The Rich Young Ruler: Tell-Tale Passage for Soteriology, Number One

Your take on a few passages in the New Testament will most likely tell where you fall in the spectrum of belief on the required saving response to the gospel message.  I don't believe there is a more important discussion today.  Nothing bothers me more than wrong teachings about salvation, some of which are found in professing evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Nothing matters more to an individual than whether he is ready for eternity or not.  Being deceived about this is the most damaging thing that could occur to a person, far worse than even genocidal murder on a scale of bad.  We don't want to tell someone the wrong thing about salvation.  We've got to get this right.  We know that Jesus and the Apostles were concerned about responses to the saving message, because that is expressed all over the New Testament.  We should be too.

As I considered writing about this, I went back and looked at an email exchange I made with Lou Martuneac in order to purchase his book, In Defense of the Gospel:  Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.  My check was received on August 9, 2011, over a year and a half ago.  I did read through it right away, knowing at some point I would talk about it.  Now is the time.

Not only have I read Lou's book, but I had already read several of John MacArthur's books:  The Gospel According to Jesus, The Gospel According to the Apostles, and Hard to Believe.  A long time ago I read Charles Ryrie's So Great Salvation and Zane Hodge's Absolutely Free.  For that matter, I've also read Lewis Sperry Chafer's related He That Is Spiritual, and Darrell Bock's 1989 review in BibSac.  Furthermore, I waded through what Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson wrote on the subject.  The most help was preaching through the entire New Testament over 25 years and then also exposing specific salvation passages for a year and a half of Sunday mornings several years ago.

My point in starting this series isn't to comment on Lou's book.  I will, but this won't be some type of critique.  I would rather look at what the Bible says about salvation.  Where it applies, I'll bring in In Defense of the Gospel.  Lou has a concern about "lordship salvation," and so do I.  There hasn't been enough consideration on Lordship in fundamentalism and evangelicalism.  Lou seems to think there's too much on it.

From the beginning of Jesus' ministry, He preached, "Repent ye:  for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  You see that in Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 10:7, Luke 10:9, 11, 11:20, and 21:31.  I asked a Hyles-Anderson College student the following question, as I was going door-to-door, two weeks ago:  "When Jesus preached, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," what did He mean?  He didn't know.  I asked him what it meant to repent, and he said, "Ask forgiveness for sins."  You may think I was talking to a theological doofus, but he was actually relatively pretty sharp.  When Jesus said that the kingdom was near or nigh, He was saying that the King had arrived and you're going to have to do something about that.  What is it that someone does with the true King when He arrives?  He receives Him as King.  That's what Jesus preached, that He was King, and He needed to be received if you were to be saved.  That fits in with Psalm 2, by the way.

I believe a key story in the gospels is "the rich young ruler."  We'll focus on the Luke edition in 18:18-30.

The essentially unconverted Jews of Jesus' day thought the kingdom was for them.  It was a given.  Jesus spent much time to dispel that wrong assumption in His preaching as recorded in the middle section of Luke.  The older son, representing religious Israel, was on the outside of the Father's house, and the prodigal younger son on the inside as that parable ended in Luke 15.  The rich man paralleled the religious leaders of Israel and he lift up his eyes in Hell in Luke 16.   Jesus spoke of the kingdom in brutal terms in Luke 17, ending with many as a feast for carnivorous birds.  If we are following along, at the beginning of chapter 18, we would be wanting to be sure that we were in the kingdom, rather than the victims of the slaughter there.

In Luke 18:9, Jesus starts in with example after example, teaching illustration after illustration, to indicate the saving response to the gospel.  He gives very little to no teaching on the work of Christ in salvation in them.  In the first one, He models the publican, who "would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner."  Jesus said He went away justified.  Immediately after that example, Jesus deals with children and those becoming like children entering the kingdom of God.  Human effort or righteousness couldn't be the means of entrance, because children didn't have enough of those.

At the end of chapter 18, after the "certain ruler," we get the blind man (actually two of them in the parallel gospel accounts), who cried out, calling Jesus continuously "the son of David," and had a similar response as the publican with "Lord, have mercy on me."  The beginning of chapter 19 presents Zacchaeus and his response with almost no sense of his doctrinal belief, except that He was going to turn from his old way and follow Jesus, just like the blind man did.  Then in Luke 19, Jesus tells still another story to illustrate the right response.

