necessary for salvation. For this series of articles, we will use the more traditional term after first defining what we mean by it when we are discussing the noetic effects of sin.

Before I launch into this discussion, I would like to comment personally on why I do so. First, I am a bit reluctant as a writer in theological areas, as my view is that just about all that can or need be said about such topics has already been said, and that by authors who are far more capable than I. I could do but only a few minutes of surfing on the Internet and come up with links to a huge list of articles and authors who have written on the topic of free will, and all of them are likely far more capable than I of explaining and examining this topic. So then, what is my justification for writing this here on my blog?

Well, you be the judge as to whether I am justified or not, but my own thinking is that the only reason for doing so is to customize it to the people for whose benefit I attempt to write. It is the people that are in my life for whom I write. I know them personally and I know their general ability to deal with such topics. Some are quick to understand; others need a more generous learning curve. I hope I am able to take the wisdom of other’s scholarship and translate the information into language and examples that our own people can understand and accept as valid. The only thing that I do claim as anything unique to me is the use of the argument regarding mankind’s “want to.” Some years ago I began discussing the issue of total depravity by reference to the fact that our “want to” is broken [in our natural state, though restored by regeneration]. For example, I might say that we are free to choose what we “want to,” but that the options from which we make our choices can only be of a certain sort because our “want to” is broken. Our “want to” is that constitutional part of man that is precedent to our volitions and presents options to the will. This “want to” part of man’s constitutional makeup is corrupted by sin from the effects of the fall of man through the sin of Adam. I will discuss this further in the series in more detail, but this suffices for a general example of my own kind of language employed in a discussion of this subject.

The meaning of terms

As in any discussion, we must first define our terms if we are to make any headway in our understanding of a subject. This is crucial not only on this subject, but just about anything that we discuss or debate. Sadly, the notion of free will is so variously understood that it cannot be assumed for even a moment that two people mean the same by the phrase. In other words, one person’s free will is to another person total anarchy, a completely psychotic state. I believe, for instance, that one form of radical free will that is promulgated today is nothing short of an illogical contradiction which reaches the level of insanity, that is, if anyone really believed that view of free will, they would be what we commonly define as insane. Surely I must explain that seemingly crazy view of free will, and I intend to do so. But for now it suffices to demonstrate that one man’s definition of free will is another man’s definition of insanity. How can those two person’s talk to each other about free will if such is the state of affairs? Not very intelligently, I would say, unless we come to some mutual understanding of what each of us means. So it becomes absolutely necessary to define our terms if we are to progress in our understanding.

Hermeneutics

Our church, probably a little differently from many others, studies the major points of conservative Biblical hermeneutics, that is, the scholarly study of how to interpret the Bible. Here again it is necessary to have some framework for proceeding, lest each person appeal to his own authority for his principles of Biblical interpretation. Diligent students of the Word here at Spurgeon Heritage Church keep in their Bible a bookmark with the title “The Principles of Biblical Interpretation.” On that bookmark are printed 11 principles of Biblical interpretation that we feel are critical to “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” I list them all here for the reader’s consideration, but intend only to highlight a few that I think most important to understanding the subject of our discussion, free will.

The priority of the original languages
The accommodation of revelation
Progressive revelation
Historical propriety
The principle of ignorance [which we frequently employ!]
Differentiating interpretation from application
The checking principle
The principle of induction
Preference for the clearest interpretation
The principle of the unity of Scriptures
The Analogy of faith

These principles are not original, but adapted from a wonderful little volume that I bought long ago in seminary back in 1968. The title of the volume is “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” by Bernard Ramm [W.A. Wilde Company, 1956]. I recommend that if you can find and obtain this fine little book, do so without hesitation.

The principle that I have discovered over the years that are central to an proper understanding of free will are three in number, though by extension nearly all are involved. But let’s define these three principles so that all understand what we are saying as we begin our discussion of free will.

The principle of induction

We here at Spurgeon Heritage Church are Bible-believing Baptists. That means that we believe the Bible is the very Word of God and is infallible, inerrant and the sole authority for our faith and practice. Our faith is one founded upon the Rock of God’s divine revelation and we will not accept any other authority, especially man’s autonomous reason, as being a basis for our beliefs. If we are going to believe anything about free will, we believe we must resort to the Bible for our understanding of it.

But many people “resort” to the Bible for their beliefs, and at times it would seem that the Bible has no specific meaning on what it speaks to, which makes it but a tool to support any view whatsoever. Every single whacko claims the Bible as their authority, including such notable “biblicists” as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones of the now infamous Jonestown mass suicide. Both of these cultists claimed the Bible as their authority. Sadly, a mere cursory knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics would have allowed the people who were duped to know and recognize that those men were among the most perverse interpreters of Scripture that have come along since Satan himself, who mangled the Biblical text in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness [Luke 4]. Another such modern perverse interpreter of Scripture that comes to mind is Bill Gothard, whose myriad of followers have frighteningly similar traits as those of the two cultists mentioned above. Gothard interprets the Bible in much the same was as those cultists did. They all then sanitize their perverse interpretations by calling themselves “biblicists,” which would be laughable if it were not so transparently pathetic.

In all three of these examples of faulty Biblical interpretation, one central principle of interpretation that was [and is, in the case of Gothard] constantly violated with impunity is the principle of induction. The principle of induction, plainly stated, is that our interpretation of Scripture must discover the meaning of a passage, not attribute one to it. [ibid, Ramm, pg. 119] Nearly all heretics and cultists in history have been guilty of taking their already-owned predilections, prejudices and presuppositions and imposing them on the Biblical text [eisegesis] instead of bringing meaning out of the Biblical text [exegesis].

The analogy of faith

The second hermeneutical principle most commonly violated in the discussion of free will is the principle of the analogy of faith. This principle can best be defined as that principle that says that “scripture is interpreted by scripture,” or “scripture is its own interpreter.” This was the principle that was central to Martin Luther in the Protestant Reformation, in that the Catholic Church had assumed all authority to interpret the Bible and only she [the Catholic Church] had the authority to make the obscure scripture clear. The Reformers countered this unholy usurpation of authority by insisting that guidance for understanding obscure scriptures must come from other scriptures where the doctrine was discussed with more clarity. We take this same position in this series of studies on this doctrine, the doctrine of free will.

The unity of scripture

The third most commonly abused, neglected and violated principle of biblical hermeneutics is that principle called the unity of scripture. This principle is closely related to the analogy of scripture principle, but somewhat different. This principle maintains that the meaning of scripture is one of unity, and that when more than one meaning is imposed on Scripture, chaos ensues and the meaning of Scripture is obscured. This principle provides some restraint from the uninhibited resort to improper spiritualizing, allegorizing and the excessive use of typology in the interpretation of the Biblical text. This problem has been going on in the faith from the very first centuries of God’s revelation. I would be remiss if I did not explain something here, though. While adhering to this principle, I do not deny that there is figurative language in the Bible. Nor am I decrying typology as a valid way of understanding the Bible. And I do not deny that there may be multiple fulfillments in predictive prophesy. Indeed, these are things I employ myself in my understanding and teaching of the Holy Scriptures. But the point is that I believe there is a firm connection between type and anti-type, between prediction and fulfillment, so that the fulfillments are extensions and expansions of the original text and not some new and novel meanings. Fanciful typology such as taking the mere color of Rahab’s scarlet cord as a type of redemption is a violation of this principle. All those who know me personally know my own view of Arthur Pink’s writings on the Pentateuch. I believe that Pink was all too often guilty of unbridled typology which sometimes clearly violated this principle of Biblical interpretation. It seems to me that Pink saw a too-convenient and too-clear connection between type and anti-type so that, for instance, almost any reference to wood for him created a clear and unequivocal connection with the crucifixion. He would have been well advised to employ a little more control on his imagination, in my view. That is why some of his writings have found an obscure and lower place in my library. The principle of the unity of scripture helps us regulate this excessive typology.

Employing the principle of the unity of Scripture, I maintain that the Scripture does not in one place teach free will and another place determinism. If there are seeming differences, we are obligated to seek to harmonize those texts by resort to the skills of Biblical hermeneutics within a framework of sound interpretive principles.

My definition of free will

Finally, I finish this introductory post with my own definition of free will, and at the same time set forth the framework for my own view so that those who might desire to take up the cudgel with me on this matter can begin their research and preparation for their counteroffensive. Here again, I offer no new ground, but that which has been hammered out over the centuries by minds much superior to mine. I thus resort to a document that is well known among those of us who identify ourselves as Calvinistic Baptists, sovereign grace Baptists, particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists. That document is the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. The 1689, as many of us call it, has a definition that is identical to the Westminster Confession of faith of the Presbyterians. Why they are the same is a matter of discussion for another time, but I believe that the definition is a very good one and provides the clarity that is needed to launch this discussion. Though we Calvinistic Baptists are often accused of denying free will, the 1689 Confession has a chapter, Chapter 9, entitled “Of Free Will.” Here are the five paragraphs of that chapter:

God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.

Man, in his state of innocence, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good, yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.

That should do it for the first installment. The next step will be to define free will as generally understood in our culture today and especially as it is understood and defined by our theological opponents, most notably our Arminian and Semi-Pelagian friends. That step will be a little more difficult, as there is no monolithic understanding among the various proponents of that view. If I have, then, any credentials, they would be, one, that I myself was an avid Arminian free-willer, having been indoctrinated into that view by my first church experience in a fundamentalist Baptist church, complete with Arminian soteriology and Dispensational eschatology. The second would be that I have studied this issue and engaged in this debate now for more than 40 years and modestly consider myself as at least somewhat scholarly in preparation for this discussion.

Next: Free will in our modern Christian community

I'm baaaaaack!

2006-09-28T16:36:00.000-04:00

It has been a long time since I have posted anything to my blog. The story is too long to recount at this point, but a lot of things have happened which have hindered me from doing all the things I would like to do. I write this note not so much to offer anything new -- at least at this point in time -- but to let you know that I am alive and well and ready to engage the battle. There are many things that are going on right now in our culture and in our world that deserve comment, but I will demure for the time being and just announce my return to the blogosphere.

I am getting ready for our downtown theological discussion gathering tonight. A number of us meet on the plaza to discuss the Gospel, Christ and all things related. It has been a particularly good summer for the group, and I hope the enthusiasm continues through the Fall and Winter months.

On a personal note, a crew is at this moment working outside on the lawn to install a sprinkler system. After all these years of dragging hoses, my dear wife will now have an automatic sprinkler system for her lawn and flower beds, which seem to become more expansive every year. We are thankful to our Lord for this luxury.

Occam's what!?

2006-04-21T06:12:00.000-04:00

Occam’s what? What has shaving to do with theology?

Much in every way. But let me explain a little what I am talking about.

It happened the other day when I was in my doctor’s office to discuss a problem I was having with high blood pressure, post-op, after I had had a heart catheterization, the results of which were quite good, thanks be unto God. But some adjustment problems were persistent and I was waking up every morning at about 3:45 AM with high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels. I was in to consult with my doctor about what measures to take to cope with this exasperating problem.

I should explain something about my doctor. Dr. Peter Vance here in Holland is a Christian man whose vocation as an internist has not caused him to cast off his Christianity. He is a man of faith who is at the same time a fine diagnostician. This is the first time in my life that I have enjoyed a mutual Christian relationship with my doctor, and I can tell you it is quite gratifying to be able to pray with your doctor as well as bat around medical jargon. He is a delightful man of Reformed faith, which is forgivable error, in my book <big grin>.

After we had discussed the problem at some length, and speculated about various causes of the problem, and after I had expressed my own thoughts as to what was causing the problem, Dr. Vance said, “Well, there was this ancient monk named Occam…” Before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: “Oh, sure. You’re talking about the principle called “Occam’s Razor.” Surprised, he asked, “Do you know about Occam’s Razor?” Of course, I said, I employ it now and again in two areas; Biblical hermeneutics and theological discussion.

I could see that he was stunned that I had stolen his thunder, as they say. It was a cute moment, really, for doctors have a tendency to think that patients are kind of dull people who know little about such things. But the reason I am telling this story is that it was clear in that moment what the doctor had concluded about my complaint. Employing that principle of parsimony, he was about to tell me that I was most likely right about the medicines running out of potency about that time in the morning since that seemed to be the most parsimonious conclusion and not nearly so complicated as the other causes [organic disorders, etc.] about which we had speculated. In other words, we had a moment of mutual clarity based on a philosophical tenet about which we were both aware. Had he been aware of my knowledge of the principle, he could have merely said the two words, “Occam’s Razor,” and I would have understood completely what he was meaning.

