What happens, of course, is that people have to alter the truth about God Himself, invent a new god, who does accept their fictitious world, and inhabits that world in their imaginations. He's fine with them. The problem is, it's not Him, this one they've made up. The one judging their fictitious world is a false God. At some point this all breaks down into false worship, because they are not worshiping the one and true God. There is no such thing as a brain in a vat, but they are living like they are brains in vats, projecting on this world the one in which they live, which doesn't happen to be the one in which they live. They're only living it in their brain.
From the perspective of the world, there is the world of engineering that builds bridges and skyscrapers according to certain laws that it cannot transgress without consequences. Then there is the world of their own morality that can infringe many other natural laws that are as concrete and inviolable as the laws of physics adjudicating the construction of infrastructure. However anyone argues, he is assuming laws of logic that exist to the same degree that man is separated from God because of his sin. There are not two worlds, but the world lives like there are.
I've been thinking of this two world thought for awhile, but what brought it to my mind is especially when I have seen it all over in evangelicalism and in fundamentalism. Let me give you an example that I observed recently. A segment of evangelicalism says they believe in complementarianism and eschew egalitarianism. They write books about it. I would like to take them at their word in those instances. I'm very happy that they would want to support in writing male headship of a home and distinct roles for the man and the woman.
Sometimes in the real world, the only world, male headship does clash with evangelical church growth philosophy or technique. Other times it contradicts their views of the church and of unity. To make this all work with everything they might want to allow, they right on the spot spontaneously invent their own version of complementarianism that looks just like egalitarianism.
There is a fairly conservative, evangelical Christian talk show host(ess), Janet Mefferd, who got more famous at one time when she attacked the cussing former pastor, Mark Driscoll, because of plagiarism in one of his books among other things. She got big time support for her putting it to Driscoll again and again. Several conservative evangelicals fawn over her pounding of Driscoll and treat her like fans for this kind of application of her gender role. It's not intended for a woman, but she gets a pass because of her position. Is this right or even appropriate?
Driscoll deserves negative exposure and repudiation, but do complementarians support this being done by a woman? Do we need a woman to do it? Should a women be encouraged to do it or even be placed in a position to do it? How can an evangelical support complementarianism on the one hand and then cheer her role reversing behavior on the other? This occurs again and again in evangelicalism, because they have capitulated to their own world, even conservative ones. Conservatism itself has chosen to do this too. Rejecting two worlds is at the heart of conservatism, but yet accepting various editions of world has begun to characterize it.
The encouragement of egalitarianism is a small example that is very much on the ground that anyone can see day by day. Conservative evangelical men, who say they are complementarian, essentially act egalitarian or encourage it. They are supposed to be giving a clear presentation of the only world, God's world, to everyone, and yet they don't because they have sunk to the fantasy, the fictitious. The real world isn't egalitarian even if real people construct that fiction in their fake worlds. Same sex marriage is a mirage. They swear it. That's true too. One egalitarian mirage should not accompany another though if we live in just one world. And yet, they give in again and again, this just an example.
The above type of exposure I make of the two world lie brings upon me the wrath and disdain of conservative evangelicals, as seen in this tweet by Phil Johnson, giving his best evidence against it.
@DrOakley1689 Bob Wilkin and Kent Brandenburg in the same week? It’s your own personal purgatory.— ٩(ಠ益ಠ)۶ uosuɥoſ lᴉɥԀ (@Phil_Johnson_) August 13, 2015
I'm not a thing like Bob Wilkin, who preaches a false gospel in my opinion. He is living in his own world. However, Phil Johnson must live in mine, because it is the only one. He can't defend his view of the world, so he just mocks me in order to poison the well. That is enough proof for his adherents. Phil Johnson never gives me biblical reasons why he opposes the things I preach that he denies. He just calls names. This reveals the level of desperation in keeping the bridge from the only world that exists to the fantasy one he has erected in his own mind to justify its existence. You're in trouble if you even point it out. It isn't real trouble though. It couldn't be, because it's only trouble in their fantasy world, not in the real world that God created.
I would like add another example for those who are reading here. I'm right now watching the google hangout as part of the Ligonier, R. C. Sproul work, with John MacArthur. There is so much for which I'm thankful with John MacArthur. So much of what he says is good and right. You'll hear much helpful. I wish people would recognize that I say that. Very few people even in fundamentalism are as strong as him. However, the host there asked about his relationship with R. C. Sproul.
MacArthur answered that Ligonier and Sproul invited him to a conference many years ago even though he was a premillennialist and they were so kind to him. Later he talked about lying about choosing a president and figuring which is the best liar between them. This is confusing to people, because isn't amillennialism a lie that peverts a third of God's holy Word? What about the lie of infant sprinkling that might be the lie that has condemned more people to hell than any other lie? If you don't care about the lie of amillennialism and the lie of infant sprinkling and you justify it with your fellowship, your communion, then what is lying?
Bruce Jenner is a liar, but is that a worse lie than amillennialism? I understand that Ligonier says better things overall than Jenner would, but accepting other lies as almost commendable, at least acceptable. You can preach against both, but can you fellowship with one of them? Why? This is where there are two worlds again -- the amillennial world and the premillennial world, the credo-baptism world and the paedo-baptism world. This accommodation to two worlds influences and prepares people for the two worlds. People just assume then that truth is relative and whatever world you want to live in is fine.
More to Come