Tucked in the middle of all this is the account of the "certain ruler."  From the words of this passage in Luke 18, I'm convinced that this ruler of the synagogue, a very religious man, already believed in Jesus Christ to the degree that many would see as sufficient to be saved if they didn't see later that he obviously wasn't. From the parallel accounts, he ran to Jesus and knelt down before Him.  This was all very public.  He called Jesus "Good Master."  The Pharisees didn't believe anyone was good, but God, which is why Jesus asked the question, "Why callest thou me good?" Then He said, "None is good, save one, that is God."  For all that this religious leader had done -- he believed that he had kept all the law from his youth up (v. 21) --  he still was not sure of eternal life.

The Jews believed that life came from God.  If they were to have eternal life, it would come from God, because God was the source of all life.  For him to come to Jesus to receive life, He thought that Jesus had it.  For all that he had done, he still knew he was falling short.  He knew there must be more to do to "inherit eternal life."  He came to Jesus to find out.

The rich young ruler had two problems, and Jesus dealt with both of them in this passage.  His first problem was not understanding His need.  His righteousness was not sufficient to save himself.  He needed to see the desperate condition he was in if he was going to confront his second problem.  Even if he did see his need, that wouldn't assume he was saved.  The ruler was obviously covetous.  Jesus pinpointed that sin.  He was self-righteous.  He was proud.

The second problem related to His reception of Jesus Christ.  He was confessing that Jesus was God and that He was the source of eternal life.  He was confessing that.  Confessing it doesn't mean believing it.  Jesus challenged that confession.  If Jesus was God, He could command.  He listed commandments obviously from God that the young ruler said he had kept from his youth.  Then Jesus focused on one other commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," one He left out of His original list.  He commanded the young ruler:  "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."  There are four commands here, "Sell, distribute, come, and follow."  Jesus ends with "follow me."  This is exactly what Jesus had said in Luke 9:23-26, what Lou would call a "discipleship passage."  Jesus is preaching to a lost Jew  -- why would he talk about discipleship with a lost person (hmmm)?  What he preached to the lost person in Luke 18 is the same that He preached in Luke 9.  This is the response that should be called for in order for someone to be saved.

If you take the name of Jesus out of the equation here, the non-lordship or anti-lordship people would say that this person blew his opportunity with the young ruler.  He was frontloading works.  He was confusing grace.  The young ruler was confessing Jesus was God and could give eternal life.  Alright, if you think I'm God, in essence, Jesus was saying, then you will do what I tell you, and here's what I want.  And Jesus commands him to sell, distribute, come, and follow.  The young ruler wouldn't do that.  Why?  He wasn't desperate enough.  He was too self-righteous.  He was proud.  He wasn't really convinced of Who Jesus was.  He wasn't receiving Jesus as His Lord.  What got between him and Jesus, if he was serious about obtaining eternal life, was his stuff.  He valued his things, his possessions, more than He did the Lord, heaven, the kingdom of God, the King, or obtaining eternal life.

Jesus was expecting total allegiance to Him as a term of salvation.  If the young ruler really did believe Jesus was God, and He believed in God for salvation, then He would do what Jesus told him to do. The young ruler must be willing to do whatever He told Him to do.  This is lordship.  Someone who will not "follow Jesus," does not believe in Him.  He is in rebellion against God.  He will not repent even though the King has come and revealed Himself.

In Luke 18 or any of the parallel passages, Jesus says nothing to the young ruler about substitutionary death or sacrificially shed blood.  The assumption there is that the man already knew that He could obtain eternal life from Jesus.  He wasn't willing, however, to follow Jesus Christ, to do whatever Jesus said.  If you are not willing to do that, then you do not in fact believe in Jesus Christ.  You don't trust in Him.  You are continuing to trust yourself.  You are hanging on to your own life (and your own possessions) for your own sake.  Your life doesn't belong to Jesus, it belongs to yourself.

All of the above is in the context of what is required to get into the kingdom, to have eternal life.  To turn it into a "discipleship" context or a "dedication" context is to rip it from its context, to confuse what is required for salvation.  It is to pervert the gospel.  It diminishes saving faith to the merely intellectual.

