Reductio Ad Absurdum: Conservative Evangelicalism Meets the Doctrine of Separation pt. 2

This is part two of a series.  It would be helpful to read part one if you haven't already.

*********************

Usually people who want to correct someone on a practice first know and observe and teach what is the right practice.   For instance, if you wanted to correct someone about a wrong kind of separation, you would first know and observe and teach a right kind of separation.  People who never talk about separation to begin with shouldn't be the ones who are correcting anyone about wrong separation.  You don't want the sequoia beam of no-separation in your eye, blinding you from the proper discernment about the toothpick of hyper-separationism.

If there is a hyper-separationism that is wrong, one would assume that there is a separationism that is right.  The hyper-separation would be some kind of abuse of biblical separation, which really does exist. However, if you don't teach or practice separation, shouldn't you first be concerned about no-separationism?  For instance, if we had someone who never brushed his teeth, he wouldn't have much room for criticizing the way someone else did brush his teeth.  You've really got to do some teeth brushing to be enough of an expert to know what bad teeth brushing is.

Let's put the separationism doctrine or topic into the realm of dish washing.  Someone may think that you hyper-wash your dishes.  The critics are not washing their dishes, but that doesn't stop them from both thinking they know all about dish washing and then going ahead and criticizing actual dish washing.  I've seen those in the real world.  They wander into the kitchen where people are actually washing dishes.  They haven't washed any, but they have lots of opinions about how dishes are supposed to be washed.  And then let's say you've got a whole convention of non-dishwashers involved in rebuking the way others wash dishes.  I could see how that people who don't like to wash dishes could enjoy the criticism of dishwashing.

You see, you don't have a whole, huge load of separatists out there.  Separatists are really in the minority in the country and the world.  It's not popular to be a separatist.  So, when you are criticizing this major problem of hyper-separationism, it's hard to know who you are really directing that towards.  Is there really some major movement toward hyper-separationism today?  Separation of all kinds is becoming fast extinct because it's hard to do, kind of like love and mercy were hard for the Pharisees, so they stopped doing those. The criticism of types of separation seems to be on the side of getting rid of it all, especially from those who never, ever lay out a doctrine of separation in a positive way.  The no-separationists would like to stand as the chief hyper-critics of how people practice separation.  Typical, huh?

Toleration of everything is in the vast majority today.  Mostly people want everyone to tolerate them.   In their discernment conference, Todd Friel and Phil Johnson want to teach discernment by pointing out the errors of others.  They don't think error should be tolerated.  They think that their intolerance should be respected.  It's their intolerance.  It's got to be the good kind, since it's theirs.  They want tolerance of their intolerance and tolerance, their perfect balance between the two.  Not tolerating them, and then separating from them, would be hyper-separationism.  Of course.

Usually separationists are doing a little more than pointing out error.  Separationists are, of course, also separating over unrepentant error out of obedience to Scripture.  Friel and Johnson never teach separation, however.  They just teach against hyper-separation.  Separation is in the Bible.  They don't teach about that. They teach against hyper-separation, and never indicate what or where the warning is against that in the Bible.

And then we begin to consider this problem of hyper-separationism.  It's a little like the concern over micro-chips in my cheerios or breathing in from the clouds of nanites that the government has released for purposes of brain control.  All of that really could be a problem if it really were a problem.  But is it?  This is where the absurdity of their illustration comes in, and it shows that they need to spend some time breaking down what the Bible says about actual separation, before they move into abuses of it.  There are abuses of separation.  There are.  But that really is not the major problem related to separation today.  The major problem about separation is that people are not separating.  They're tolerating too much.  And then rather than separating, they're doing like Friel and Johnson say is best---make incessant speeches and hold conferences about the error.

Let's hit some of the problems with their presentation.

First, you don't separate from someone because you don't like them.  That really is a ridiculous assertion.  Friel and Johnson talk about that again and again, really misrepresenting the doctrine of separation with that claim.  "You know, when someone separates from you, it's because they don't like you, so, um, don't be concerned about it."  Separation is motivated by love, first love for God, and then love for the one from whom you are separating.  That would have been a good thing to communicate by the two.  That's how discernment really does work.  You follow the Bible in decision making.  Friel and Johnson represented separation as an act that was done because you didn't like someone.  That bad misrepresentation will hurt the discernment of the audience to whom they are speaking.

The one who separates according to Scripture actually loves the person more whom he separates from than the person who won't separate.  And truly the one who won't separate isn't loving at all.  It's like a parent who will or will not spank his child.  The non-spanking parent doesn't love the child more because he gives him incessant speeches about what he's doing wrong.  I really do think that especially Johnson knows that, which, of course, makes their presentation a deceitful one.   Johnson knows what Scripture says.  He does.  He's not ignorant.  And for that reason, and I hate to say it, because I don't dislike Phil, but I believe he's lying about it.  Again, he's not ignorant.  Unfortunately, it's a type of lying that is pandering to an audience that doesn't want to separate, so they are eager to hear a tortured exaggeration of how it's practiced.  They can pocket that built in excuse for disobeying the biblical teaching of separation.  Todd and Phil gave them their own excuse for disobedience.

Second, when someone is unrepentant for an unbiblical practice, the biblical way of dealing with that is not what Johnson said:  "you're never going to hear the end of it from me."  That got a big laugh from the audience, and never ending speeches might sound like a tough thing to do, but it is not what the Bible teaches.  You do talk to someone at the beginning of the process.  Separation is the difficult thing to do.  If someone won't obey the Bible, you don't continue with speeches, attempting to persuade the person to no end.  The speeches are supposed to come to an end when the unrepentant will not hear.  Jesus didn't continue dealing with people who wouldn't hear.  He said not to cast pearls before pigs.  He would leave a town that didn't heed His message.  And He removes His candlestick from the church which would not repent.  Friel and Johnson hurt biblical discernment with their instruction.