I thought I would discuss the principle called “Occam’s Razor” here for the benefit of my readers, especially by way of an example in which I have employed the principle in biblical hermeneutics [biblical interpretation]. It is likely, I think, that many of my readers have actually employed this principle as a logical response to problems though not really knowing the principle in any formal way. It is just logical, and most of my readers are mostly logical [with a few exceptions, whose names shall go unspoken - you know who you are. :-)

To explore the benefits of the principle of Occam’s Razor to biblical interpretation, let us consider a common controversial interpretation of a passage of Scripture, namely Genesis 6: 1- 2: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”

The primary issue with this text is the identity of those called here “the sons of God.” There are three primary interpretations of this text, each of which can be defended in some measure linguistically, but all of which also have problems. Thus, we need a principle to guide us in our understanding and interpretation of this text. Occam’s Razor may be able to assist us in this matter.

Let’s look at the most common interpretations of the identity of these “sons of God.” First, there is the traditional Christian interpretation that these “sons of God” are Sethites. Another view sees them as angelic beings who cohabit with human women. A third is that these sons of God are tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems. This view was proposed by Jewish rabbis of the second century A.D.

Let’s rule out for our purposes the last, for there is little ancient support for this explanation, though an argument can be mounted for it. Also, its main strength is that it might help explain what was meant with the words “of all whom they chose,” but of less help as to the identity of the “sons of God.”

So, of the two remaining interpretations, which one best suits the principle of Occam’s Razor? Which one requires the most inferences and assumptions and postulates the most hypotheses? Even by the mere definition of Occam’s Razor, the reader may know by now what my conclusion is as to the interpretation of this text, but let’s discuss it for a moment to make our point.

If one assumes that these “sons of God” are angels, there arise a number of problems. For instance, how is it that angels are like human beings and can or do have sexual relations with human women? This is hardly in keeping with the common evangelical understanding that angels are spiritual beings who may take the form of humans for God’s purpose of revelation. But hardly anyone imagines that angels lived on the earth and cohabited with women in a marriage relationship - it is simply out of scriptural character and too fantastic to posit such a situation. One must make a whole series of assumptions and inferences that are supported by little or no Biblical or scientific support. Identifying these sons of God as angelic beings is not a parsimonious interpretation, but one that requires a string of assumptions and inferences. What to do? William of Occam rides to the rescue.

Yes, it is true that the interpretation that these sons of God are Sethites has its problems, too. For instance, it is far more parsimonious to interpret the sons of God as Sethites, but it does not explain why the “daughters of men” must refer specifically to Cainite women. We point this out to avoid the appearance that the matter is so clear as to be unequivocal. No, the interpretation is difficult even in the best of circumstances. But the bottom line is that we can postulate the clearest interpretation by reference to Occam’s Razor and come away with a sound and rational explanation of the text.

First, the interpretation of the sons of God as Sethites seems quite clearly to be the most contextually appropriate interpretation. Genesis chapter five has just recounted the settlement of mankind on the earth through the line of Seth in particular. This is then compatible with normal hermeneutical principles of both distant and near context. Given this interpretation, the sons of God are the godly descendants of Seth as contrasted with the cursed descendants of Cain. This makes good sense and seems believable enough, whereas the interpretation of the sons of God as angelic beings continues to have serious problems and little Biblical and theological support. Are they fallen angels, or good angels? How is it that angels can conduct physical relationships [sexual relations] and social relations [marriage] with human women? How is it that such beings could procreate and what would the children of such unions be like?

It seems clear then that the principle of parsimony favors the interpretation that these sons of God are those descendents of godly Seth as contrasted with cursed Cain. Again, that does not answer every single issue in the text, but it most certainly offers the best explanation and keeps us from the fantastic assumptions about angels that we have just mentioned. Indeed, now the interpretation of these sons of God as angels seems even perverse and weird - which I think it is, personally. Thus, the principle of Occam’s Razor prevails in this instance, providing the most satisfying and simple explanation of the meaning of the Biblical text.

So, put this bit of information in your pocket for future use as you encounter both problems in your life and problems with the interpretation of the Biblical text.

You go, William of Occam!

Data Mining the Bible

2006-03-27T17:12:00.000-05:00

I will use this title and term to express what I think is the primary approach that Bill Gothard takes to the interpretation of Scripture. His approach is something akin to the contemporary concept of “data mining,” that is, scouring a data base [read here “Bible”] in an effort to find patterns or information that no one else knows because it is outside their expectations. I borrowed this definition from a website that is talking about modern data mining, but the definition is quite appropriate to the approach that Gothard uses in his method of Biblical interpretation. When people mine data, they already have an idea of what they want to know. In other words, they are looking for data that will support their preconceived notion(s). Mind you, this approach is not entirely new but in Gothard we have a particularly egregious example of that approach. Those familiar with Biblical exposition and hermeneutics call this process “eisegesis,” the idea that the interpreter brings his own meaning to scripture rather than the interpreter drawing the meaning out from the scripture text.

An example of this is the familiar Premillennial Dispensational treatment of several Biblical texts in an effort to support their existing theology. For instance, the Dispensationalists find in 1 Thessalonians, chapter four, their premillennial secret rapture, not because it is in the text, but because the text seems on the surface, at least in their minds, to support their idiosyncratic eschatological view. That text clearly is teaching about the fact that those who die in Jesus are not lost, but will be with Jesus when He comes again. Any schema that teaches that the passage teaches a premillenial, pretribulation and secret rapture is an exquisite example of data mining applied to the Bible.

Even more specious is their treatment of Revelation 4:1, where the words of the voice from heaven bade John to “Come up hither.” To the dispensationalist interpreter, this verse -- or more exactly this portion of the verse -- teaches the premillennial, pretribulational secret rapture of the church. To the objective observer such an interpretation seems utterly fantastic and seems to be the product of a far too fruitful imagination.

Indeed, this kind of handling of the Biblical text could, some would say, pretty much support any crazy notion that just about anyone would put forward. This would be the method, for instance, of a David Korsesh, Marshall Applewhite or other cultists, who used the Biblical text repeatedly to support their devilish “doctrines.” Such is the result - and in my own view the purpose - of data mining the Bible. But good sense must prevail, and both perspective and specific rules of Biblical interpretation must be adhered to by those who would interpret the Bible if there is to be any semblance of sanity to their interpretations.

Gothard’s version of Biblical data mining

When one comes to the literature of Gothardism, one of the first things that hits you is the impression that nearly every Biblical text that is cited is interpreted or applied wrongly! Even a first year seminarian would be appalled at the poor exegesis of the Biblical text and most would immediately cast aside the work, assuming it was a completely inferior work and not to be relied upon. Would that such would have happened to the millions of people who were duped by Gothard over the years! But, alas, it was not so. It took the revelation of multiple scandals to finally diminish Gothard’s influence, though it continues even today in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been forever altered by the poisonous fruit of data mining of the Biblical text. Having now worked directly with families that follow Gothard’s way, I have learned all too well that as Jesus told his disciples when they could not cast out a demon, “This kind comes out only through much prayer and fasting.” The adherents of Gothardism have become so indoctrinated and inured to Gothard’s literature and propaganda that they seem almost ready to die for it! This is one reason that the specter of cultism is raised in my mind. And they not only slavishly follow his views, but also imbibe his interpretive method of data mining the Biblical text. They find a text, compare it with what they think is right or suits their need and then establish their entire belief system on a misinterpreted text. We shall see this repeatedly in our treatment of Gothard’s perverse system of Biblical data mining.

Data Mining for Authority

Anyone familiar even in the least with Gothardism knows that authority is a major and central concept of Gothardism. Much of their talk and even more of their behavior is regulated by Gothard’s teaching about authority. In his introduction to the section on Authority and Responsibility in the Basic Seminar Manual [page 19], he states: “The size of our God is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us.” This statement is critical in understanding Gothard’s interpretive approach, for it is akin to a kind of literary “Freudian slip.” From that slip, we are privy to his presupposition, his preconceived notion of what he is going to “prove” from Scripture. Read the statement again and ask yourself whether or not the statement is true, first, and, second, whether or not it is Biblical. I suggest that it fails on both counts. It is clearly a mere creation of his own mind, and a revealing nugget as to the kind of thinking that goes on in his mind, especially as it regards his understanding about authority. As an aside, I might say at this point, that according to a couple of books that I have which critique Gothard’s ministry, Mr. Gothard is in clear violation of this his own principle, refusing to defer to any authority at all, but simply dismissing those whom he ought to be deferring. He bows to no authority on earth, as far as anyone can see, neither in his own organizational structure nor in his relationship to the church of God. He appears to be purely autocratic in his dealings.

It is difficult to describe in a few words his treatment of the Biblical text as it relates to his understanding of authority, so we will let his own examples do the job.

Christ and authority [according to Gothard]

On the very next page, page 20, Gothard sets forth what he calls three “basic principles” for authority. At the top of the page, Gothard comments on the topic: “When Paul warned that ‘Whosoever resisteth [he uses the KJV almost exclusively] the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” [Romans 13:2] Then he cryptically finishes the statement with the words, “…he was referring to many more factors than we realize.”

“Many more factors than we realize,” eh? Ah. It seems that his data mining of the Bible has revealed to him Biblical teachings and principles that have not yet yielded to the devoted efforts of the thousands of diligent theologians and Bible interpreters over the last 2000 years. I get the strong impression that we are about to skate out on to some pretty thin ice, Biblically speaking. And, voila, we are not disappointed long.

One of the basic principles which he promulgates on page 20, having to do with authority, is “To Grow In Wisdom and Character.” Under this heading, the following paragraph is written”

The only recorded incident in the life of Christ between the ages of two and thirty was a discussion with his parents which involved authority. This occurred when He was twelve. Should he follow his spiritual calling and be about His Father’s business (Luke 2:49), or should he become subject to his parents and leave his ministry at the temple? He did the latter, and the following verse reports, “and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

As I read this quote from Gothard, I am reminded of the text in Revelation 8:1, describing the opening of the seventh seal of the scroll: “And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.”

When I first read this quote, I was literally stunned speechless as to the implications of what had just been said by Gothard. It took reading the quote several times and re-reading the scriptures regarding the incident that Gothard cited from the Bible several times over. Then I came back to the quote, tried reading it again and again to come to some conclusion as to whether or not I was insane or was Gothard actually declaring that Jesus, as a youth, was guilty of the sin of rebellion! In the incident, Jesus stayed behind the family caravan that was returning to Galilee. He did not tell nor seek permission of His earthly parents to remain behind. And his was no small “offense,” as the family had to search for three days before finding him at the temple, listening to the doctors and asking them questions. The reader of the Bible can fairly feel the frustration in the words of his parents: “Son, why have you dealt with us in such a manner? Behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing.” Christ’s answer if revealing.

“How is it that you sought me? Wist you not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

The term “wist” means “know.” Jesus is saying, in essence, “Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?” It was a mild rebuke to his parents, reminding them of who He was and what the angel had said about him and his mission on earth. But we know from the following verse that they did not understand what he was saying to them.

In fact, I think that Jesus’ reference to “my Father’s business” clearly would be a direct violation of Gothard’s “umbrella of authority” concept in which he is supposed to be submissive to the one given authority over him, meaning in Gothard’s system Joseph, his earthly male parent. Jesus seems almost to contradict this supposed authority directly, informing them that he is relating to another authority altogether! One would have thought that Gothard would have given pause to all this before asserting and then teaching that Jesus somehow was conflicted about authority and decided to give up his earthly ministry to submit to the authority of his earthly father!

This treatment of this biblical story is so fractured by Gothard that it is difficult to know where to begin. Clearly, this is a presupposition, a preconceived notion about some fuzzy “authority” system that is looking for a text to land on. This is classic eisegesis, the reading of the interpreter’s ideas into the text rather than deriving the meaning of the text from the Biblical text. For Gothard, he believes that his data mining of the Bible has yielded results. For the thoughtful reader and interpreter of the Scriptures, this is loathsome and dangerous stuff! And sadly, we are just beginning; this kind of Biblical muckraking comes in copious amounts and with staccato frequency in Gothard’s writings. We will be unable to treat even a majority of the examples of what we have termed “diabolical interpretation” of the Bible.