Salvation does come from believing in Jesus Christ.  However, He must be the Jesus of the Bible, Who is God and is Lord.  That is a clear implication of the young ruler passage in Luke 18.  The non-lordship or anti-lordship people shrink or depreciate the identity of Jesus.  They make Him more palatable to a worldly audience who wish to keep their lives for themselves, to in essence be saved by a less than scriptural Jesus.  Lots of people want Jesus as Savior.  The rich young ruler wanted eternal life from Jesus, but they don't want Him as a boss.  It's the apostate of 2 Peter 2:1, who denies the Lord who bought him.

Lou gives a whole chapter to the rich young ruler in his book.  He doesn't so much exegete the passage, as he attacks John MacArthur's position.  Lou explains at the end of the chapter why the man wasn't saved.  First, the man thought Jesus was nothing more than "a great and respected teacher" (p. 185).  If he thought Jesus was only that, he wouldn't have called him "Good Master," and thought that Jesus, unlike anyone else, could bring him eternal life.

Second, Lou says that "he believed he could by "good things" (works) earn for himself eternal life" (p. 186).   That's not true.  The rich young ruler believed he had kept all the law since he was a youth and he still didn't think he had obtained eternal life.  That's why he came to Jesus.  This is eisegesis by Lou.  He's just reading into the text.

Third, Lou says "he did not remain with Christ and by faith accept Him as Savior" (p. 186).  The text says nothing about that.  Nothing.  There is nowhere in that text that would have you conclude what Lou says.   The man believed in Jesus as Savior, believed that Jesus could provide him the way of eternal life, or in other words, be saved.  A plain reading of that text would have one conclude that the young ruler left sorrowful because He didn't want to sell, distribute, come, and follow.  He wanted to keep his life for himself, because He didn't believe in Jesus.

The story in Luke 18 provides an example of how Jesus dealt with unbelievers.  If they professed to believe in Him in some fashion or to some degree, He challenged that.  In this case, Jesus manifested the rebellious heart of the young ruler by commanding him to sell, distribute, come, and follow.  Are people saved by selling, distributing, coming, and following?  No.  But if they won't do those, then they don't believe in Jesus Christ.  His willingness to do those would have manifested a true saving faith.  And I say "saving faith," not works.  Those who won't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord are not saved, just like the rich young ruler wasn't saved.

Don't believe it if someone (like Lou) says that what I just explained is adding works to grace.  Salvation is only by grace through faith.  However, the faith must be in Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, not a made up one that makes it more convenient for modern, worldly evangelistic methods.  You want people to be clear about who Jesus is.  If Jesus was in fact the King, which He was, and the rich young ruler believed in Him, He would do whatever He said.  He didn't want to do that because He wanted to hang on to His riches.  And then Jesus goes on to talk about that after having that experience.

I know this is going to sound rough, but Lou perverts the passage and the words and intentions of Jesus Christ.  The man came to Jesus to ask how to obtain eternal life.  Do you think that Jesus was telling him what he needed to know or what?  Look at the little phrase between "sell, distribute" and "come, follow me."    "Thou shalt have treasure in heaven."  If he would "sell, distribute, come, and follow," he would have treasure in heaven.  That's what Jesus said.  Lou would explain away what Jesus said and turn what Jesus said into salvation by works.  No.  The rich young ruler would never believe in Jesus because he loved his possessions too much.  Lou mocks the idea of giving up his possessions to be saved.  "No one has to give up his possessions, does he?"  Jesus said he did.  He has to give up everything.  You can't put Jesus on the shelf with all your other Gods -- He must be alone there -- if you believe in Him.

The rich young ruler presents a major problem for those who wish to hijack the salvation explanations of Jesus and turn them into something more convenient to superficial professions of faith.