Third, you do separate from someone who won't separate.  Separation itself is a command.   Not obeying the command to separate is a sin.  Friel and Johnson attempt to evade this simple point with the absurd.  "If you don't like McGillicuddy and Franzen won't separate from him, then you separate from Franzen, and if Johanson won't separate from Franzen who won't separate from McGillicuddy, then you separate from Johanson, etc."  And what's the point of all of this?  Not to separate.  It's to encourage more speech-making and discourage separating.  But separating is what Scripture teaches.  Friel and Johnson never make that point.  This is a con job.  It's  a red herring.  It's a smokescreen.  It's a straw man.  Yes.  All of those.

You like McGillicuddy.  He's disobeyed the Bible and won't repent.  You like him so much that you separate from him.  Franzen keeps fellowshiping with a disobedient brother.  If he won't practice separation, then he is indifferent to McGillicuddy's disobedience.  He's now an accessory to his evil deed.  What Friel calls hyper-separationism is what some have termed "secondary separation," a pejorative Friel and Johnson attempt to discredit by turning it into the absurd with third, fourth, fifth, and sixth degree separation.  We should act in faith and obey the Bible.  Separation should be practiced.  Their hypothetical doesn't stand as an actual reason to disobey the teaching to separate.  Reducing separation to this absurdity is a common fallacious argument against separation.

Fourth, irrelevance is not a valid argument against separation.  In essence, Friel and Johnson say that "in about 10 years, we will have a wonderful church of one"  if we separate.  This is in truth an argument from relevance.  It is a pragmatic argument.  Who cares if you get down to one?   The world got down to one family with Noah.  Paul said he got down to one Timothy who was like-minded with him.  Here you see the obsession with numbers for evangelicals.  They're like Jack Hyles in that way, arguing for whatever he did by how many people showed up.  Of course you'll have more people if you don't separate.  Duh.

Separatists don't actually get down to "one."  I have fellowship with a lot of men who believe as our church does and practices separation like our church does.   It's probably not a big enough group for Friel and Johnson.  It wouldn't probably suit their purposes.  But even if we did get down to "one," it's not a good argument.  You don't develop discernment by using pragmatism as a basis for what you do.  "If you don't want to work yourself down to one person, then you better not practice separation."  What biblical basis do we have for that mattering?  We don't have one.  It's discernment ruination coming at a discernment conference, so that a crowd can avoid some problem that they'll call "hyper-separationism."  And this coming from no-separationists.

To Be Continued

Reductio Ad Absurdum: Conservative Evangelicalism Meets the Doctrine of Separation

Evangelicals don't preach or teach separation, even the conservative ones.  You will not usually hear them ever talking about it, except when briefly mocking or disdaining fundamentalists.  They normally act as though separation isn't in Scripture, even though it is everywhere and also proceeds from the attribute of God's holiness.

Now and then, very rarely, as I have recounted here, you'll hear the term "separation" slip out of a conservative evangelical that isn't scoffing of separatists.  Most conservative evangelicals at least, and especially, would consider themselves to be expositors and exegetes.   Many present themselves as models of strict adherence to the text of Scripture.

With all of the above in mind, I bring you a rare occurrence of a public treatment of separation by a conservative evangelical.  I say the word "treatment," and that's very kind to the point of being inaccurate.  I used "treatment" because it was a generic enough.   These guys are really serious about this---they think they are doing a very good job at breaking separation down.

 Well, first let me take you into the situation, so you know what I'm talking about.  We have a conservative evangelical parachurch guy, Todd Friel, who does a talk show called Wretched Radio (don't ask me to explain, but there is a long explanation).  He decides to have a series of conferences in different locations on discernment and he likes to invite Phil Johnson to be one of the keynote speakers.  Friel's main qualification for these conferences is that he's got a radio show that people know about, and kind of a zany personality.  So at one of these discernment conferences, Friel starts riffing on a subject, totally and obviously extemporaneously, perhaps like he does some of his radio bits, which some folks find entertaining and maybe a little edifying.   There is a high danger of shallow and superficial with this approach, which unfortunately is about exactly how many like it.  In the midst of his talk, Friel spontaneously calls up Phil Johnson to join him in a talk show style dealing with the latest "discernment" interest.  It is a kind of weird scene, because Friel is behind a pulpit in a church auditorium and Johnson is standing way off to the side like at any time he's about ready to walk off the platform, but he doesn't.  He stays there yakking impromptu at the edge of the step for a long time about whatever seems to come into Friel's mind.

You can see all of this now on youtube.  It wasn't purposefully videoed, but somebody lifted up his cell camera to record the exchange.  It's that quality.  But Johnson was proud enough of it to post it on his blog and then later someone at SharpIron made reference to it as important material about separation.  I'm going to post the video and then the transcript of the appropriate conversation about separation, which occurs between 32:59 and 37:19, if you want to skip the rest of it.

Friel: To help us out here. Uh. Here is. Um. This is the elephant room. Alright? And you’ve decided that the elephant room is a bad idea. Alright? Bad idea, you’ve made your determination, your discernment says this is a bad idea. I would not do this. I don’t think other people should do it. But there are some people that you know and love that maybe live with, who either are going to be speaking at it or they like the idea. OK. I know what I’ve done with this. Phil, what, OK. ‘I like the elephant room conference.’ 

Johnson: Yah, I like you Todd. And, and I’m not going to break fellowship with you over that, but you’re not going to hear the end of it from me. I’m going to continue to try to persuade you that the elephant room is a bad idea.

Friel: Alright. Alright. Am I the same as the elephant room people?

Johnson: No!

Friel: Do I believe everything that the elephant room people believe?

Johnson: No!

Friel: OK. So this gets into another fundamentalist issue, which is hyper-separationism.

Johnson: Right.

Friel: We want to be careful that we don’t fall into the same error….

Johnson: Yah, Right.