What Gothard seems to be oblivious to is the primary implication or conclusion that obtains from his interpretation: that Jesus was guilty of the sin of rebellion as defined by Gothard. There is no other possible conclusion that can rightfully be reached in light of Gothard’s statement above. He has concluded that Jesus was a sinner, rebelling against his “umbrella of authority” which was to “protect” him. This is perverse and awful Bible interpretation, and ought to render any further examination of Gothard’s writings unnecessary in light of the serious heretical viewpoint that is here promulgated by him. I believe that another person has personally approached Gothard about this point, but in the view of that critic, Gothard seemed perplexed at what the critic was saying and offered no explanation. I suspect that many of Gothard’s statements are the same, that is, made in an unguarded fashion without due consideration of the theological implications of such statements. To me, this is a fatal blow that permits me to put Gothard in the heretical classification. As such, he ought to be exposed and shunned by Christians everywhere. We will nonetheless add more weight to this classification based on his own writings.

When I return to give the next example, you will note that it actually comes from the same page from which we took our first. We will see that in order to understand the Biblical texts which Gothard cites, one must first own Gothard’s presuppositions and preconceived ideas. Only in so doing can we arrive at such fantastic “interpretations” of the Bible.

Back again - Finally!

2006-03-25T08:40:00.000-05:00

Greetings to all my readers. I have been "away" for a time, not really able to contribute much to my blog, but occupied with other matters of ministry. Significantly, though, that time was not without its benefits on the topic that I have been treating here - Gothardism.

In fact, I have been working directly and personally with a Gothardite family which is experiencing difficulty in family relationships. I have spent hours speaking to the father of the family with a son, 18 years of age. Thus, my knowledge of the effects of Gothardism on real people has grown immensely, and the news if not good at all. I will try to describe my analysis of my experiences in future posts, but suffice it to say that I now consider Gothardism as expressed by the families with which I am familiar to be nothing less than a "Christian" cult. The followers of Bill Gothard are as much indoctrinated into their cult as were the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh. That is strong stuff, I admit, but in fact pretty much true, sadly. Thus far, Gothard has not gathered his followers into a commune and asked them to imbibe poisonous Cool-aid literally, but the doctrines that he has inculcated in them is probably just as deadly, spiritually speaking.

But I now must return to my former approach of examining Gothard's use of the Scriptures, which I believe is the great revealer of the error of that system. This is not surprising, as errors in the faith have mostly always arisen from those who perverted the Scriptures. Thankfully, sound scholarship, especially that study we call hermeneutics, provides the foundation for an accurate - and revealing - assessment of Gothard's writings. As I indicated in an earlier post, I have had the fortune to pick up a full packet of Gothard's writings, from the "Big Red Book" right down to the lessons on health-related issues [which is a totally amazing thing in itself!]. We will cite his writings as we return to our treatment of his interpretive practices - or perhaps lack thereof may be more accurate to say. Reading Gothard's materials is nothing less than disturbing to those who study the Bible with even a smidgen of thoughtfulness. I continue to be struck by the fact that years have gone by and very few have had the fortitude to critique Gothard's cultish movement. Perhaps the reason for that is that the pastors and others who ought to have been guiding the sheep in discerning the error of this cult were themselves involved in the seminars! For them, I suppose it would be embarrassing for them to admit that they were duped themselves. I will leave such judgments to the Lord, as we know from the Scriptures that special obligations are laid upon the shepherds. I recall vividly Dr. George Norris' admonitions to us young preacher boys at seminary as he with gravity and soberness applied the 33rd and 34th chapters of Ezekiel to the minister of the Word of God. Those Scriptures have remained with me to this very day when I sit down to work on sermons, lessons and articles for the people of God whom God has assigned me.

For those of you who know me, you should know that I have purposely curtailed my activities on the Theology email discussion list. I intend to rather express my views here on my blog where my posts are not an automatic invitation for a group of Arminians/semi-Pelagians to overwhelm with massive email "bombs" and the like. I don't mind engaging them in such forums as the List, but there is a time when a more pacific environment must be sought out for the thorough treatment of an issue.

I thank my readers for their patience while I was occupied with other ministerial tasks. I will once again seek to be more productive here on my blog, but you must realize that it is a secondary or even tertiary priority in my ministry, so if daily pastoral ministry takes me away again, I hope you will understand. God is blessing us here with new members, baptisms, and opportunities to proclaim the Gospel to many.

Back with you soon.

The Corrosive Tentacles of Gothardism Widespread

2006-02-22T12:00:00.000-05:00

One thing that I told myself and my people was that I was only going to spend a minimal amount of time on the topic of Gothardism. For me it is very unpleasant to have to read the materials and read the reports of so many who have been damaged and harmed by that error. I had hoped that by now I could have left off that topic and moved on to other more meaningful issues. But, alas, it is like an irritating rash that won't go away.

Now a dear family that we know and love is being directly affected by Gothardism. One of the daughters in this family is seeking a relationship with a young man who has been reared in a strict Gothard home and now the issues are coming to the forefront. The young man seems very mature and sees the error of some of his parents Gothardism. But the young man's family is rigid and unrelenting regarding "courting," and this threatens to derail an apparently godly relationship between these two youths. I am aware of at least another similar circumstance in my own milieu, and there are likely many others.

Indeed, while we were talking to the mother of the girl in a local restaurant the other day, a man in the booth next to us was eavesdropping on our conversation, in which I was going over some of my concerns about Gothardism. My view of Gothardism is not favorable, to say the least, but my criticism was not a mere rant but taken primarily from the perspective that Gothard does horrible things with Biblical interpretation to justify and rationalize his sometimes bizarre views. After that man had finished his breakfast, he stopped at our booth to tell us that he was a Gothardite and that he felt it necessary to stop by and defend Gothard's name. I expressed my strong view that Gothard's teachings were unorthodox and not Biblical; the man did not seem to want to engage the conversation further.

Out of that experience I concluded a couple of things. First, the teachings of Bill Gothard are widespread among evangelical people. This is a bit surprising to me, as I have said in another article, because his teachings so obviously and blatantly differ with orthodox evangelical faith that I would have thought that few would follow such error. But apparently I am wrong about that. I was reminded that even the churches of Revelation were stained by false teachers and false prophets, so why should I find it so strange in this day of dwindling religion among the masses? Indeed. But one thing that interests me is that Gothardism is not primarily a church phenomenon. The adherents of that way of thinking do not always learn Gothardism from the church. In fact, many churches have been split and even destroyed by zealots of Gothardism insisting that the church order itself according to the tenets of Gothardism.

Secondly, it is apparent that the adherents of Gothardism are bold and brash to defend their system. My wife said, "I wonder if that man would have been so bold to defend Jesus Christ?" Good question. They seem to thrive on controversy and hold tenaciously to their ideas even if one shows them the error of that way. The combination of ready acceptance among the weak in faith and the zealousness of converts to that way is especially troubling and dangerous. This is what the Bible means by the "blind leading the blind." This is nothing short of a cultish kind of system, following a man so blindly and with such devotion that they will imbibe open heresy and theological error to do so.

So, we are taking the advice of Jesus Christ as He dictated to John the letters to the churches of Asia. To the church of Pergamos He had words of condemnation because they tolerated the error of Balaam and foolishly tolerated the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus said to the church, "... which I also hate." He called that church to repentance, lest He come quickly and fight against them with the "sword of My mouth."

To the church of Thyatira, Jesus had John write that He hated the things of "that woman Jezebel," which they seemed to tolerate. Jesus warned them sharply to repent and turn from allowing false teaching in their midst.

In the same vein, I sense a strong need to oppose this false teaching called Gothardism. My own sense is that it is a pox on the church in today's world, just as those churches in Revelation had many problems and false doctrines with which to deal. But the battle will not be easy; the adherents of that view are excitable zealots who crave power. This is especially true of the men of Gothardism, who in my own experience thus far are frankly weak men who have no intrinsic personal power or influence and thus are ready to welcome any constituted power given to them by Gothard, as is done with the Gothardism notion of the "umbrella of authority," an entirely unbiblical concept which grants to the fathers of Gothardite families [and to Gothard himself, of course] near total authority and power over the members of the family. And like Gothard, they are unable, it seems, to handle confrontation by knowledgable men outside their own "umbrella of authority." This notion, along with many other of Gothard's views, is utterly un-Christian, really, and ought to be rejected outright and the proponents of such unbiblical views sternly scolded.

On a personal note, I cannot help mentioning that I think that Gothardism is almost always, when it is brought to my attention, a problem associated, one way or another, with homeschooling. That view, of course, will irritate many genuinely serious homeschooling families, but I cannot help but make the correlation. I will leave the details and analysis of that nexus to a future article for the time being. Could it be that the inherent isolation and segregation of homeschooling makes those families more vulnerable to errors like Gothardism? Something to think about.

I continue to read the box of Gothard's materials that I was able to obtain and will, I promise you, return to the series of articles that I began some time ago. It is a very busy time of ministry for me, and a kind of marvelous revival is breaking out among us. The blog is low on my list of priorities, so those who are waiting may have to be patient with me.

Update on Articles about Gothard

2006-01-26T15:16:00.000-05:00

By now I had hoped to have yet another installment for my series of articles about Gothardism, but time and life's demands have not allowed me to do so. Nonetheless, I will be back with another article as I promised. And I may have more stuff to cite, since I have been very fortunate to have recently come into possession of a wealth of Gothard's writings and stuff offered on eBay. Mind you, I am not saying that the material itself is worth much, but to get my hands on the seminar books and literature is a feat in itself, as Gothard is somewhat stingy with the dissemination of his literature, a fact that I chided him about in an earlier article. So now I have a box full of material to cite and critique - and my very own Red Book! Gerin Woodbury, a deacon in our church, has already previewed the stuff, and informs me that it is awful stuff to read. I knew that already, of course, but it is good to have the words from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I want to thank Cyber Mom [Di Woodbury] for her expertise in searching the Web for those materials. She may not be omniscient, but, beware, she seems to see all! Maybe she is working for NSA or something, and has access to a spy satellite. Thanks, Di and Gerin, for your fine work and support.

The Most Well Known Bible Verse in the World

2006-01-25T13:45:00.000-05:00

I am sure that when you read that title, you likely thought immediately of John 3:16 or Psalm 23. Psalm 23 was once the most memorized passage of Scripture, for sure. But over the centuries, that habit has fallen by the wayside, it seems. But do not think that the use of the Bible has waned much, for the Scripture that we mean in this article is neither of these. The verse we mean is Matt. 7:1: “Judge not lest you be judged.” In my experience, this verse is the most well known and used by people across the world. Why do you say that, you ask? Ah, because even millions of non-believers use this one! In fact, it is the favorite verse to cast in the Christian’s teeth, if you will, and is used by not only Christian believers but mostly by those who are not believers at all, when they think that believers are being judgmental of their wicked lives and behaviors. There is no sin so wicked that when they are called to task on it, they immediately and with the proverbial knee-jerk reaction, quote this verse to chastise the Christian for any criticism of their sinful behaviors. “Judge not lest you be judged,” they say, to excuse their sins of sexual perversion, promiscuity, licentiousness, greed, hatred, fleshly indulgences, and the like -- the list is endless.

What disturbs me most of all, though, is that believers themselves, failing to use proper discernment and proper Biblical interpretation, are far too quick to agree with their unbelieving friends and acquaintances. So they bow their heads in shame and come to believe that they are in fact the hypocrites that the unbelievers say they are. The irony is that the wicked sinner is casting Matt. 7:1 in our teeth while at the very same time violating that same scripture by doing the very thing that it condemns: judging the Christian as a hypocrite. That kind of contradiction does not surprise me in the least, for in my worldview, the unbeliever is in fact irrational and contradictory in the very way they think and reason. The lost sinner in a most real way suffers from a variety of insanity, and has turned reason on its head, really. But that is another article for later. For now, I want to try to clarify the way in which this text is sorely misused and misunderstood so that the reader of the Bible is not mislead by so much ignorance. We shall do a brief exegesis of that passage [for Matt. 7:1 is part of a larger passage, not just a “proof text” for unbelievers]. How silly it seems to me to have unbelievers using Scripture as their source of authority when they actually reject the God and Savior who authored the Bible and spoke Matt. 7:1 Himself!

Context, Context, Context.