More to Come

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 6

In Genesis 15:6, Abraham was counted righteous.  The verb employed[i] specifies that the patriarch was accounted or reckoned as righteous;  the imputation of righteousness, rather than an infusion of righteousness, is in view.  Many texts with the word clearly speak of imputation or accounting,[ii] in many others the idea of making, transforming, or infusing is evidently impossible,[iii] and no passages with the verb in question clearly speak of any kind of infusion.  When Phinehas’ stand for Jehovah and against Baalpeor was reckoned to him as righteousness (Psalm 106:31), the Divine act was certainly an accounting of Phinehas’ act as righteous, rather than infusing goodness into or transforming his act into a good one.  Likewise, when Nehemiah made men treasurers because they were “counted faithful” (Nehemiah 13:13),[iv] the accounting did not make the men faithful or infuse faithfulness into them, but was an accounting that they were indeed faithful men.  Thus, Genesis 15:6 speaks of the legal[v] reckoning of Abraham as righteous.  He was reckoned righteous at the judgment bar of God, rather than in the eyes of men, or in some other way, for Jehovah was the One who accounted the patriarch righteous.  The opposite of a man having righteousness accounted to him, as in Genesis 15:6, is to have iniquity imputed (2 Samuel 19:19).  One who has blood imputed to him is reckoned as being guilty of shedding blood (Leviticus 17:4), while the benefit of sacrificial offering in expiation is imputed when received in the proper manner, but not otherwise (Leviticus 7:18);  by imputation one is reckoned as and treated as the possessor of whatever is imputed.  Thus, when Abraham was reckoned as righteous in Genesis 15:6, his being accounted righteous, rather than his personal acquisition of inward holiness, is in view.  Abraham, and all the righteous from the time of the first announcement of the gospel in Genesis 3:15, acknowledged their need for gratuiously imputed righteousness, and the Divine provision of such in the Messiah, through their offering of animal sacrifices, as ordained by God from the beginning (Genesis 3:20-21; 4:4);  the blessed substitution that merited the imputation of an alien righteousness, historically accomplished on the cross, not salvation by personal merit, was manifestly set forth in the sacrifical types.  Similarly, David records:  “Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity,”[vi] the man to whom, although sinful in himself, righteousness instead of iniquity is Divinely imputed, whose “transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”  This man is he who has received David’s call to all nations to faith in God’s “Son,” for “blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12), even as all are blessed who hope (Psalm 146:5) or trust in Jehovah.[vii]  Thus, “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Romans 4:9)[viii] in a legal or judicial sense. Genesis 15:6 refers solely to an imputed righteousness.  The outward righteousness of those imputed righteous, the outward evidential just character manifested in them, is a consequent that follows from the receipt of imputed righteousness, and faith, not as a meritorious instrument, but because it embraces God and receives all freely from Him, is the root of spiritual life in all the people of God.

The syntax of Psalm 106:31 is very similar to that of Genesis 15:6 in its account of reckoning. Concerning Psalm 106:31, John Gill notes:

And that was counted unto him for righteousness, &c. Not for his justifying righteousness before God; for all the works of righteousness done by the best of men cannot justify them before him, much less a single action: but his executing judgment in the manner he did, or slaying the above two persons, was esteemed a righteous action by the Lord himself; who upon it caused the plague to cease, and likewise gave to Phinehas the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, and to his posterity; whereby the action had eternal honour put upon it, and was sufficiently secured from the calumny of men; who might condemn it as a rash action done by a private person, assuming the office of a public magistrate; and as being a cruel one, not giving the criminals time for repentance. But all this is set aside by the testimony of God himself, approving of it; and so it continues to be esteemed, as it is said it should, unto all generations for evermore: whenever it is spoken of, it is spoken of with commendation, as a righteous action, as expressive of true zeal for the Lord of hosts.

Likewise, Keil & Delitzsch note:

This act of zeal for [Jehovah], which compensated for Israel’s unfaithfulness, was accounted unto [Phinehas] for righteousness, by his being rewarded for it with the priesthood unto everlasting ages, Num. 25:10–13. This accounting of a work for righteousness is only apparently contradictory to Gen. 15:5f.: it was indeed an act which sprang from a constancy in faith [cf. Psalm 106:24], and one which obtained for him the acceptation of a righteous man for the sake of this upon which it was based, by proving him to be such.