Friel: ….that they fell into, which is anybody who maybe disagrees with me…

Johnson: And that’s what I meant. I can, I can dislike the elephant room without disliking you, for liking it.

Friel: Right!

Johnson: But that, the fact that I like you doesn’t mean I have to shut up and, and stop trying to persuade you that this is a bad idea and your thinking on it is all wrong.

Friel: And this is, this is not a joke. This is exceedingly practical, and we could cite many examples off the top of our head, because this is an observitable fact about hyper-separationism. OK. Bad. You’ve determined, bad. I like it, therefore, now I am bad. Phil likes me, now Phil is bad. John MacArthur likes Phil, so John MacArthur is now bad. Anybody that you meet who listens to John MacArthur, who likes Phil Johnson, who likes Todd, who likes the elephant room. They’re all bad. And in about 10 years, we will have a wonderful church of one.

Johnson: Ya know, with twitter it probably won’t even take ten years.

Friel: Well, yah, that’s very true.

Johnson: Might, might have it in three.

Friel: That is hyper separationism. And this is a true, this is a, this is a hard one for those of us who are kinda bull headed, I’m, in right in the camp. And we like it clear and we like clean. But this is a true mark of Christian maturity to discern the difference of issues. What is…this decision to do this. Now, if I then say, oh, by the way, oh, and there’s another thing Phil. ‘And, and, I agree with T. D. Jakes, and I like modalism too.’ Does that change the picture?

Johnson: Yah.

Friel: Yah, suddenly.

Johnson: Yah, it sure does.

Friel: Now wait a second, that’s different than saying I like this idea of inviting a modalist to a conference to figure it out. To you hear the big difference. Think about how this plays out in your life and in your church, cause it most certainly does, or people that you listen to or follow or read. The pastor who quotes, uh, N. T. Wright. And you go, ‘what, what, pastor quoted N. T. Wright. N.T. Wright with the new perspectives, he’s terrible.’ Therefore, now the pastor is terrible, anybody who goes to that church is terrible. And you leave. That’s how quickly it can happen. Because the pastor quoted N.T. Wright, you don’t know where he stands with N. T. Wright. You just don’t know. OK. And let’s just say, that it’s a, his new perspective is kind of a difficult thing anyway. It’s a kind of a hash and mash and trash. It’s almost like the federal vision. It’s all complicated and messy. And the guy goes, ‘Well, ya know, I kind of, I’m not exactly sure.’ This guy is not embracing something that is heretical. This guy does not get connected with the person that he simply doesn’t throw out the back door. This separation issue is huge. Dude, you and I were talking about it. I’m kinda thinkin about us right now and the conversation that, that we had a little bit. Um, we’re kinda going through one of those right now. By saying something or even liking somebody who’s made a different decision, not a theological position, a different decision than you, doesn’t make the whole chain fall down for you. Is that fair enough?

Johnson: Yah.

Friel: You’re not going to add a thing to that?

Johnson: No.

Notice that at one point Friel says to the crowd, "This is not a joke."  His exact words.  He felt the need to say that.  And I can understand, because it really is a joke.  It is absurd.   Friel had to announce that it wasn't a joke, because there was the threat that someone would think it was, because it was so absurd.  The whole thing between he and Johnson is taking a serious subject and turning it into a Saturday Night Live type sketch.  They make a caricature of separation that morphs into some Picasso-like distortion. And then Johnson is proud enough of it that he posts it for everyone to see.  You would think that he would want to remove it from the world wide web, so as not to be an embarrassment.  These two reduce the doctrine of separation to something that is absurd.  They never ever do tell you what separation is.  They never use one verse of Scripture or refer to the Bible one time about it.  No 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.  No 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.  No 1 Timothy 6:3-5.  No Romans 16:17-18.  No 1 Corinthians 5.  People may or may not be hearing from God's Word, but you wouldn't know because they don't mention it at all.  If someone is to bring glory to God, when He speaks, it should be the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:11).  This is supposed to be a conference on discernment that talks about a subject without one reference to Scripture.   You don't have discernment without the Bible.

What Friel wants his attendees to have discernment about is what he calls "hyper-separationism."  That is a new term on the scene that does not find precedent in historic theology.

I'll break down the above transcript in part two, so stay tuned.

Why Would Rock Music Be Permissible But a Rock Concert Is Horrible?

What do you think of this paragraph?

Is there anything more demonic, is there anything more ungodly, is there anything more raw, is there anything more lustful, is there anything more drunken than a rock concert? I mean, it’s a horrible thing. It’s a horrible thing. And yet they try and reproduce it in the church. True believers…I don’t know how true believers who came out of that background could experience all the same stuff and not have their conscience wracked because it’s that that they have been delivered from. And I’m not talking about the style of music, I’m talking about the whole created experience. It’s endeavored to be mimicked.

A lot of it sounds good, but there is a major contradiction in here that I can't wrap my brain around.  Nothing is more demonic, ungodly, raw, and lustful than a rock concert, and yet he's "not talking about the style of music," just "about the whole created experience."  We move from total clarity about the concert to major ambiguity about the music.  What is wrong with the rock concert if the rock music is fine?  The rock music has nothing to do with the bad stuff that occurs at the rock concert?  If rock music itself isn't bad, then we really can't describe  all rock concerts as all of those things, can we?  If rock concerts are so pinning the needle on bad---they're horrible things---how can rock music itself be left untouched in the critique?  Of course, you don't want to offend the large percentage of your crowd that listens to rock music.  They also go to concerts, but that's OK, a long as that horrible stuff isn't brought into the church, which it will be because of the majority of people who listen to it.

The above quote is an example of the compromise and softness of evangelicalism, even by conservatives.  And only evangelicals, it seems, could get away with this kind of contradiction.  The people won't question the contradiction, because he has left the playlist on their i-pod intact.  He makes a surgically precise strike against the concert event, while leaving the music unscathed.   It was in a sermon by the leading conservative evangelical in the world, John MacArthur, in a sermon against drinking alcoholic beverage, which was part two of a two part series against drinking alcohol (part one).