This is a maxim that every student of the Bible learns early on in their study of the Holy Scriptures. It is but one of a larger number of hermeneutical [interpretive] principles employed in proper interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, even profane and secular literature must be understood with reference to standards of interpretation, and the Bible is no less so. It is to do violence to the text to rip it out of its context and interpret it in one’s own idiosyncratic way. It is to understand the text in its context that will yield the right interpretation. Also, this principle of interpretation must be used in unison with the principle of the analogy of Scripture, which put colloquially is the principle that scripture interprets scripture or that scripture is its own interpreter. Though there are quite a number of other standards and criteria for sound and proper interpretation, these two are most important in the use [misuse?] of Matt. 7:1. Let us take a look.

First, we must understand the distant and the near context of Christ’s words in Matt. 7:1. Even a brief look at chapters five through seven will reveal that this discourse is part of what is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, which Christ delivered shortly after beginning his public ministry. It was directed at his disciples, not the multitudes:

“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying”-- [Matt. 5:1]

In other words, it would seem that he purposely sought a retreat of sorts in the hill country where he would teach those who were fully committed to following him. I do not believe that we can force the meaning of the word disciple as meaning those who were true Christians, but rather those of the multitude who were fully committed to following him. But suffice it to say here that he was speaking to those who were of the persuasion to follow him and believe his words. I can tell you, many of those who cast this verse in our teeth are not of that sort!

Now, we must determine and set the near context. Jesus had just concluded a passage in which he condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees [Matt. 6: 1-18] and taught them of the way that we are to think and act in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6: 19-34). So, Matt. 7:5, just four verses from our text of Matt. 7:1 cries out, “Thou hypocrite …”, showing that this text is still part of the larger context of Christ’s teaching about hypocrisy in his discourse.

So, What Does He Mean, Then?

First, what he doesn’t mean.

Well, it is for certain, right off the bat, that this verse does not forbid any judging of any kind, which is what the common user of this text is trying to make it say. The text simply will not allow such an interpretation. In fact, the moral distinctions that are made in the same discourse demand and require that decisive judgments be made. Jesus himself demonstrates this when he calls some hypocrites [I suspect that the Pharisees were his intended target, but also to all such persons who are judgmental, by natural extension] dogs and pigs [Matt. 7:6]! He also warns against false prophets in Matt. 7: 15-20, which by its very nature requires judgments to be made about the truth or falsity of their teaching -- and their behavior (“by their fruits you shall know them”).

Additionally, Jesus elsewhere specifically and explicitly calls upon believers to make judgments:

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” [John 7:24]

Closely related to that text is 1 Cor. 5:3-5, where Paul is instructing (chastising?) the Corinthians for their neglect in judging sinfulness in their ranks.

“For verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has do done this deed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a person unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So, it would seem that the Apostle Paul, inspired writer of more than half of the New Testament, is quite willing to judge a person who has sinned, even if he had not so much as met the person! How that does seem to contradict the profane use of Matt. 7:1! Not only is he ready to judge the person and “deliver such a one unto Satan,” but he severely chides the Corinthians for not doing this themselves sooner. At another place, Paul again shows the proper place and attitude of godly judgment:

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some of that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1:6-8]

It would seem that the unbelievers and others who cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth when we condemn sin or falsehood are not reading the same Book as we. But that is not all; there are many more examples. We will list but a couple more.

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” Phil. 3:2

Here Paul the Apostle is still ready to call some dogs and evil workers. Pardon me, but I think that might be a judgment about their character and motives! It takes some judgment to characterize false teachers and evil doers as dogs. And lest you think that Paul is not aiming his judgment at particular folks, you should know that almost every commentator would agree that Paul was aiming his remarks and charges at a group of Jews that followed after Paul from place to place to try to undo his work. He was judging the Jews who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised just like Jews.

One more:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone into the world.” [1 John 4:1]

Again, John, along with Paul, mandates that judgments be made about what teachers and preachers say and teach, using discerning judgments, but surely decisive judgments, too. Many other texts could be cited, but I think I have made my point - and my case, I trust.

Now, what it does mean.

What Jesus is teaching in Matt. 7:1 is that Christians are not to be judgmental and censorious. Making proper and decisive judgments is a far cry from being censoriously judgmental. The Greek word KRINO [“judge”] used in Matt. 7:1 has the same force at Romans 14: 12-13:

“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knew shall bow to me and every tongue confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”

See? It has to do with first judging yourself, and seeing yourself in the proper light. That tends to make a person less judgmental. Also, we must answer to God for our judgments, for “with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, make righteous judgments based on sound Biblical teaching, and not censorious, judgmental judgments. What Jesus is teaching is that making judgmental, censorious judgments is not being forgiving and loving, but is showing one’s own arrogance and impenitence, and is therefore shut out from the forgiveness of God. That should give everyone who would cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth pause, for in reality, they are committing the very evil which the text condemns and warns against, and even to the point that they lock themselves out of the forgiveness of God with such tactics.

D.A. Carson, in his comments on this verse and quoting John Stott, seems to capture the case accurately:

“Here the command to judge not is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous. Jesus does not tell us to cease to be men (by suspending our critical powers which help distinguish us from animals) but to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God (by setting ourselves up as judges).” [Quote is from Stott, and quoted in Carson, D.A. Commentary on Matthew, vol. 1, page 184]

I would hope that our brief exegesis and explanation of the proper interpretation of this text would extinguish the improper use of the text by not only believers but unbelievers. But, alas, it is not likely to be the case! It seems that we shall forever be refuting the misunderstanding and the misapplication of this verse, which is really a very wonderful verse, properly understood and applied to the Christian life. It is designed to prevent us from being reactive to any and every foible in others. But it in no way prohibits or disallows proper godly discerning judgment. Indeed, without that, we are hopelessly lost in carrying out the mandate of our faith - to live godly lives that bring honor to Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gothardism: Biblical Exegesis or Peddling the Gospel for a Profit?

2006-01-16T18:19:00.000-05:00

Devil: “If you are the son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written:

‘He shall give His angels charge over you,”

and,

‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

Jesus: “It is also written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ”

This interaction between Satan and Jesus shortly after Christ’s baptism is precisely instructive in understanding the way in which Satan used Holy Scriptures and how our Lord also used them. I believe that this encounter also gives us clear insight into how Bill Gothard does Biblical interpretation, and sadly it is not in the manner in which Christ did, so that leaves the reader to surmise which tact that Gothard takes.

Indeed, as we mentioned in our previous article, the basis for just about all of Gothardism’s “various and strange doctrines” [Heb. 13:9] is his interpretation of the Word of God. When one thinks about it, this should not surprise us, for the Bible as the Word of God is a critical and indispensable doctrine of evangelicalism and if one is going to deal with the evangelical community, one must at least do some deference to the Word of God, the Bible. Even cultists like Jim Jones, David Korsesh, though entirely antithetical to the faith of Christ, almost necessarily use Scriptures to craft each of their idiosyncratic views of reality. And what surprise? None, for that is exactly what Satan was doing in his encounter with Jesus Christ in the wilderness when Jesus Christ was subjected to testing by the greatest of deceivers, yet without sin.

It is the opinion of this writer that Bill Gothard’s treatment of Holy Writ is quite similar, if not identical, to the way in which Satan employed the Word of God in his encounter with Jesus. Lest the reader think I am stretching the case, let me remind the reader that the Devil was quoting Psalm 91: 11, 12, and doing so in such a way that even the conservative Baptist scholar D.A. Carson says:

“Satan quoted Psalm. 91: 11-12, from the LXX, omitting the words ‘to guard you in all your ways.’ The omission itself does not prove he handled the Scriptures deceitfully.. since the quotation is well within the range of common NT citation patterns.” [D.A. Carson, Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 1, page 113]

In other words, Satan was not using the Scriptures any more wrongly than your local Baptist preacher might. His deceit lay somewhere else. Carson continues:

“Satan’s deceit lay in misapplying his quotation into a temptation that easily traps the devout mind by apparently warranting what might otherwise be thought sinful.” [ibid; emphases mine]

Bingo. Carson has with these words caught Bill Gothard barehanded. His writings reveal that it is this ploy that has been used repeatedly over the years to dupe otherwise intelligent evangelicals to believe and practice unbiblical things. It will be my goal to make this deceit [I know that is a strong word, but that is what I think it is, just as in the case of Satan] apparent to the evangelical community that has not shown much discernment in this matter over the last 30 or 40 years.

The ease in which evangelicals were/are duped into following such obvious unbiblical practices is still to me a stunning phenomenon, for Gothard’s misuse of the Word of God is so obvious and blatant that most of our church members would have immediately hoisted red flags of warning just hearing them spoken or seeing them written. But diabolical interpretation [I will coin this phrase solely for the purpose of this series of articles to denote the method of Bible “exegesis” employed commonly by Bill Gothard] is extremely alluring, having the appearance of orthodoxy and yet inside it is full of putrefying things. On one level, I want to excuse the millions of evangelicals who were duped into following Gothard on the basis of what I have just said: diabolical interpretation is seductive and alluring to the unwary and unskilled person. On the other hand, I want to severely chastise and accuse the leaders of those millions of sheep for malfeasance of their calling, for they are called to protect and care for the sheep, not to subject them to the abuse of false prophets, just because those false prophets quote a little Scripture and sell a few books or seminars. Their neglect and failure cries out for some kind of justice, really, but I will leave that to our Lord, who I believe has a very severe judgment reserved for the shepherds of the sheep. May God and Jesus Christ rebuke them in accordance to their works. As for me, I will respond to that which presents itself to my own life and ministry with the attitude expressed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10:3-6:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.”

Now, before I begin to detail the diabolical interpretation employed by Gothard, I want to make a second point. Reviewing a huge amount of literature already, and taxing my speed-reading abilities to the max, I find an attitude among the critics of Gothard that is, in my view, seems gracious and fair but is entirely wrong and false; that is, the notion that we must somehow cull out the good from what Gothard teaches and discard the bad. Some critics were almost apologetic in their critique, wanting to appear fair and impartial in their criticism. As I read this over and over again, I began to wonder why the inordinate attention to this issue? Of course our critique of heresy must not be cruel, mean-spirited or inhumane, but we also are not to have all that much latitude with heresy, either. As I read more, I then was able to surmise that this had been a huge issue in the earlier years, as when a man had written a book about Gothard. The book, written by Wilfred Bockelman, “Gothard, The Man and His Ministry; an Evaluation,” was published and delivered to a number of books stores but soon encountered a backlash from Gothardites all over the country. It seems that the book was in fact fairly favorable to Gothard and his ministry, but it contained a section that called into question the very issue with which we are dealing with here: Gothard’s questionable exegesis/interpretation of Scripture. The history of that event is a sad one indeed, as the book was pretty much censored by the evangelical community, the books stores actually sending boxes of the book back to the publishing house unopened, all apparently based on a reaction to even the smallest and even scholarly criticism of any aspect of Gothard and/or his ministry.

Also, in personal dealings with other critics, Gothard has invoked Matthew 18: 15-17 to quell any public criticism, using his familiar diabolical interpretation in the very process, by wresting his own viewpoint out of a passage of Scripture that has nothing to do with the instant case of his public abuse of the Bible and of the church of God. Many have been cowed by his intimidation and fallen victim to accepting his mistaken view of criticism of fellow believers. Frankly, I am not sure any of this applies, for I am not nearly so liberal as most critics, and confess that I am not at all sure that Gothard is a regenerate man at all; indeed, his teachings almost persuade me that he is not. Nonetheless, I will leave that question also unanswered here, though my own suspicions are obvious.

Homey don’t play dat!

But I do not buy his diabolical ploy to quell any and all criticism. Honest ministry and scholarship yields itself to the test of criticism and review by others. This is a reality that Gothard appears not to believe, for his approach to his ministry is secretive and illusive. He says that “If someone wants to know what we teach, let them come to the seminars.” No thanks. Rather, submit your teachings to public examination and then I will have some reasonable knowledge to decide if I would desire to attend your seminars -- or not, perhaps. When a person holds themselves out as the voice of God [Gothard does], and presents himself as an authority in matters of the faith, he is by definition subject to review, assessment and critique. I would suggest that he buck up and stop complaining about those who wish to pick a bone with him. It depends, of course, as to whether his critics have a leg to stand on. If not, then they themselves are as guilty of deception and poor manners as is Gothard himself. But if there are thoughtful and accurate criticisms of Gothardism, let them all be considered, I say. The Gospel is of no private interpretation, the Word of God says. Even the Apostle Paul, a divinely inspired writer, was subjected to the thoughtful and careful critique of the believers at Berea, so that today be known as a Berean is to be recognized as one who is thoughtful and careful in evaluating teachers and all those who hold themselves out as men of God.