Concerning Psalm 106:31 “we should compare for the expression Genesis 15:6, the only passage where it occurs, and for the subject, Deuteronomy 6:25; 24:13 . . . Psalm 24:5.  The language does not refer to the first justification, but to the second, to the good works of one already in a state of grace, by which he obtains from God, who recompenses every one according to his works, a reward of grace, as Phinehas obtained on the present occasion the priesthood for his family, comp. Numbers 25:13” (Comment on Psalm 106:31, Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 3., E. W. Hengstenberg).  That is, Phinehas’ act could only be accounted as righteous because Phinehas’ person had already been accounted righteous through Jehovah’s gratuitous justification;  Phinehas had Christ as his Mediator, as one who sanctified the iniquity that otherwise would corrupt even the holiest actions of believers and prevent them from being acceptable in the sight of Jehovah (Exodus 28:38).

This post is part of the complete study here.

-TDR

---

[i]           bvj.  The complete list of references in the Old Testament is: Genesis 15:6; 31:15; 38:15; 50:20; Exodus 31:4; 35:32; Leviticus 7:18; 17:4; 25:27, 31, 50, 52; 27:18, 23; Numbers 18:27, 30; 23:9; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20; Joshua 13:3; Esther 8:3; 9:24–25; 1 Samuel 1:13; 18:25; 2 Samuel 4:2; 14:13–14; 19:19; 1 Kings 10:21; 2 Kings 12:15; 22:7; 2 Chronicles 2:14; 9:20; Nehemiah 6:2, 6; 13:13; Job 6:26; 13:24; 18:3; 19:11, 15; 33:10; 35:2; 41:27, 29, 32; Psalm 10:2; 21:11; 32:2; 35:4, 20; 36:4; 40:17; 41:7; 44:22; 52:2; 73:16; 77:5; 88:4; 106:31; 119:59; 140:2, 4; 144:3; Proverbs 16:9, 30; 17:28; 24:8; 27:14; Isaiah 2:22; 5:28; 10:7; 13:17; 29:16–17; 32:15; 33:8; 40:15, 17; 53:3–4; Jeremiah 11:19; 18:8, 11, 18; 23:27; 26:3; 29:11; 36:3; 48:2; 49:20, 30; 50:45; Lamentations 2:8; 4:2; Ezekiel 11:2; 38:10; Daniel 11:24–25; Hosea 7:15; 8:12; Amos 6:5; Jonah 1:4; Micah 2:1, 3; Nahum 1:9, 11; Zechariah 7:10; 8:17; Malachi 3:16.

[ii]           Genesis 31:15; Leviticus 7:18; 17:4; Numbers 18:27, 30; Numbers 23:9; 2 Samuel 19:19; 2 Kings 12:15; 22:7; Job 13:24; 18:3; 19:11, 15; 33:10; Psalm 32:2; 106:31; Proverbs 17:28; Isaiah 29:16-17; 32:15; 40:15, 17; Lamentations 4:2.

[iii]          Genesis 38:15; Leviticus 25:27; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20; 1 Samuel 1:13; 18:25; 1 Kings 10:21; 2 Chronicles 9:20; Nehemiah 13:13; Job 13:24; 18:3; 19:11, 15; 33:10; 41:27, 29; Psalm 77:5; 88:4; Proverbs 17:28; Isaiah 13:17; 53:4; Jeremiah 36:3; Hosea 8:12; Zechariah 7:10; 8:17;

[iv]        …wb$DvVj‰n ‹MyˆnDmTa‰n.  Note the use of Nma and bvj.

[v]           cf. Leviticus 7:18; 17:4; 25:31; Numbers 18:27, 30; Joshua 13:3; 2 Samuel 4:2; 2 Samuel 19:19; Psalm 32:2;

[vi]          Psalm 32:2; Romans 4:1-8.

[vii]         Psalm 34:8; 84:12.

[viii]         ∆Elogi÷sqh twˆ◊ ∆Abraa»m hJ pi÷stiß ei˙ß dikaiosu/nhn.

A Modern Perversion of the Temple

This could be a part two to Monday's post that dealt with Shepherd's Conference and Carl Trueman and more.

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

The Lord Jesus entered Jerusalem to great exaltation, as superficial as it might have been.  It was true.  He was King.  He was Lord.  He had a royal agenda.  He rejected the religion of the day.  That night He stayed in Bethany, fully preparing to come back down to Jerusalem the two miles the next morning to cleanse the temple.  The temple had become something other than its intended purpose.

When Jesus was twelve and in the temple, we heard that His purpose was His Father's business, which was in the temple.  Jesus didn't come to attempt to disabuse Israel of Roman dominion.  However, He did go to the temple to cleanse it.  And what was the problem there?