I was listening to MacArthur's dealing with alcohol because alcohol is now acceptable even among many fundamentalists.  I wanted to hear if he took a one wine or two wine position.  He doesn't even use "two wine" or "one wine" terminology, but his preaching is obviously "two wine."  MacArthur preaches a "two wine" approach.  He preaches that there is wine in the Bible that won't get you drunk and then there is wine in Scripture that will get you drunk.  He's not as strong about it as I would be, but he really does strike down all drinking of alcohol and supports prohibition.  His weakness, in my opinion, comes from a desire not to separate himself from the alcohol drinking evangelicals and fundamentalists.  Don't get me wrong.  He's strong, but there is this wiggle room that is allowed, that could not possibly be allowed if what he's saying is true.

But back to the subject of the rock concert and the rock music.  Everything that he said about the concert could be said about the music.  The concert is what it is because of the music.  Those things are wrong.

I know that MacArthur's church by his own account took a flying leap forward at the time of the injection of the Jesus' movement into his church.  He called this a true revival. And a major part of the Jesus' movement was rock music.  Men grew their hair long and a bunch of hippies sang the rock music, except now with "Christian words."  This is when rock music came into churches.  This is why rock concerts are part of evangelicalism.

You've heard, "it's the economy, stupid."  Well, when it comes to the rock concerts, it's the music, stupid.  What kind of rock concert would you have without rock music?  A concert isn't wrong because it is a concert.  It's isn't wrong because it's an event.  A concert is wrong because of what type of concert it is, and in this case, a rock concert.  The music itself is perverted.

Contraception, Sandra Fluke, and the Rush Limbaugh Controversy

I recognize that this will be bumping Thomas' post after only a day, but it's below and you should read it too.  You really can read that and this.  However, I didn't want to bump my post on Monday, because it's something I've been thinking about (haven't written yet), and didn't want to wait to write that one.

*****************

Alright, first the disclaimers.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  I'm working when he's on, to start.  Second, I'm already conservative, know the Constitution, and so I don't need him to tell me what to think.  So he's not interesting to me.  Last, he's sacrilegious to the point of discomfort to me.  He's blasphemous many times, so he's hard to justify.  His recent appearance in the mainstream media got my attention, and I'm writing this about a consideration of the flap.

Most of what I read centered on the words "prostitute" and "slut."  Just reporting.  Limbaugh called a young Georgetown law student those two names on his radio show.  Hmmm.  That seemed strange to me, just sort of unacceptable.  Very odd.  So I dug a little bit, and I do mean a little.  It didn't take much.  This is a media created event, I discovered.  It's obviously not actually about the name-calling.  It's about women's votes for the 2012 Presidential election.  Distraction from rising gas prices.

I guess I hadn't kept up with how important it was to women in America to get free contraception, but obviously the Democrat party knew that when they decided to cross the Roman Catholic religion, probably after doing an internal poll of Catholic female voters.  Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke right now look like a gift to the President, which the latter attempted to juice with an empathetic phone call to appreciate her courage.  We'll find out where the politics of it will end.  People have to be expecting that not many will go further below the surface.

Limbaugh is not backing down.  If he's doing so much damage, why wouldn't he make this one disappear?  The critics are saying that his comments indicate what the GOP thinks of women.  They disrespect all of them, ya know.

If the above was all I was writing about, I wouldn't have been motivated to write anything.  Here's the real issue.  Sandra Fluke goes to Georgetown.  Georgetown is a Catholic school.  It seems that the Catholic school insurance, consistent with Catholic doctrine, doesn't pay for contraceptives.

Right here is where I found things I didn't know about how people think or at least fake like they are thinking.  Women are saying, as if this is old news, that contraceptives are part of "women's health."  They need to be supplied because they are part of the health of a woman.  Hence, if Catholics won't pay for contraceptives, even though they are against Catholic doctrine, these Catholic insurers are endangering women's health.  So prevention of pregnancy is the responsibility of an insurance company, not of women.

Stick with me.  Pregnancy is an endangerment to women's health.  If you do not support paying for contraceptives, you are for female unhealthiness.  I had not heard that the government or insurance companies were responsible for preventing women's pregnancies.  I thought women were with the support of fathers and husbands.

I'm not all that sure about the Catholic doctrine regarding contraceptives, and I didn't do the digging necessary there.  However, I considered that 1 Timothy 2 says women are saved through childbearing.  I remembered that God said to replenish the earth.  And then I thought about how that contraceptives taken by unmarried women could encourage premarital sex.

Enter Sandra Fluke again.  Congress wouldn't allow her to testify so Nancy Pelosi organizes a way for her to take up some time with her testimony.  Her courage, her stand for women, that merited a call from the POTUS, was that a single, female law student at a Catholic Georgetown, who had to pay for her own contraceptives, could pay two to three thousand dollars during her stay there in order to prevent pregnancy.  If she wasn't having sexual relations outside of marriage, she wouldn't need to pay any money for contraceptives.  However, since she needed to do that to the tune of 2-3 thousand dollars worth of prevention, she would be required those contraceptives to ensure her health, that is, prevent her pregnancy.

No fluke, her testimony at Congress was about receiving free contraceptives.  She was complaining about not being paid for contraception.  In essence, she was complaining about not being paid to have sex.

Enter Rush Limbaugh again.  Limbaugh thinks, "She is asking Congress to be paid for having sex."  He asks, "Who gets paid to have sex?"  So there we go.  By definition, he sees her as fitting the profile of the words he used.  Is someone who is asking to be paid for having sex a prostitute?  If this goes to court, which I can't imagine it would, it will be interesting to see how this is an unlawful connection to make.