But I go further in my view. I think that it is actually improper to talk of “taking the bad with the good,” or that Gothard’s ideas contain some small element of truth and therefore we ought to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That might be an acceptable aphorism, rightly applied to some situations. But when applied to the issue of Biblical interpretation and application, it is a deadly deception. Indeed, though Satan was accurately quoting Scripture, his intent was devious and deceitful. At the end of that encounter, Jesus retorted:

“Away with you, Satan!”

Apparently Jesus did not share the same largess that Gothard’s critics seem to have. Corrupt teaching cannot be salvaged by an appeal to some small good that seems to be contained somewhere therein. That would be the same as to suggest that the admonition of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” would be something to salvage from a pagan philosophy because it contains something of the Word of God! Well, I say as the Apostle Paul was apt to say it: “God forbid!” If a man is a false prophet, we are not to pay attention to anything he says, and we are to discard and avoid his teaching altogether. Anything less is, in my own opinion, an invitation to confusion, abuse and spiritual destruction. The question, of course, is whether or not Gothard is a false teacher. I maintain that he is, and that his diabolical interpretation of the Word of God proves that he employs the same method of handling the Scriptures as did Satan in his encounter with Christ. A serious charge indeed, but as they say, if the shoe fits --

Next article: Diabolical Biblical interpretation: Opinion made into Scripture

Gothardism: A Pox On Our House

2006-01-09T12:42:00.000-05:00

Introduction and Background

I first must make apology to those of you who have expressed interest in my article on Gothardism. I had hoped to have completed it by now but the holidays have messed up my writing schedule quite a bit. I have just not had the motivation to write much during this season.

But now that the holidays are history, I will turn my attention to some of these things that I have wanted to address for some time. I will take Gothardism first.

A few words of background may help the readers understand my own perspective. As for myself, I somehow, by God’s providence, missed out on the whole Gothardism phenomenon. For whatever reason, I knew little or nothing about Gothard and his impact on the evangelical community throughout the 1970 and even until the present time. As I have told my friends, I had heard the name but I had always thought that they were somehow talking about the Gaithers of Gospel singing fame! Duh.

When I began my pastorate here in Holland, Michigan, two new families joined us a few months after we had commenced our ministry here. Those two families have become pillars in our Calvinistic Baptist church, but at the time were leaving a fundamental Baptist church where Gothardism had become entrenched. Somehow these two families had escaped the poisonous effects of this strange “evangelical” cult, though even today they will admit to some remaining corruption of that virus that remains in their heads. But thank God they have been delivered from that awful system and are now strong testimony to the gracious effects of sound Biblical doctrine, and especially the doctrines of God’s grace.

From these families I have learned much about Gothardism, for Gothardism remains a wretched infestation in their extended families. Indeed, the issues around Gothardism have served to separate the families somewhat, a reality that I think is quite Biblical, as in the teaching of Matthew 10:34ff: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” I am glad that God led them to leave such a system of anti-theology. Gothardism is a poisonous pox on our house, as I expressed in the title of this article. We must excise this disease that has infected many lives much like the sting of a poisonous viper, which was and is driven by ignorance and rebellion against God as Romans chapter one describes. I believe that Gothardism is nothing less than a cult, even if it has the surface appearance of evangelical orthodoxy. Indeed, one of its most dangerous characteristic is its sheep’s clothing. We will examine this charge in a series of articles here.

My primary interest up front is the theological characteristics of Gothardism. I will skip over some very real and major issues such as the totally unbiblical nature of Gothard’s “ministry,” his unethical [immoral?] behavior regarding his dealings with organizational members, his cult-like claims to “rhema” revelations from God, his organization's admitted and now public sexual proclivities, his ungodly attitudes towards civil laws and his unethical and immoral practice of pseudo-medicine. All of these things are frankly driven by what he believes, that is, by his theology - or more exactly, his lack thereof. If we are to discern the character of false teachers, the first and primary source of data is their treatment of the Holy Scriptures and their basic understanding of God [theology]. To set the stage for my remarks, I can say that I believe that even a cursory examination of the theology of Gothardism reveals an unholy and ungodly system of influence upon millions of professors of Christ that should be rejected out of hand by any knowledgeable believer.

You will notice that I have used the phrase “professors of Christ” and not “believers.” I do so without apology. As a Baptist pastor with decades of ministerial and pastor experience, I have come to accept the reality in the modern Baptist church that a goodly portion of those who are sitting in the pews of our Baptist churches are not in fact regenerated [born again] believers. They have been convinced by the rotten stain of decisionism made popular by Charles Finney and popularized in our own time by evangelists like Billy Graham, et al. Long story short, a sort of Sandelmanianism, Pelagian-semi Pelagian synergism has had a destructive effect on Baptist ranks, resulting in even Baptist churches full of worldly professors and very few true believers. This has created a carefully cultivated seed-plot ready for the planting of false seed. This to me is the best explanation of the apparent success of Gothardism. Those who do not have the Spirit of God are unable to distinguish the difference between Gothardism and true Christianity, so such people are susceptible to “murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage… These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”

It is apparent that Gothardism has been successful, if numbers are of any import [and what fundamental Baptist would not believe that numbers are of primary importance, eh?]. Apparently, during the 1970 and 80s, Bill Gothard took a portion of evangelicalism by storm, though not entirely, as my own testimony above shows. The “movement” claims to have as many as 2.5 million “alumni.” That is an astounding figure, making it one of the most pervasive influences on modern evangelicalism, rivaling the influence of the “Purpose Driven Church” infection that is still extant in evangelicalism to this very day [but quickly dying in effect, even if the book sales are not].

Fortunately, Gothardism has come upon hard times, and not a moment too soon. Like a poisonous snake bite, it takes a few minutes for the venom to spread through the blood stream. But now the destructive character of Gothard’s system is making itself obvious through broken families, broken and destroyed churches, ruined marriages and, if a friend of mine is right, even to the suicide of some who were corrupted by Gothardism in the home. How is it that so many good Christians could be duped into following such a destructive system? Where is the “mind of Christ” that the believer has (1 Cor. 2:16) by which to discern spiritual truth? Where is spiritual discernment?

Sadly, I think that one answer to this question is the sad state to which the church has sunken in our day. No longer is there a Berean mind that has a healthy Biblical skepticism like the people of Berea in the Apostle Paul’s day. They put even that great Apostle to the test of the Word of God, to see if these things be so. That ought to be the starting point of all Christian life, that is, a healthy Biblical skepticism which measures all things by the infallible measure of Holy Writ. But alas, such is a distant memory, I am afraid. Today’s professor is all too easily led by hype and marketing ploys, the result of their being “conformed to this world.” There is little interest in questioning the validity of anyone, especially if he has sold some books on Amazon.com! The undiscerning modern mind seems not to be interested in whether a thing is true or not as long as it is widely popular. The world seems to be instantly “carried about with divers and strange doctrines,” “blown about by every wind of doctrine.”

So, with that introduction, I will begin the series of articles with a look at the theological characteristics of Gothardism. My sources of information are both direct, including families and friends that have been directly involved with Gothardism, Gothard’s official web site, Internet sources of people who have been involved with Gothard as well as indirect sources, such as the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., based in Lombard, Illinois, just a sort distance down the road from Gothard’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Of particular note is the fairly recent book (2003) by Don and Joy Veinot from the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., entitled A Matter of Basic Principles. Additionally, there are literally thousands of people out on the Internet ready to share their experiences with Gothardism first hand. Given this wealth of information, it is simply stunning to me that anyone in their right mind would actually choose to follow this system at all.

Next article: Exegesis, or simply peddling the Gospel for a profit?

Thanks for the Feedback

2005-12-11T19:32:00.000-05:00

Okay, OKAY! I get the message. My articles are much too long, and it makes for tedious reading. I repent in sackcloth and ashes, and commit to composing much shorter articles in the future. Thanks for the feedback.

As I get a little more time over the holiday, I intend to post a few more articles to the blog, so keep your eyes open for articles on the following:

A Pox on Our House. A theological look at Gothardism and its poisonous effects on the church.

Just Warfare? A look at the debate about the war in Iraq from a Biblical standpoint.

From Russia With Love. An account of the amazing intersection of my life with the life of Yuri Volkov. Read it and stand amazed at the wonderful, inexplicable grace of God.

Some personal reflections on the season

2005-12-11T18:08:00.000-05:00

Forgive me if I am not big on the hoopla of Christmas as commonly observed by Americans. My whole concept of the season was providentially wrought some time ago in a personal tragedy in our family's history. Today, I have a difficult time with the frivolity of the season, and the excesses of food, drink, consumerism, and general bacchanalian debauchery. Memories of the season were permanently changed for me and my family back in 1970, around Christmas time.

At that time, I was 37 years old, married to my dear wife of 45+ years, with three children, Paul, Julie and Jennifer. We had the richness of extended families on both my and Bev's side of the family, with all of our parents alive and well.

Then it happened. A report came that Bev's father had a massive heart attack while at a party and was saved from death by the heroic efforts of an EMT in an ambulance. He was at the hospital near death. It was a shock to both of us and the the entire family. Bev and I responded to the hospital to be with her father, leaving our children in the care of our oldest, Paul, with whom we kept in touch by phone [but that was before cell phones, so we had to call from a phone booth at the hospital]. It was about the 21st of December, with Christmas coming very soon. Both Bev and I kept a 24-hour vigil at the hospital, always ready to receive the bad news that her father had not made it, but hopeful nonetheless.

We kept that vigil from that time to Christmas eve, when we decided that it was necessary for us to finally return home to the children. Besides, it was our anniversary (yes, that's right; we were married on Christmas eve. That's another long story). Bev's father had survived open heart surgery and they had repaired a massive aneurysm on the back of his heart, so we thought we might get in a little time with the kids and at least do a little bit of celebration of Christmas with them.

It was a blessed evening. Our children were very glad to have us back home, and we opened the gifts on Christmas eve in the event we might have to return to the hospital on Christmas day to be with Bev's father. We enjoyed the evening, the kids went to bed and Bev and I also went to bed. About 12:30am on Christmas day, I lay in our bed unable to sleep because of indigestion - at least I thought it was indigestion. I had had some wonderful fudge that Bev had made, a favorite of mine, and I probably had a little more than I should have. I took an Alka-Seltzer to try and cope, but it did not seem to work. Bev was awakened by my activity and finally she said that we would just get up and go back to the hospital and stop by the ER to see if they could help with the indigestion.

So, we started into town [Springfield, IL] headed for Memorial Hospital where Bev's father was a patient. As we traveled, I began to get chest pains that increased as the seconds went by. I told my dear wife, who was driving, that I felt that I was going to go unconscious, which frightened her tremendously. The pain increased as we went and I then realized that something was seriously wrong. We rushed to the ER, where I was put in an examining room and given a dose of lidocaine to deal with pain. My dear wife was sitting at the foot of my bed with a look of despair on her face, and deep sadness came over me for making my wife so sad. The doctor came in, stood at the foot of the bed next to Bev and said these awful words: "Mr. Edwards, you are having a heart attack right now."

Mind you, the injection of lidocaine had put me in such a state that I was joking and telling the doctors and nurses that I was ready to go home. That stuff had put me right, as they say. Alas, it was not to be. I suffered a heart attack that did damage to the outside surface of the heart in the area that regulates heartbeat, and it remains to this very day, some 35 years later. I also was admitted to the hospital and ended up in a Critical Care module room just one door from where Bev's father lay near death.

Whenever I reflect on the awful load that my precious wife had to suffer at that time, I am moved to sadness and tears. The two most important men in her life both lay within feet of one another, both near death's door. I cannot imagine the grief that she must have felt during that time. I love her for it, but truthfully do not have much recollection of the events as they unfolded, as I was sedated and made comfortable, which for me means pretty much unconscious.

I learned later that the Critical Care Unit staff did something that probably was not entirely the policy of the hospital, but given that it was Christmas day, I think is was a most generous act. They allowed Bev to sleep in the CCU room that was between her father's and my own room. That was truly a kind and merciful act on their part, and I will remember it until I die. They watched over her as well as her father and me. I am forever grateful for their kindness.