The temple had moved away from its intended purpose, which was worship.  No doubt they had a form of worship.  They had a form, a kind of shell of God's intention.  However, the temple had become a den for those not there to worship.  What went on at the temple was called prayer.  Everything up to prayer was to get to prayer.  All of the sacrifices were to bring people to the point of fellowship with God, but the end was prayer, communion with God.

The way the religious leaders of Jesus' day perverted worship in the temple was not the only way it could be perverted.  It was one of the forms that might replace true worship.  Elijah met another kind on Mt. Carmel with the religious leaders there allowed in the land.  Of course, Moses and Joshua came down from Mt. Sinai and heard and then saw another corrupt form.

The temple today is God's assembly.  Paul says the church at Corinth was God's temple:  ye are the temple of God.  Paul said that the church at Ephesus was the "house of the living God."  Can the sacrifices of the New Testament temple become perverted?  Sure.  Instead of a house of prayer, it becomes a den of entertainment and show and self-gratification and inordinate affection.

We can trace what occurred in history to see how it occurred.  We can go back and see how that the temple in Jerusalem became a den of a different kind.  We go back to the mid 19th century and praise became a new measure.  Popular music, albeit more like carnival or circus music, became the draw of the unbelieving crowd in order to arouse them.  Inserted in place of praise was a new measure.  Forms were chosen that would attract and stimulate.  Whether God was pleased wasn't the consideration.  Men were not sinners who needed cleansing so much as they were sinners who needed kindling or instigation, the right bait, and music, a biblical element could suit that purpose.

You can keep following the path of the above technique or strategy and see how it created a new job set.  Not moneychanging necessarily, but you'll still find money being changed.  The church growth movement brings in the money for the books, the Christian music industry, the hit songs.  It's a new kind of priesthood, the invention of an innovative new position to go with a whole new philosophy in the temple of God.  It has perverted the temple of God.

And now we have rap and rock and grunge in church.  Not only do we have the corruption and perversion, but we've changed the purpose of God's house.  You hear the trap set and you have sensual styles and the blues chords.  The attraction has changed.  And people now think it's the spirit of God.  They defend this stuff like a dog fights for the chow left in the bottom of his bowl.  Don't touch this music.  It's about God, ya know.

The people are now destroyed by this lack of knowledge.  They get to the end, the point of the reconciliation, the death on the cross, and the advocacy, the worship, and they miss that for the bowl of pottage.  We've turned the temple of God into a den.  The defense is similar to what you see at the end of Luke 19, where the religious folk are angry.  They want to keep it going.  It's profitable.  It's successful.  Today it's entertaining.  It replaces true spiritual worship with a feeling of passion that is very much akin to the arousal someone gets at any rock concert.  You put in Christian words, which happens to be blasphemous to God's house and name, and the people think it's the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit doesn't accept that.  He works, but it is more in the way of indignation, like Jesus had.

Have you noticed that Jesus' time in Jerusalem began in His ministry with cleansing the temple and ended with cleansing it?  If we are to be transformed by the face of Jesus in the gospels, should the leadership of today's temple not also be cleansing it?  What particular den has the temple become today?  What corruption has been allowed into the worship?

So here we are.  Who will turn over the tables?  Who will man the whip?

An Irretrievable Irony

Last week, I watched a little of the live stream of the Shepherd's Conference in Southern California.  It was the technically best live streaming I had ever seen, very convenient.  I saw very little because of work and schedule, but I did see a little music, some of a panel discussion, and some of an Albert Mohler sermon.  I downloaded and listened to Phil Johnson's session, while doing electrical work at our house.

My evaluation of the Grace Community Church (GCC) music, which I've always heard is very conservative and hasn't moved from that and is like a fundamentalist church, is not good.  I say that as someone who really wanted to like it.  I wasn't trying to research it.  It was what came on when I had any time to watch the live stream.  What I got to see of it was the rock group that played one morning for several numbers.  I'm not kidding that it was a rock group.  The rock group led the congregational music.  In pictures and on audio, I've seen that group play at a Resolved Conference, where that music was supposed to be exclusively Resolved music, not something that segued to other compartments of GCC.  It was peculiar, when they panned the audience of pastors, to see the pastors "rocking" to that music.  They were "rocking" like at a rock concert, which shouldn't surprise anyone, since it was rock music.  I understand that with certain types of rock music that people "rock" more, but they were definitely "rocking" as part of their "worship."