I get why Limbaugh is not backing down.  Should Roman Catholics, who don't even believe in contraception, have to pay for one of their single lady law students to have sex?  Limbaugh went one step further and said that if people are forced to pay for her to do that as much as she wants, shouldn't she be required to provide something to show for it in the way of evidence.  I don't like the idea of any of that, but it really is how absurd everything becomes when we are debating this kind of issue.

It seems that the Roe v. Wade ruling has turned pregnancy into a women's health issue.  By extension, if you have tax payer funded health care, then people are required to pay for contraceptives, many of which, by the way, are truly the cause of infanticide.  Many contraceptives kill the person shortly after conception.  Most people just don't know that.

We're to the point where we are against women if we don't want to pay for contraceptives for single women who are sexually active.  This really does indicate how warped we've become.  And then when a woman argues for that, she gets a congratulatory call from the President of the United States.  He thinks that will help him win an election.

Spirit Baptism--the Historic Baptist View, part 20

Spirit Baptism: Other Alleged References in the Epistles:

Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21[i]

It is very rare for one who recognizes that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to immersion in water and the Lord’s Supper to consider any other references to baptism in the epistles as setting forth the baptism of Holy Ghost.  The natural sense of all the other texts sometimes alleged to refer to Spirit baptism is to the church ordinance of immersion.  The position of the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1802, as quoted extensively above, is still true: “As for sundry other Scriptures, such as Romans 6:3, 4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; Galatians 3:27; they have an evident relation to water baptism, and are no way connected with, nor yet refer to, the work of grace in the heart.”  The only substantive reason typically given to attempt to prove that these passages refer to Spirit baptism is that, were a reference to immersion in water in view, the heresy of baptismal regeneration would allegedly follow.  Having dispelled this notion, and demonstrated the entire compatibility of justification by faith alone with a reference to the church ordinance of baptism in these texts, no reasons remains to deviate from their normal sense as references to immersion. Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; and 1 Peter 3:21 should consequently be analyzed in order, and the entire compatibility of interpreting them as references to immersion in water with justification by faith alone demonstrated.  Indeed, affirming the necessity of considering these texts as references to Spirit baptism, because of a supposedly unavoidable necessity of affirming baptismal regeneration if they are recognized as simple verses about immersion, gives far too much exegetical favor to the baptismal regeneration heresy—indeed, since the simple fact of the matter is that the verses are about immersion in water, not Spirit baptism, employing this argument would in fact go far to establish, rather than refute, baptismal regeneration.[ii]

I am actually not planning to post material on all of these passages here;  one can see them all dealt with in Heaven Only for the Baptized? at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.  I will only deal with Romans 6:3-4, as a representative examination.

Romans 6:3-4

Baptismal regenerationists allege that Romans 6:3-4 teaches that baptism is the literal means through which one is united to Christ.  They argue that spiritual blessings are said to be “in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3), and these verses say that one is “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:3), so until one is baptized he is out of Christ, and through baptism “into” Christ he gets “in” Christ, and so begins to receive spiritual blessing for the first time.  However, an exposition of the passage in its context demonstrates the fallacious nature of this claim.  It also cannot be supported by an analysis of the phrases “into Christ” and “in Christ” found throughout the Bible.  One is “in Christ” at the moment of faith, prior to baptism.

In chapters 1-5 of the book of Romans, Paul clearly explains that the gospel, “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” is “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” that “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” so that “being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:16, 3:28, 4:5, 5:1).  Having explained that sinners are justified by faith alone in these chapters (where the words believe and faith are found almost fifty times, and baptism is never mentioned), in Romans 6-8 Paul begins to explain the implications of justification by faith in the life of the saved individual.  He naturally mentions baptism early in this section of his discourse, since it publicly identifies the saint with the people of God, and is one of the first acts of obedience for the newly regenerate.  Romans 9-11 then surveys God’s relationship to Israel, while chapters 12-16 discuss God’s righteousness at work in the believer’s life.  The greater context of the book of Romans supports the conclusion that baptism, as mentioned in 6:3-4, is not the means through which one is declared just before God, for it appears in a section dealing with the Christian life, not the reconciliation of the lost.  A careful examination of the passage also yields the same conclusion.

Romans 6:1-11 reads as follows:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In v. 1-2, Paul deals with the slander that his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the eternal security of the believer, provides a license to sin;  the enemies of the gospel had affirmed as much (Romans 3:8).  He counters that one who dies to sin[iii] at the time he is justified by faith (as expounded in chapters 1-5, cf. Galatians 2:19-21) and so is now “dead to sin” cannot “live any longer therein” (v. 2).  A dead man is not influenced or affected by the affairs of this life;  its sounds, tastes, pleasures, ambitions, and all else mean nothing to him.  God gives a man a new heart and nature at the moment of regeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17, Hebrews 8:10-12), so that, his “old man” now “crucified” with Christ, he henceforth will “not serve sin” (Romans 6:6).  Paul argues that, since God breaks the dominion of sin over men when they believe, justification by faith leads to a holy life, not lawlessness.  He then reminds his readers that their baptism was a symbol or “likeness” (v. 5) of their death to the old life of sin and resurrection to a new holy life in Christ at the moment when they trusted in Him.  They were “baptized into [Greek eis, “with reference to”][iv]  Jesus Christ,” and so were “baptized into [Greek eis, “with reference to”][v]  his death” (v. 3).  They were “buried with him[vi] by baptism into [Greek eis, “with reference to”] death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so [they] also should walk in newness of life.”  Since Paul taught justification by faith, not baptismal regeneration, he affirmed, as Baptists do today, that baptism is given that men might “walk in newness of life,” not “that men might obtain the remission of past sins.”  Romans 6 never affirms anything of the sort, nor does it state that baptism is the act that makes one dead to sin;  on the contrary, it states baptism is a picture or “likeness” (v. 5) of Christ’s atoning work, which really justifies.  Indeed, baptismal regenerationists must affirm the incongruity that one buries a man in baptism in order to kill him to sin, rather than burying in baptism one who is already dead to sin, as true churches affirm.  One hopes that the advocates of forgiveness through water bury people in order to kill them only when they attempt to prove their views from Romans 6.  When baptismal regenerationists affirm that one dies to sin when one is buried in baptism, the ordinance is no longer a true likeness of Christ’s death (v. 5), for Christ died before He was buried, just as in Baptist baptism one is dead to sin before he is buried beneath the baptismal waters.  Furthermore, v. 5 states that those Biblically baptized (“planted together in the likeness of his death”) “shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”  Since only true believers can be baptized, and all true believers are eternally secure, this certain promise of resurrection with Christ for the Scripturally baptized fits well within the Biblical view of baptism.  However, baptismal regenerationists almost always deny that those they baptize are eternally secure, so the “shall be” guarantee of v. 5 creates a significant problem for them.  Paul’s argument in v. 6-10 also gives no solace to advocates of water salvation; the passage never states that one actually dies to sin in baptism, while the use of the Greek perfect tense to state that one dead “is freed”[vii] from sin (v. 7) buttresses the fact that those so dead will never be alive to sin again, and so are eternally secure.  Finally, v. 11 commands believers to constantly “reckon . . . yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”  The dominion of sin having been shattered when justified by faith, the saints are to count themselves dead indeed to sin as they grow in holiness day by day.  Nothing in Romans six affirms that one gains forgiveness of sin or is literally made dead to sin at the moment of baptism—the passage, on the contrary, invalidates baptismal regeneration.

Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series,  is available by clicking here.

TDR

---

[i] Note that Ephesians 4:5 has been evaluated earlier in the section “Was Spirit baptism a completed historical phenomenon at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, or is it a event that takes place regularly throughout the entire dispensation of grace?”

[ii] Since the author of this paper has demolished the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the book Heaven Only For the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ versus Baptismal Regeneration (est. pub. 2009; currently available at http://thross7.googlepages.com), he sees no reason to rewrite what he has already composed.  The exposition of the passages below is heavily dependent upon what was written in this earlier volume.

[iii]                  apethanomen te hamartiai, second aorist active of apothnesko, “to die.”

[iv] Romans 6:2, apethanomen te hamartia, “are dead to sin” or “died [with reference to] sin,” provides contextual support for a rendering of eis as “with reference to” in Romans 6:3-4, as it is a “dative of reference/respect [with reference to] . . . instead of the word to, supply the phrase with reference to before the dative . . . illustrations [of this use include] . . . Romans 6:2 [and] Romans 6:11” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs. 144-146).

[v] It is noteworthy that the baptismal regenerationists who so vehemently insist upon eis signifying “in order to obtain” in Acts 2:38 (“eis the remission of sins”) cry out for a sense of penetration or literal entry into Christ in Romans 6:3-4, since if the preposition has any other of the ten main senses and twenty-nine subheadings with different senses listed in the Greek lexicon BDAG for its 1,767 appearances in the New Testament, the case for remission of sins through baptism in these passages is obliterated.  Obviously one is not baptized “in order to obtain” Jesus Christ’s death in Romans 6:3-4, for Christ died nearly two thousand years ago and His death is a historical fact that is in no way contingent upon anyone submitting to baptism—therefore the advocates of salvation by baptism argue eis signifies “penetration into” in this passage.  However, in Acts 2:38 one cannot possibly penetrate into the remission of sins, so a meaning of “in order to obtain” remission of sins is insisted upon for eis.  Happily, the defender of justification by faith can appeal to vast numbers of clear, unambiguous passages to support his view, rather than hanging his hope for eternity upon a particular sense of a preposition with a very broad range of meaning in a handful of texts, as the baptismal regenerationist must do.  Note that eis signifying “on account of” or “with reference to” in Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:3-4 makes sense in both passages (Acts 2:38, “be baptized . . . with reference to/on account of the remission of sins,” Romans 6:3-4, “baptized with reference to/on account of Jesus Christ . . . baptized with reference to/on account of his death . . . buried with him by baptism with reference to/on account of his death.”), and certainly fits better with the other passages where the verb baptize is used with eis (e. g., 1 Corinthians 10:2, “baptized unto (eis) Moses” can hardly mean “baptized in order to obtain Moses” or “baptized in order to penetrate into Moses,” but “baptized with reference to Moses.”).

[vi] Note that only immersion pictures death, burial, and resurrection.  If sprinkling and pouring are acceptable pictures of burial, one wonders why the graveyards for denominations that practice “baptism” in these modes are not filled with bodies with a little dirt sprinkled or poured on their heads, rather than completely covered with earth.  It seems that at funerals all know that burial requires immersion, but at baptisms many find a way to deny it.

[vii] Dedikaiotai, Perfect passive indicative, third person singular of dikaioo.  The implication, supported clearly elsewhere in Scripture, is that this “freeing” that took place at a particular time in the past has abiding results;  once justified and freed from sin, one remains so, and will certainly enter eternal glory (Romans 8:30).  “The perfect . . . unites in itself as it were present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of completed action . . . the perfect is both punctiliar and durative” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934, pg. 893).

Applying Holiness part one

If they took a test or quiz on the attributes of God, evangelicals and fundamentalists would list holiness and get that one right.  They know God is holy.  They know the word "holy."  But they either don't understand holiness or they have purposefully twisted it to conform to their churches and lives.  I want to explain.

God's holiness is His uniqueness, His majesty, His separateness, His distinctness.  God is Higher, far above, exalted, and superior.  None are and nothing is like Him.  There is a perfection to His nature that sets Him apart.  God defines every one of His own attributes.  All the transient or communicable attributes are what they are because they separate themselves unto the attributes that are God's.  

Righteousness, for instance, is righteousness because it is of God's righteousness.  Love is love because it is of God's love.  It is only one of those attributes because of its separation unto God.