So, there is the long and short of it all. Christmas time brings those memories flooding back in my soul. I think of the loneliness of my dear children, faithfully staying at home and getting by in our abscence. Today, time with them is truly precious and I do not wish to waste one moment with frivolity. Being with my wife at Christmas time is the most precious gift I can think of, and I want her to know that. All the activities around the Christmas celebration truly pale into insignificance in light of these things. So, if I am not a great celebrator of Christmas, you at least will understand where my heart is during this time.

Now, the upshot of all this is that our Savior Jesus Christ is the center of our attention during this holiday season. It is He that delivered both Bev's father and me. Her father passed away after a good number of years of survival, and a relatively good quality of life. I recovered fully, but later had to have mulitple (5) bypass surgery as my veins had all clogged up pretty seriously. But it was before I had a subsequent heart attack. I am now some 10 or 11 years after that, and feel very fortunate to have a full and robust life. It is the Lord that is to be praised. These afflictions were from His loving hand, and in the final analysis, they were for my benefit, and for my family's benefit. Life over these years has been far more keenly appreciated than before, and moments are precious to us. Additionally, our faith has grown immensely, our assurance of faith and hope of eternal life has been fortified, and we live with a kind of peace that truly passes understanding.

I would be remiss, though, if I did not make it clear that I am not an old fogey or humbug. I think that families should most certainly celebrate the season in which we recall and bless the appearance of our Savior as He was born into the world. This should be a season of joy and blessed brotherhood, both among our families and among the saints of God. I have no objections to Christmas trees, gift-giving, celebatory meals, and even watching football (though for me it will be watching the Fighting Illini basketball team, if they are on the TV). Life is just too precious and short to spend it complaining about how some sully the season with their excesses. I love this season, even if it contains for for me some painful memories, for God has turned those painful memories to joy by the Holy Spirit, and I will rejoice in it, just as I am instructed by the Holy Scriptures.

With that, I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Ich ben ein Fundamentalist [Part 3]

2005-11-18T21:16:00.000-05:00

A modern model which everyone knows

In discussing this matter of decisionism, perhaps the one most well known example of its practice is Billy Graham, who, by the way, identifies himself as a Baptist, although I am not sure that he would call himself a Fundamentalist. But his adaptations and practice of Finney’s “new measures” are starkly visible in our day, appearing of television regularly. Over the years, Graham’s practices have changed but little [though some might say that his theology has gone from bad to much worse]. The same ritual is observed over and over again. First comes the singing of songs, followed by the “testimony” of a famous person or someone recently in the news, followed by some more singing, which is followed by Graham’s message, usually rather straightforward evangelical fare which some have pilloried as “three points and a poem.” But then, after the message comes what most Fundamentalists would characterize as the most important part of the service: the “invitation” or “altar call.” In this [non-biblical] practice, an emotional appeal is made to the audience to step out of their seats and come forward, usually to a platform [the “altar,” I would surmise] in the middle of an arena or football field to make their decision to receive Christ publicly [no mention is ever made of baptism]. Rev. Graham continues to appeal to the audience for a few minutes and then the choir softly sings the standard “invitation” hymn “Just as I am.” This goes on until the telecast leaves the air. In the news the next day, there is often a claim that Graham had a very “successful” crusade [a strange name for an evangelical meeting, I might add] and that many people responded to the invitation, usually numbering in the thousands. This same ritual has been repeated many times during the last half of the 20th century. It is the theology that underlies this practice which I am interested in. Why is this done this way? Is this the way the Gospel was preached and evangelism practiced during the first 1900 years of the church? What Biblical practices of the New Testament church is Graham following? Is this ubiquitous practice the center of New Testament evangelism, as the modernFundamentalists claim? The answer for any fair reader of church history is a resounding no.

The Work of the Holy Spirit, or pragmatic humanism?

Let’s go back to Charles Finney again for a moment, the famous [or infamous, to some of us] evangelist of the middle 1800s. Why has he had such an impact on American Fundamentalism and evangelicalism? Was he himself a fundamentalist? Was he a Baptist? Were the “new measures” commonly used before his day? Why did he use them? What did he believe that would cause him to employ such [apparently] manipulative methods of evangelism? Is there something of substance that we can grasp onto? I submit that there is.

Finney was theologically a Pelagian. It was his view, like Pelagius of the 5th century, that man had the plenary ability of choose the good, that is, to rationally decide by an act of the will to believe in God and thus be saved. In his mind, salvation did not involve the work which is called “the new birth,” that is, a supernatural and spiritual work of the Holy Spirit that imparted new life to the spiritually dead soul of the sinner and enabling faith and repentance. Rather, he believed that man was equipped with plenary power of will, that man’s will was radically free, even to the power of contrary choice, that is, to be able to choose that which is against the ruling disposition of the will. These things are beyond our blog to treat to the fullest extent, but suffice it to say that Finney, because of these beliefs, was no Baptist!

The point that I am making is that Finney, with his underlying Pelagian theology, could in good conscience [so to speak] employ such persuasive techniques because he fully believed that man had the ability to be persuaded, given the right information and in the right manner, to believe to his own salvation. Given that understanding, for the sake of argument, the use of such persuasive and emotion-laden techniques and methods were quite consistent with his theology. In other words, there was a method to his madness; he practiced what he preached. Unfortunately what he preached was heresy, and consequently his methods were too.

Ah, but don’t wave a red flag in front of a Fundamentalist, for he is liable to charge the red flag without hesitation. Some of the Fundamentalists saw that Finney was “successful” with such methods, and immediately began to uncritically adapt them into their own practice. A kind of crass pragmatism became the rule of the day. Most of the Baptist Fundamentalists did not understand the nexus between theology and evangelical practice, so even today they are perplexed when someone criticizes Finney or Finney’s methods. “You have to give everyone a chance to be saved!” said one man to me when he saw that I did not employ the altar call in my ministry. For him it was heresy for me NOT to offer an invitation to come down the aisle and “receive Jesus into your heart,” as the saying goes. Little did he know that the Church existed worldwide for nearly 1900 years before these techniques were even seen. These innovations were to have a devastating eroding effect on evangelicalism for the next 100 years at least, and maybe more, as that train continues on down the track, propelled by an appalling ignorance but an equally powerful zeal, yet without knowledge.

Pragmatic Humanism takes the day

The Fundamental Baptists were enamored with these “effective” techniques, as far as producing numbers, that is. Statistics were and continue to be elevated to iconic status in Fundamental Baptist ranks, with more energy expended and more attention given to the tally of figures of attendance, professions of faith [so called] and the like than just about anything else. Indeed, ministries are ended by poor “performance” as it relates to numbers. As a result, Fundamentalist pastors turn over nearly as fast as professional baseball managers or professional football coaches who don’t win their division or go to the Super Bowl. And no wonder.

Do you not see it? If you have a theology that says that man is the determining factor in salvation (humanistic), and the pressure to produce conversions and professions (church growth), you have a potent temptation to employ just about every method that can produce a favorable outcome [usually having to do with numbers again]. In my own view, the church-growth, mega-church, give-them-what-they-want kind of “doing church” that we see in today’s world is nothing but a modern version of this same principle of pragmatism and nothing new at all. I suspect that if we scratch the surface a bit, we will find Pelagius underneath it all. That seems to be the one common factor in the whole phenomenon.

Pelagianism in a Baptist Church? Have mercy!

Actually, the central core elements of pure Pelagianism are less common today than in the 5th century when Augustine and Pelagius fought tooth and toenail over the issue of man’s depravity and the effects of the Fall on mankind. Today, Pelagianism has morphed into Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism, the doctrine approved by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and which it continues to practice and believe. Would it not be perverse to find that the Fundamentalists actually believed and practiced essentially the same thing as their mortal enemy, the Catholic Church? Indeed it would. But alas! It is true!

Next: Who are the real Fundamentalists?

About my conversion

2005-11-17T17:13:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in a previous post here, I and another brother from our church make it a practice to visit a variety of other churches in our area to see first hand what is happening in the churches of our community. I selected a Fundamental Baptist church for a personal reason, really. I had been brought to faith by the Spirit back in 1964 and the first church I was sort of drafted into was a Fundamental Baptist Church in West Texas (Big Spring, to be exact). I was 22 years old at the time, back from a military stint in Turkey, in an area of Turkey known in the New Testament era as Pontus (some maps show Bythynia). I did not have a clue as to the importance of that geographical point of interest, for I was a sinner lost and undone at the time, having no interest in religion at all, indeed, scornful of religious people as those who were weak in the mind and required some sort of crutch to get through life. I had always believed that men who took to Christianity were just a little bit too effeminate for me, for in the military in my day it was considered common knowledge that the men who became pastoral assistants at the base chapels were predominately homosexual men, if not all of them. But I finally returned from my tour of duty on the backside of the world, transferred to the backside of the desert in West Texas.

My Backside of the Desert Experience

Little did I know it at the time, but the very first day I reported for duty at my new station in Big Spring (Webb AFB, a pilot training base), I met the man that the Lord had commanded to preach the eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ to me. His name was Jack Burkholder. He was a military man, too, and had only professed his faith in Christ a short time before. He began to witness the Gospel to me, but I was *not* a willing recipient. He began to list my house on the Thursday evening visitation which his Fundamental Baptist church conducted every week. Being a generally polite Midwesterner, I was reluctant to just tell them to go away, so I would let Jack and one of the deacons into my home and listen, if a little impatiently, to their assertion that I was a condemned sinner before God and that the only answer for my sinful condemnation was to believe on the Lord Jesus.

Having a gifted mind and a pretty good vocabulary, I discovered a multitude of ways to be sarcastic, mean and insulting to the men who came to my house. Tactically placed expletives were often used, and downright nasty epitaphs were common in my speech. I was determined to drive them out of my life. Mind you, that was difficult, for Jack was also assigned to my unit on the base and I saw him every day. But I was determined to make them so uncomfortable that they would leave me alone.

Drifting …

The months passed by, and they continued for a time to visit my home, enduring my incessant insolence and insults towards Christ and them personally. I am sure that they were extremely discouraged after some months had passed. After a while, I began to make sure that I was gone on the nights of visitation from the church, or sometimes did not answer the door, though I am sure that they knew I was home. They endured the embarrassment with what now I know to be Christian courage. In a conversation with Jack at work, I angrily told him not to return to our house at all, to stay away. He reluctantly complied with my wishes and they suspended any further contact.

Again, weeks and then months passed, with little or no contact from the church. During the time that they first were coming, I was coerced into going to the church on at least one occasion, but I hated every moment, and believed that the men had “briefed” the pastor on all the things that I had ever said so that he could hone in on me. My response, however, was not conviction, but anger and disdain for anything Christian and against that church and Jack. I was, for all practical purposes, separated from them and for the most part had achieved my goal to be left alone. I settled in to enjoy life without their interruptions.

“The Wind Bloweth Where it Listeth”

Weeks and months go by. As the days and weeks slipped by, I suddenly became aware of a morose feeling in my mind and heart. Suddenly I was depressed, sullen and withdrawn. A sense of dread entered my mind and I fell into what today they would probably call a kind of clinical depression. I was not easy to live with and had this constant foreboding mindset and attitude. I suddenly felt that I was utterly worthless and completely without hope in life. Nothing made sense anymore, and I was in desperate despair, perhaps the lowest time in my life, now that I think about it.

That Withering Work

All those things that those men had read from the Scriptures kept leaping into my mind. I heard the Gospel preached, not now by the men, but from my own mind which had absorbed the things that they had said without even realizing it. But now something was different: I saw my condition and my condemnation so clearly that I was what the Scriptures would call “nigh unto death.” I did not know what to call this until much later. I had come under what Spurgeon called the “Withering Work of the Spirit.” I had been born from above, regenerated, brought from death to life and into a withering sense of sin and degradation. I recall that I had the idea that I was beyond the help of God; that I was without hope of ever recovering from this awful sense of sin and degradation. I was a miserable man, in the fullest sense of that word. What to do?

On the level of the flesh, I was far too embarrassed to tell Jack what was or had happened to me, for I knew he would say, “I told you so!” So, I continued alone in my misery for a number of weeks, slowing crumbling under a heavy load of sin and shame.