Without doubt, when "rock" and "worship" come together like they did at the Shepherd's Conference there at GCC, it's akin to, if not synonymous with, the ecstasy of Corinth.  They are confusing the Holy Spirit with the affects of the rock music, like the Corinthians were with their ecstasy.  Believe me.  That swaying is not caused by the Holy Spirit.  All that eye-clenching and wagging of the head is not the Holy Spirit.  It is not religious affection.  It is what Jonathan Edwards called passion.  So GCC is a part of this kind of destruction of discernment, while claiming to be almost headquarters for discernment.

Besides when the rock group played the one morning I watched, the regular evening congregational worship under the leadership of the regular song leader at GCC was conservative:  organ, piano, and orchestra with no rock beat.  The hymns were all old hymns that I saw (and I saw a small percentage).  When they added a soloist, and I saw a woman and a man both sing, they also added the rock rhythm and instrumentation, and the sensuality and entertainment/performance aspects.  This doesn't have to happen with a solo, but the two they chose, they purposefully included these features.

I want to pause for a moment to anticipate those who will use mockery as their argument here.  You can go ahead, but you're wrong.  You should think about what I'm saying, because it's right.

I'm going to get to the irony.  Just bear with me.  Everything so far matters to the discussion.

Most of this is in order, but for a moment, I'm going out of order.  Very recently, someone popular with conservative evangelicals, Carl Trueman, produced with Todd Pruitt an online audio called Birth of the Cool, in which he talked about the importance of being "cool" in evangelicalism today.  In the initial conversation between the two, they took an excursion into their love of rock and roll music, especially the Rolling Stones.  This started their negative assertions about churchmen needing to be cool.  In their banter, they talked about the Rolling Stone mega-hit, Satisfaction, which lyrics refer to sexual frustration, and was controversial when it was first sung because of its sexual content.  I learned of the Trueman audio from a tweet by Scott Aniol of Religious Affections.

As I watched only the beginning of Albert Mohler's sermon, I wiki'ed Mohler and read his bio.  At the beginning of his Shepherd's Conference session, he proclaimed the value of hymn books and the importance of the old hymns.  About that time, I got to the bottom of his wiki bio as I listened and there saw a sermon he had preached, entitled, The Nature of True Beauty, so I clicked on it, and stopped watching the Shepherd's Conference, but listened to that instead.  He had preached it at the Capital Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever is the pastor.  I was amazed by what I heard.  I believe it.  And now I'm ready to talk about irony with you, and what I meant by irretrievable.

Mohler in his sermon in Washington DC inextricably tied together truth, goodness, and beauty.  If you deny or violate beauty, you do it to the other two.  He was placing beauty, in essence orthopathy, on the same level as truth and goodness.  I agree.  Relativistic beauty yields relativistic truth and goodness.  God is One.  You can't give up one without giving up the others.  They are indivisible.  Attack or corruption of beauty is the same upon truth and goodness.  Again, you just can't separate one from the other two.

The irony is found in the GCC emphasis on truth, so much found in John MacArthur's books, especially recently as we've seen truth become an even greater casualty of our culture.  The irony is found in a conference that so professes to protect sheep from error that violates or denies objective beauty.  Carl Trueman introduces a talk about "cool" with an endorsement of the Rolling Stones and Satisfaction.  Scott Aniol tweets it.  Dever advocates rap.  Talking about the Rolling Stones smacks of "cool."  The rock group in the morning of the Shepherd's Conference with its ecstatic disposition and hip appearance:  the eye clenching, the Elton John piano style, the sensuality, the soul patches, the swaying.  Everything means something, but this screamed out a rejection of objective beauty.  By forfeiting beauty, GCC, Trueman, Dever, and unfortunately Mohler, all also forsake truth and goodness.  You've got all these people "fighting for truth," that are undermining truth because of their capitulation on beauty.