Whatever is holy is holy because of its proximity to God.  In the Old Testament, ground that Moses walked on was "holy ground," not because of the elements in the dirt, but because it was close to God's special presence.  Moses needed to recognize that holiness by taking off his sandals or kneeling or bowing.  That would be holy response coming from Moses.  Angels in the presence of God use wings to cover their faces in the close proximity to God's throne.  God's name is holy, because it is His name.  For that reason, the name must be respected by using it in a distinct way different than other names.  It can't be taken in vain.

Scripture never tells us how it is that we don't take God's name in vain.  How do we use God's name in a way that is not vain?  We are assumed to know.  It is implied that we will know how not to take God's name in vain.  We know how to use God's name in a special way, in a reverent way.  It is a careful use of the name of a God in the context of a sentence, an appropriate use to His nature and attributes.  We can know what that is.  However, today people don't seem to know that they are taking God's name in vain, not because they can't know it, but because we've stopped caring about the holiness of His name.

All of the attributes of God remain within the realm of His holiness.  They stay separate.  When Jesus became a man, He didn't cease from becoming holy.  This is where many evangelicals and some fundamentalists have tweaked the holiness of God, which isn't a good thing.  A new term has developed---"incarnational."  God condescends, but is still holy, still stays separate, unique, distinct.  Jesus became a man and could still and was holy.  All flesh is not evil.  His was holy.  Incarnation did not mean losing the distinctiveness and the reverence that is God.  Jesus did not come to "relate with us."  He sympathized with us.  But He came to bring us to Him, to make us holy.

If we take on the same ministry as Jesus, we do not become like the world.  We don't try to relate with the world.  We're in the world, but we're not of it.  Our affections are for God, not for the world or the things in the world.  Evangelical and fundamentalists are taking the church to the nature of the world, characterizing the church more like the world.  They see this as or at least behave as if it is what Jesus did.

Distinctions and uniqueness are what make something holy as He is holy.  It isn't reverent or special to have whatever it is that is closely associated with God and His worship to be closer to what the world would do.

I want to illustrate like I have before by using language.  Our language as Christians should be holy.  We should use holy words.  What are those?  Aren't words just letters in a particular order?  Words can be corrupt communication.  And we will know when they are, even though Scripture doesn't tell us what those words are.  We can know when something does not fit the nature of God---His truth, His goodness, His beauty, His purity, His righteousness.  We are to judge those words, so we can judge those words.

Everyone really does understand the distinct nature of even places.  Let's say you and I went to Arlington National cemetery and played frisbee among the tombstones.  What do you think?  Scripture doesn't say it's wrong.  We know it's wrong.  People respect those tombstones. They respect what those people have done, and they know what it is to respect them, to keep that separateness.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists, however, are taking up the frisbee, so to speak, as it relates to the church. Instead of separating unto God, the church has drawn near to the world.  The evangelical churches aren't distinct from the world, not sacred---instead, common and profane.

The evangelical and fundamentalist churches, instead of looking toward God, and what characterizes Him, have looked to men and what characterizes them.  The world should be able to look at the church and see God, rather than the church looking at the world to find out what it looks like.  

For instance, the world wants casual. That's the world, what the world wants, what men want.  That doesn't represent God.  It's not to say that casual is wrong.  That's not the point.  The church is supposed to be holy, however.  And so the church should represent God, not kowtow to the world.  I'm not saying the casual is the worst of it, just representative of it.  Church needs to be special, unique.  That's what the church has thought.  This is a movement toward thinking through all the things that the world is and imitating it for the purposes of relating with the world.  It really is a mentality that isn't depending on God or even looking to God.  It looks desperate.  I use this one example that is probably controversial.  It shouldn't be.  Stop obsessing over image, over whether the world will think it will be comfortable with you.

Church leaders are looking for the edge that will work to make them a success---seminars, conferences, sessions.   Some are looking at the mega churches and what they're doing and thinking they have to do that if they are going to succeed.  I get the gist of that.  It really is a fundamental misunderstanding or perversion of holiness.

The argument, I've heard, from evangelicals is about adding to God's Word---that kind of thing.  Liberty.  Be like 'em to winn'em.  And a whole lot of other newly invented reasons.  They aren't legitimate.  It's all sad.  Centuries of biblical thinking overturned.  God hasn't changed, but with the times churches and their leaders have.  

The Pharisees to the Left: Little Faith, Weak Minds, Poor Arguments, But With a Loud Fanfare

OK.  I'm going to postpone what I was going to post until at least Wednesday.  This subject has captured my attention.

********************

In Mark 7:13, Jesus said:

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

This could be a bumper sticker for what I'll call "the Pharisees of the left."  The Pharisees didn't just add to the Word of God---they also subtracted from God's Word.  They wished to make "the word of God of none effect," the parts they don't like obeying.  They did that by leaving out mercy and judgment and faith for tithing on little herbs (Matthew 23:23).  They did that with "corban" so that they could abstain from supporting their parents (Mark 7:7-12).  They also attempt to reduce God's laws to a smaller number by ranking doctrines (Mark 12:28).   They did all this to make salvation and sanctification easier, more convenient, and more comfortable on their own.  It is something that you saw the Jesuit monks practice in the medieval period, called casuistry.  It is a form of left-wing legalism.  All of what I'm describing is the bread and butter of liberalism, and now evangelicalism and even much of fundamentalism.

Know this about the left I'm describing.  They have very loud fanfare, but don't let that confuse you.  Their loud fanfare is the cover for their little faith, weak minds, and poor arguments.  They are the strawman in the Wizard of Oz.  They have the diploma, which is the major and perhaps only evidence for their brains.  They are good on fanfare, what is really sounding brass.  It makes a loud noise, but is worthless.   What they are doing is giving away the faith and sabotaging biblical Christianity for their own convenience, just like the Pharisees were doing with the Old Testament and Jeroboam did with worship in Jerusalem. Their organizations and institutions and "success" have become far more important than the truth itself.

I want to concentrate on new evangelicalism or evangelicalism and fundamentalism, because that's where the greatest danger is.