“I woke, the dungeon flamed with light…”

I do not know when it occurred, nor do I recall any verbalized prayer or anything, but one day I internally cried out to God for mercy, confessing my sins profusely before Him, privately surrendering my wounded soul to Jesus Christ in a way entirely antithetical to the thinking of the old Vic Edwards. Such a confession would have been out of the question for the old Vic, and only something explosive could bring me to that point of desperate and utter surrender.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, I was relieved of my guilt and despair and was immediately granted a spirit of joy. I can think of no earthly words to describe it. All of the guilt, of all the pain and despair was gone, nailed to the cross by Jesus Christ as the men had told me so many times. I had been running from God all my life, and in these last days was in a mad rush to run from the influence and drawing that I was experiencing. At no time could I remove the thoughts of Christ and the cross from my mind. Those thoughts haunted me like the hounds of heaven. I hated it at the time and tried desperately to use every ploy I could think of to escape the awful presence that I felt. Yes, there was even terror, which I could only admit much later after I was a believer for some time. I actually thought that God would kill me for my rebellion and hatred toward Him and his servants, and I experienced moments of abject terror in my mind.

No Seeker, I

I will tell you that I was never a “seeker” of God. Until the very last moment, I was running hell-bent from Christ and from God and from everything Christian. I thought that it was those things that were causing my agonies and pains, and in a way, that is what it turned out to be. Years later, I was to share my testimony with Dr. Curt Daniel, now a friend of mine, and I recall telling him that God chased me down, wrestled me to the ground and put a new heart in me so that I was enabled to come forth out of that spiritual grave. This is still my testimony. I never sought God; He ALWAYS sought me, with a relentless purpose that I now know was His sovereign purpose according to election. I was truly born from above, given new birth from above by the washing of regeneration, a compete and utter translation from the kingdom of darkness into the light of the kingdom of God’s dear Son, all in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. One reason that I am a convinced Calvinist today is my own experience of the work of God’s salvation in my soul. I have no illusions that my faith warranted salvation; my faith was a gift of God’s almighty power enabling me to see the kingdom of God. I hated God one moment and loved Him the next. I cannot explain that, I can only report it.

Peace that Passes Understanding

Now that I have been in the Lord for more than 41 years, I have had many opportunities to reflect and do some analysis of that work that God had performed in my soul. Every time I do that, I am wonderfully blessed more than ever by seeing the awesome sovereign good pleasure of God at work to bring this filthy sinner to faith. I have little patience for those who claim that it was because they “decided to receive Jesus into my heart” that God then saved them. That is not my experience at all, indeed, quite the opposite. Since that time, I have been blessed to learn of Him more and more that “Salvation is of the Lord,” and not of him who runs, or of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy and effectually calls His sheep. Blessed be the name of Christ for His infinite love for this condemned sinner, and for the gift of His grace to give me new birth from above so that I might believe the Gospel and enter into that eternal kingdom of God!

If you become a regular reader of my blog, you will soon learn that my conversion experience plays a huge part of my understanding of doctrine and the ordo salutis, or how God goes about the work of saving His elect sheep. I am a convinced Calvinist for two reasons, primarily: 1) because that seems to be the manifest teaching of the Bible, and 2) it is entirely consistent with my own personal experience with God’s Spirit in His work of salvation in my soul. The work of God in my soul was for me no less dramatic that the work of the Spirit in the soul of the Apostle Paul. Both he and I were brought to faith while actively hating and “kicking against the pricks,” as Jesus said when He appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. I have no illusions of wanting to come to Jesus, for there was nothing in my soul prior to the work of God Almighty to want me to do that. Only His sovereign, powerful work, the same power by which He raised Jesus from the dead, raised me from spiritual death to spiritual life. I owe an eternal debt to my Lord Jesus Christ for this great love with which He loved me. I am fully aware that there is no way that I can fill up the measure of my debt to him, but I can surely die trying. May God grant that desire of my heart.

My prayer: That God will finish that good work which He began in my soul; that my life will be spent praising and rejoicing because of this great redeeming love of God; that I might obey Him in every way, in honor of His great sacrifice for me, the greatest of sinners. May His name be glorified in my life and in my obedience to my precious Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father who sent His Son into the world to save sinners like me. Soli Deo Gloria!

Ich ben ein Fundamentalist [Part 2]

2005-11-15T20:18:00.000-05:00

From Meteoric Rise to Flaming Crash in One Century

In my previous article, I mentioned that there were two things about Baptist Fundamentalism that I found useful and good: their focus on the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and their zeal for evangelism. In this issue, we trace those two things as they played out in the Fundamental Baptist ranks in the United States, particularly in Texas, where I am most familiar with the movement, being part of it for a number of years.

Despite the fact that the two focuses of Fundamental Baptists seemed at first glance to be fine and proper things, the truth of the matter is that in an effort to be “successful,” both those commendable goals were soon corrupted in the ranks of Fundamental Baptists, and this state of affairs continues to plague the movement [what’s left of it] to this very day. I will use these two things to illustrate this corruption of truth.

First, there is the corruption of evangelism, expressed most clearly in Fundamentalism by the practice of decisionism, and its concomitant perversion, the “altar call,” or “invitation” system, sometimes called ritualized regeneration. The second corrupting thing is more a view than a practice. What is a sound doctrine, the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the assertion of the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, is by the Fundamentalists diluted into the pathetic, perverted and profoundly ignorant view called “King James Only-ism.” That these things are part and parcel of Fundamentalism is vividly displayed and attested to by the fact that I saw them both portrayed in use this very last weekend here in Holland, MI. These perversions have not abated a bit among Fundamentalist churches - and they seem all the more proud of the fact, instead of the shame that they ought to feel.

Decisionism, the foundation of the altar call

We will speak to the issue of the perversion of Biblical evangelism which we termed ritualized regeneration or decisionism first, since I believe it is directly related to the other errors. What do I mean by ritualized regeneration? By this charge I mean to suggest that the Fundamentalists have abandoned Biblical evangelism altogether and replaced it with a ritual that to them passes for what among the Fundamentalists is thought to be the new birth. In fact, the idea that salvation or the new birth is a human decision or based on a human decision is in fact a horrible heresy which strikes at the very heart of the Gospel of Christ. Instead of a practice that should be pursued, it is a perversion that ought to be immediately condemned and eradicated from the earth. Strong language, for sure, but deserved; I will argue my case in future installments here on my blog.

In the Fundamental Baptist mind, the new birth is a decision made by man. To aggravate the matter, they follow the Arminian view of the ordo salutis, putting faith and repentance before the new birth. It is “man’s part,” the common verbal invitation puts it: “God has done his part, now it’s your turn to do your part.” Then there is this one: “Satan has cast his vote for you. God has cast his vote for you. Now you must vote to determine who will win your soul.” Those kinds of statements, or something close to them, are heard repeatedly in Fundamental Baptist churches even though such statement manifestly teach the very same doctrine of soteriology as the Catholic Church! That’s right: it is in essence the same as what the Catholic Church teaches, as well as the Arminianism of the Methodist Church. In fact, it is so obvious that I sometimes, with a bit of biting sarcasm, call my Fundamental Baptist friends “Catholic-Baptists,” or “Methodist-Baptists,” because their doctrine of salvation is far more closely related to the doctrines of those denominations than to any historic Baptist view. The irony of this is that Fundamentalism has always considered the Roman Catholic Church as its mortal enemy, with Methodism and its entire sanctification not far behind . And yet, at the turn of this new century, it is clear and obvious that Fundamental Baptists apparently teach essentially the same view as those two denominations: soteriological synergism.

Synergism versus Monergism

What it that? One excellent web site has this definition:

Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16).

B.B. Warfield, a noted Reformed theologian, says it most plainly in an article entitled “The Plan of Salvation.” He maintains, and rightly in my estimation, that there are at the end of the day but two forms of salvation: synergism and monergism.

The opposition between the two systems was thus absolute. In the one, everything was attributed to man; in the other, everything was ascribed to God. In them, two religions, the only two possible religions at bottom, met in mortal combat: the religion of faith and the religion of works; the religion which despairs of self and casts all its hope on God the Saviour, and the religion which puts complete trust in self; or since religion is in its very nature utter dependence on God, religion in the purity of its conception and a mere quasi-religious moralism.

Further, Warfield said of Pelagianism, the system which I believe is at the root of Fundamental Baptist theology as practiced in the churches today, the following:

The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

This distinction is a telling one. A fair reading of the paragraph above, one can see the parallels with the modern Arminian Fundamentalist church. Phrases such as “inalienable freedom of will” and “fully able to do all that can be required of him” peal forth regularly from Fundamentalist pulpits. The Fundamental Baptist today would, upon reading the above, say: “So? What’s the problem with that?” The very notion which the practice of decisionism suggests is that the work of salvation is a cooperative work between God and the sinner and not the sole and sovereign work of the Spirit of God in granting spiritual birth from above. God has his part in convicting of sin, but man has his part in deciding whether or not he [the sinner] will allow God to save him. In that view, common in Fundamental Baptist ranks, God appears to be the Great Cajoler, who spends His time trying to get people to believe the Gospel but is unable to prevail with any sinner unless and until that sinner, by some plenary power of human free will, allows God to work his “magic.” It is this awful theology that ironically makes the Fundamental Baptist practice of decisionism a first cousin of Catholicism. Catholicism believes the exact same thing: man must cooperate with God to be saved. In the instance of Catholicism, man’s part is doing works of merit (good works), and though the Fundamentalist would be loath to admit so crass a thing as that, in fact their own system and practice equate to the very same thing. Man must first exercise his faith [which, they, the Catholics and Arminians say, God grants to all men] to give God permission or to allow God to give him the new birth. To put it bluntly, the new birth in the Fundamental Baptist mind is God reacting to the faith of man, not the sinner responding to God’s work of regeneration [the new birth; being born from above] by believing and repenting. In this they unfortunately put the cart before the horse. And it is a serious, and even an eternally fatal error.

A Reluctant Snapshot

2005-11-15T13:33:00.000-05:00

I am quite reluctant to include a photo on my blog, but I must admit that I desire to see and know the brothers with whom I fellowship and imagine that they might feel the same. I do not wish to attract any groupies, either [he says, tongue in cheek]. I am afraid that the quality of the picture is not good, as it was taken with a really low-quality digital cam which we got free with the purchase of a computer. So, though the picture is not that good, if you have trouble getting a good idea of what I look like, you should just think of Tom Cruise, for whom I am quite often mistaken. Another mental picture that might help you is to imagine Phil Johnson without facial hair.

Ich ben ein Fundamentalist [Part 1]

2005-11-10T14:18:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday evening I visited a local Baptist church which holds itself out proudly as a "fundamental Baptist" church. That piqued my interest, of course, as my Fundamentalist Baptist creditials are probably as fine or better than those of anyone I know. I am familiar with Fundamentalism in the Baptist ranks, for I was ( and am, rightly defined) one. But judging from what I heard and observed during my visit to this "fundamentalist" church in the year 2005, I would sadly have to conclude that the modernism that fundamentalism sought to repulse at its inception has won the day, so much so that what I heard from a self-proclaimed fundamentalist pulpit was nothing less than that supposed enemy itself - modernism. Let me explain.

I was introduced to fundamental Baptists when I was first converted by God. The man used of God to preach the Gospel to me was a member of a dyed-in-the-wool Fundamental Baptist church in Big Spring, Texas. We were "independent, fundamental, premillenial, Dispensational, missionary, Bible-believing, soulwinning, separated" Baptists. Because I had no early training in religion and/or Baptist fundamentalism, I did not know but that the beliefs of the people of my new church were essentially those that all Baptists held. Later I would learn that all that calls itself fundamentalist Baptist is not necessarily fundamentalist - or Baptist.

Initial Indoctrination into all things fundamental Baptist

The first thing that I was instructed in was the practice of the altar call, which by the time I was converted to Christ had become nothing less than a quasi ordinance of the fundamental Baptists. It seemed that responding to the altar call was elevated as the sine quo non of Christian conversion, and compared to it baptism was of little importance. The fact was that I had come to trust Christ in the privacy of my own home and not in the presence of anyone but myself and God. Only afterwards, with my now dear Christian friend that had first preached the Gospel to me did I make that confession public. He faithfully took me to a conference with the pastor and the head deacon of the church to instruct me as to what I should do now that I had professed Christ as Savior. I was told that the "way Baptists do things" is for me to wait for the altar call at the end of next Sunday's sermon, at which time I was to come forward and "make my profession of faith." I was struck a little by the language, for even as a new convert, I knew that I had already done so. If they had added the word "public" I might have understood. I recall asking them why this was necessary [I was never one for public show of anything]. They repeated the instruction that "that is the way Baptists do things." I obeyed explicitly and responded to the "invitation" which the pastor of the church felt duty-bound to employ every time he spoke. There was much rejoicing over my profession, but somehow I would later reflect on the whole thing a bit and wonder if there was not a planful attempt to make it appear that it was the powerful preaching of the pastor that brought me down the aisle, as they put it.