The Pharisees were into their props and instruments of self promotion.  This was their loud fanfare.  They would throw the ashes on their face, wear the phylacteries, put on sad faces, and bruise themselves to make an impression that they were serious for God.  It was so much a show.  With today's left, it goes a different direction.   They embrace a populism with an emphasis on creature comfort, so the left show a faux identification with these.  They make an impression in fitting with an Oprah generation.  Instead of the trappings of first century Judaism, they target a different kind of worldliness.

Let me describe.  Come as you are.  Leadership photo with everyone dressed down.  New emphasis on social causes---the soup lines of the Hollywood elite.  In certain cases, the moussed up hair, soul patch, and brand names that imitate poverty.  Today's noble savage.  Gritty urban or graffiti font on the brochure.  Earnest, whispery, throaty tones in the voice, much like today's soul singers, Alicia Keys or even Justin Bieber (though they wouldn't want to admit the latter).  And then everybody is your pal, like Woody in Toy Story, a friend indeed.  All of this is strategic, the modern fanfare parallel to the Pharisees with their first century Jewish crowd.  But that's not all.

For centuries, Christians believed and obeyed the Scripture, especially in practical matters, a particular way. As the culture has changed, new evangelicalism or evangelicalism and now fundamentalism has changed to conform to the zeitgeist.  This is where they use the Pharisaical tactics to make the Word of God of none effect.  To protect their numbers, their payroll, and other infrastructure for the movement, they give up on distinctions in dress between men and women, modesty, reverent worship music, roles of men and women, cessationism, and more.   They use the same type of reasoning that the religious leaders of Jesus' day did with corban in order to dispose of thousands of years of practice.

In order then to protect what they've got going, the evangelicals and fundamentalists use the same type of tactics that the Pharisees did.  They said Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub.  They've got no proof, but if you keep saying it enough times, a lot of people will believe it.  Their professed evidence that Jesus was with Satan was that Jesus hung out with the obvious friends of Satan, so there you go.  The evangelicals and fundamentalists will call you Amish, say you're irrelevant, have a remnant mentality, you're myopic, you're judgmental, etc., either psychobabble or red herrings.

What's ironic to me with the evangelicals and fundamentalists is their similarities with the Jack Hyles movement, which was all about bells and whistles.  Both major on programs and demographics and incentives and youth culture and business practices.  The former would never want to be associated with the latter, but both use a similar template for church growth.

The evangelicals and the fundamentalists also both have their scribes that are the academic or legal wing of their movement.  For the evangelicals, it is the Evangelical Theological Society and their graduate schools, and for fundamentalists, it is the colleges and seminaries.  Christians since Christ believed in the preservation of Scripture.  This is the historic position.  With that also came certainty and authority.  The faux authority of the evangelicals and fundamentalists is their degrees and papers and self-endorsement and accreditation.   This parallels with the difference between Jesus and the scribes.  Jesus spoke with authority, because His was the Word of God.  The scribes quoted each other.  Why is it true?  Because Rabbi So-and-So says so.  Well, why is he right?  Of course, because Rabbi This-and-That also said he was right.  And plus it has worked!  And who do you have who agrees with you?  You're irrelevant!

Have the above societies of sacredotalism increased faith?  No.  Instead of faith in Scripture, it becomes faith in scholarship.  We were once sure we had all the Words.  Now we're not sure.  We were once sure what Scripture meant.  Now we're not sure.  We were once sure how the Bible applied.  Now we're not sure.  But we're smarter!  We've got the Dan Wallace and James White position to combat the Bart Ehrman position.  Both sides are unsure, but it's a degree of uncertainty.  And because of scholarship, we're told that's how it's got to be.  With that as your foundation, it's simple to see why pragmatism becomes the actual rule for the day.

There is far less holiness.  Children are disobeying their parents.  People are more into material things.   We've got the Bible, but everything is reduced to a syllogism.  This is what evangelicalism and fundamentalism has given us.

Ahhh!  But you've got an argument!  What about the expositors!  There is far more exposition today!  I am thankful for exposition, but exposition has become a medium for allowing worldliness and sin.  Exposition has become the end all.  I expose the Bible.  I preach through books, but you've got to deal with what it says.  The teaching is not a replacement for obedience.  Like the Corinthians, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are puffed up with knowledge.  The Corinthians knew that meat wasn't an idol and that knowledge puffed them up (1 Cor 8:1). They use their "teaching" time to explain away centuries of biblical practices.  The Pharisees taught Scripture.  They used the Bible.  But then they made the Word of God of none effect with what was little more than excuses.  That's what evangelicalism and fundamentalism has gotten us.  The type of exposition that centers on interpretation results in a form of godliness, excused by the ability to parse and conjugate.   The exposition falls short of exposing the lives of the hearers.

The Pharisees of the left require their liberty.  They're better than you because they have a lower standard but you can reach up to their exalted status if you would do the same.  The most godly are less sure and more uncertain.  Uncertainty is humility is authenticity.

Pastors and their churches have no need for evangelicalism or fundamentalism.  You shouldn't be cowered by or influenced by them.  They are one of those ghost cities that majors on infrastructure.  Behind the doors, you won't find much.  Don't be intimidated by their loud fanfare.

Words About My Last Post

I decided to take the last post down.  No one asked me to do that.  I was pressured by no one.  I got no emails asking me to take it down.  I thought it was up long enough and served its purpose, which I was happy to have it do.  I believed removing it deserved an explanation, which I didn't have time to write until now.  I had a post written 3-4 days ago that was going to go up today that needs slight tweaking and then I'll post that in about two hours.  I still agree with the one I wrote here, but I mentioned one name and I didn't want his name permanently emblazoned on the blog.  I gave it 24-48 hours and its gone.  My choice.  No one repented.  No one tried to reconcile.  I would just rather not hit what he did any harder than this.  I'll approach the same subject some time in the future without the personalities.