Chiliastic indoctrination

After I was baptized [something of an afterthought, really, as the altar call seemed much more important to the congregation] I was immediately introduced to premillenial dispensationalism. I was told that the only Bible that had relevance was the Scofield Reference Bible and so I obtained a rather fine one of leather with my name embossed in gold on the front. Even now, I considered myself a full-blown fundamental Baptist. I was almost perfect in attendance and attended to every word that the teachers and the preachers said. I absorbed everything I heard and unfortunately took it in without critical analysis, which later I would learn was a serious mistake, if not fatal. I learned my Scofield reference Bible so well that I could recall exact pages and notes, even if I did not do so well with the Biblical text, as it seemed at the time secondary to the study notes. In but a few weeks I had learned the entire gamut of premillenial dispensationalism, what with its rapture [mentioned in nearly every sermon, as I recall, as the great hope of the church], the seven year tribulation [which, thankfully, we would not endure, since we would be raptured out. We would not want to be involved with anything like the saints in Hebrews 11, would we?], the marriage of the Lamb, the judgment seat of Christ and the Great White Throne judgment, the battle of Armageddon, the 1,000 year millenial reign of Christ in the reconstructed Jerusalem temple, with its restored sacrificial system and all. At this time, I was also exposed to the complex "charts" or "maps" of premillenial dispensationalism, although I would learn later that their measly local charts would pale into insignificant when compared to what I would encounter from the "professional" Dispensationalist professors when I went off to Bible Baptist Seminary in Arlington, Texas, and came to know men from Dallas Theological Seminary, the center of the Dispensational world, as it were, in 1966. Only John Hagee with his auditorium-sized projected charts could match or top those earlier Dispensational divines.

Erecting fundamentalist icons

As I was quickly and thoroughly indoctrinated into premillenial dispensationalism and Baptist fundamentalism [they're the same, are they not?], certain men were introduced and burned into my mind as the heroes of faith. First and foremost was Dr. J. Frank Norris, who by the time I had been converted had gone home to his reward. He was painted to me as a holy man, a modern day Elijah. Story after story was emblazened in my brain about this man and what could only be described as his "exploits," for his life involved wild and crazy behavior, even his killing of a man in his downtown Ft. Worth church office! He was known in Ft. Worth as an anti-booze zealot, ready to name local luminaries as drunkards and reprobates, which he did often from the pulpit, excoriating local politicians and others in authority.

I also heard other names [William Bell Riley, G. Greshem Machen, Billy Sunday, and others], but in the minds of Texas Baptist Fundamentalists, J. Frank Norris was the Fundamentalist par excellence. Every young Texas Fundamentalist preacher boy that went off to seminary [the one founded by J. Frank Norris, of course!] hoped to be the one who would inherit the mantle of him who was considered the Elijah of the Fundamentalist movement not only in Texas, but across the nation. At the same time that Norris climbed to fame in Fort Worth, Texas, as pastor of First Baptist Church there, with thousands in attendance, he also pastored, simultaneously, Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, MI, where Dr. G.B. Vick was co-pastor. That's right; J. Frank Norris was the first "jet-setter" pastor, flying from one church to the other in the same day, and all before there were jets at all! He was pastor of two of the largest congregations in the nation at a time when mega churches were extremely rare. To hear Texas Baptist Fundamentalists tell it, Dr. Norris had an almost unworldly aura that was to be revered and not challenged. For a time, I fell into that very train of thought - until I met his son, Dr. George Norris, at seminary. More on that later.

The Dark Side(s) of Fundamentalism

I was never, as I recall it today, comfortable with my fundamental Baptist indoctrination. Though I was somewhat religiously naive, I was not dumb, and soon began to cautiously question much of what I had learned. There was a definite strain of anti-intellectualism that was proudly (arrogantly?) professed publicly. Genuine scholarship was not encouraged, indeed, the proof of your fundamentalist credentials was that you implicitly trusted in what your leaders told you without questioning. Judging from my recent visit to a fundamental Baptist church, those poisonous traits are still alive and well in Baptist fundamentalism.

Biblical evangelism, or disguised humanism?

If there is anything that I will today credit as positive in my fundamentalist years, it is two primary focuses: evangelism and their focus on the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. But even those things that could be termed positive turned out to be somewhat sullied by the ignorance and anti-intellectual bent of the fundamentalists. Evangelism, touted to be the very purpose of the faith, turned out to be but the ploy of Arminian and semi-Pelagian doctrines, popularized by Charles Finney in the middle 1800s. The fundamentalists had imbibed the theology and the methods of Finney so thoroughly that the two things were sometimes hard to distinguish. Finney had popularized a variety of "new measures" of evangelism which were naturally born out of his Pelagian theology. Why any Baptist would wish to follow such Pelagian theology is quite beyond me, but it was most surely the testimony of history that it was so. Indeed, the "new methods" which Finney pioneered became the bread and butter of Baptist (and other brands of) fundamentalism across America, the "altar call," the evil spawn of his "mourner's bench" being the most obvious and most ubiquitous.

Coming next: The Great Downgrade to Arminian humanism: the disasterous 20th century for Fundamental Baptists

Seeking an Indulgence

2005-11-08T09:48:00.000-05:00

Indulge me a bit and allow me to introduce you to my precious grandson Cameron. This is a picture of his costume for Halloween [yes, his parents do allow him to dress up in a costume]. Unfortunately, Halloween this year in Cam's hometown was a bit rainy, and the results are obvious, are they not?

Limping In (a poker term)

2005-11-07T20:19:00.000-05:00

The whole process of blogging is a bit foreign and even a bit intimidating to me at the moment, but I suspect that in a fairly short time, I will be up and running. If Leverton can do it, surely I can, too.

I need to talk about the name of my blog. I took it in a similar fashion as the early Christians took the name "Christians," that is, as a term which was intended as pejorative, but gently so, I suspect. Two delightful Christian brothers with whom I was talking at a bond fire and cookout in Champaign, IL, had asked me about dealing with persons in the church who profess to be believers but whose lives demonstrate a pattern of sinfulness. I merely shared with the brothers what I have said to many such professors of faith: "I'm afraid that I can't receive you as a regenerate believer, seeing as there is no convincing evidence that the Spirit is at work in your life." One brother responded, "Vic practices X-Christianity!" By that he was referring to the current craze of "X," [for "extreme"] programs on television, particularly The X-Games, which weekly chronicles a bunch of people with death wishes doing silly things to themselves that might hurt them real badly.

At first, I was a little taken aback that my approach to a sinning believer would be seen as anything extreme, but I then came to realize that such candor and plainness is rare in this day of effeminate religion. For myself, I think that if I were not to confront the sinning professor, I would betray my calling and do dishonor to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But as I thought on it a bit more, I decided to own the title, for if straighforwardness is considered X-Christianity, then I am guilty of it; and may God grant me grace to remain so.

Yet this is not my primary reason for putting up the blog. That is an entirely other matter. Here is a bit of my motivation.

Our church recently made a major change in our schedule of services. We hold regular morning services, then have a communal lunch at church and then convene an afternoon service, the afternoon service being somewhat more like an interactive discussion that a formal sermon [though sometimes I as pastor break that rule a little]. After that service, our day is finished, and a Spanish-speaking Baptist church uses our building in the evening for their services.

In that way, it frees me up to attend other churches on Sunday evening, so that I and a wonderful brother have been visiting various congregations to see what is really happening and what is being preached in and around our area. At this point we are not discriminating at all, but going to just about anything that strikes our fancy each week. We have, though, gone to a goodly number of Baptist churches, since we are Baptists ourselves and desire to have fellowship with those Baptist brothers that are of "like precious faith." It was to be a most enlightening experience, because as a preacher who loathes being away from my pulpit, I had not had opportunity to visit and hear other men preach except for an occasional conference or visit with a pastor friend, in which I was often asked to preach in the pastor's stead.

My people had told me that I was going to be surprised, for many of them had come from out of churches in the community and they reported things that I simply did not believe. So I went with a sense of discovery, really, and with the hopes that I could identify those with whom I might wish to establish closer relations. The reality was to be like a roadside IED to me. I was, figuratively speaking, blown completely away.

The state of affairs in the churches in our area are so devastatingly disastrous as to cause me to suffer a kind of spiritual depression. Suffice it to say that in one thriving "Christian" church which was highlighted in the Grand Rapids Press for its uniqueness and attraction to thousands of people every time they opened their doors, my Christian brother and I listened intently to every word spoken for nearly two hours, seeking to know the message that was being taught in what could only be termed a dramatic role-play skit. We also experienced the music, the prayers and all the related activities of the "worship" service. But here is the kicker: Never once did we see or hear the name of Jesus Christ!

I am not kidding. Not in the music lyrics projected on large screens, for it seemed that songs were chosen especially because they did *not* have the name Jesus Christ in them. Other songs were projected and sung, but they were contemporary lyrics and did not once mention the name of Jesus Christ. Even the prayers did not use the name but were finished with the phrase "In your son's name, Amen." That is forgivable, I suppose, but in the context of a "Christian" service where it was apparent that the name of Jesus Christ was being carefully avoided, that phrase slapped me across the face, as it were. I was flabbergasted, to say the least. There were several thousand people present, and my heart sank that not one of them had any concerns that the name of our dear Savior and Lord was not spoken one time by the leaders of the services.

Mind you, I am not a raving fundamentalist rabid dog who gets bent out of shape over anything that he does not believe or practice. I am theologically conservative, as I am a Calvinist of the 5-point sort. But I am not at all opposed to contemporary music that honors God and our Lord Jesus Christ with its lyrics and arrangement. But never in my Christian life did I imagine that I would attend a so-called "church" with the name Christian that would blush rather than use the name Jesus Christ. In a way, I am still, months later, reeling from this experience. And I haven't even yet spoken about my experience in some Baptist churches, in which the experience was only slightly, and I do mean slightly, better. Devastating. Maddening. Irritating. Pure soul-rotting stuff that needs to be condemned, not encouraged.

So I am determined in the days ahead to use this blog to expose, rebuke, admonish, teach, preach, and whatever else it may take to begin to oppose this awful downgrade of the Christian faith in our area. I suspect that the situation is the same, really, all over. But I must address that which I see, hear and experience, and that means that I must limit myself to local issues, primarily. I do think that our discussions here may have wider implications, however, and may be of some help to others who are of like mind with us.

I do not come with a mean spirit at this task. Indeed, I invoke the Spirit of God to grant me a stable and peaceful mind in accomplishing the task at hand. But because I am known to practice X-Christianity, I doubt that I will be mealy-mouthed about anything. It is just not my character - nor my calling.

I cannot help but connect our current state of affairs with that which C.H. Spurgeon warned of more than 110 years ago. He warned of a great "downgrade" in the Baptist ranks in England and especially London. I believe that he was spot on with that prediction, and we have just come out of an entire century of continuous downgrade among the Baptists. I am sick at heart because of it, and find myself somewhat alone in my sentiments here in Holland. Perhaps the blog can produce some spiritual support in our efforts to put an end to the downgrade by the vigorous and vital proclamation of the truth of God's grace and sovereignty. Perhaps God will grant us success if we are faithful to seek Him in all things and reverse the awful erosion of faith in our area. It is providential, it seems, that only recently our church changed its name from Grace Baptist Church to Spurgeon Heritage Church. The reason for that change is that we see ourselves as standing in the line with that great "Prince of Preachers" against the degradation of the Gospel and the Baptist denomination.

Later, I will share with the readers some personal notes from my own Fundamentalist Baptist background, for my Fundamentalist credentials are probably better than most of the Fundamentalists that I have heard and seen in this area. But that is for another time. For now, I hope only to begin the process of reformation, as we often sign our communications with the reformation era cry of "semper reformanda" - always reforming. It is high time.

Vic