I believe Mohler preaches about beauty, because it really is what he thinks.   I suspect that he doesn't see people as with him on it, being supportive of what he's saying, but maybe he'll be able to get something started, work on this incrementally, perhaps like he's tried to change Southern Seminary from liberal to conservative.  Truth and goodness will not come without beauty.  The beauty is actually where the biggest violations are, because it relates to the affections.   Love must in fact be love in love for God, and God must be God.   You can't love God like someone "loves" his girlfriend or even a sirloin steak.  The God of the Bible must be worshiped in His beauty and the denial or ignorance or perversion of His beauty is false and bad, as in not true and not good.

You should be able to see the irony here.  There is so much of it.  The irony is in the protection of sheep by shepherds, the praise of beauty, the decrying of "coolness," and the appeal for truth from people who won't separate the beautiful from the ugly.   God is worshiped in the beauty of His holiness.  Worship of God separates from the mundane, the kitsch, the crass, the worldly, the common, and the profane.  It certainly doesn't make provision for the flesh.  It won't "rock." It is sacred.   It rings of God.   Rock music doesn't do that.  Any Christian hoping to disabuse a people from "cool" will not endorse or like the Rolling Stones.  It's ludicrous.  It says that these are people who are either rebellious or they don't know what they're talking about.

The other option that I can hear from an imagined defender is that no style of music communicates anything inherently moral.  That is not a biblical position or a historic Christian position.  That's what Mohler was preaching against in his beauty sermon.  There is objective beauty and objective ugliness or other non-beautiful qualities in music.  It isn't amoral.  This attack on beauty is an attack on the truth and goodness.  If you don't stand for the one, for beauty, then you don't stand for truth and goodness either.  Don't say that you do.

If you are Albert Mohler, then be clear about this.  Don't say that truth is on par with goodness and beauty, unless you believe it.  And if you believe it, it can't be just lipservice.  Do something about it.

How is it an irretrievable irony?  You can't retrieve truth and goodness without repenting over beauty.  Repentance, complete conversion, is what is needed here.  We don't need half measures.  We don't need hinting sermons, hopeful to plant some sort of seed.  We certainly don't need sarcasm and mockery and marginalizing of the one who is pointing it out, which, it's too bad, is the expectation here.  We need total repudiation that doesn't nibble around the edges.  Truth and goodness are not retrievable without it.

Are Calvinism and the TULIP Dangerous Errors?

I am going to continue my series on "The Just Shall Live by Faith," Lord willing.  I thought, however, that it would be appropriate to take a one-week break and post the following analysis of Calvinism.

In relation to the points of the TULIP of Calvinism, Scripture teaches that man is pervasively and awfully depraved in his entire being before regeneration (Ephesians 2:1-3; Genesis 6:5), and nobody will exercise saving faith without the enablement of grace (John 6:44; Romans 3:11). Nevertheless, prevenient grace is given to all men (John 12:32) to enable them to respond to the gospel positively and receive the gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25; Philippians 1:29) from the Spirit through the Word (Romans 10:17) since God is not willing that any perish (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4).  Personal election to salvation (cf. Romans 16:13) is based upon foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2), which is not synonymous with foreordination.  While there is a special sense in which Christ died for “me” (Galatians 2:20), for the congregation of immersed believers (Ephesians 5:25), and for the elect (Romans 8:32), Scripture plainly states that Christ died for all men (1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:6) including specifically those who are never born again (2 Peter 2:1).  The grace of God is resistible, not irresistible (Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37).  All believers are eternally secure and are preserved by the power of God from both hell and the domination of sin (John 10:27-30), so that no regenerate person ever can be eternally lost (Romans 8:28-39) or, during his earthly life, totally unchanged and exactly like the unregenerate (Ephesians 2:10).

John 12:32 affirms that the Lord Jesus draws “all men” to Himself, employing the same verb for drawing (helko) as that which is employed to state that nobody can come to Christ without being drawn (John 6:44).  The Calvinist contention that John 12:32 should be altered to affirm that Christ draws not “all men,” but “all the elect,” is purely gratuitous.  There is no exegetical or syntactical basis whatsoever for changing the “all men” of John 12:32 to “all the elect,” nor does any similar text with pas provide exegetical support for such an alteration—the Calvinist view of John 12:32 is eisegesis,  not exegesis.  On the other hand, there are sound exegetical reasons for supplying “men” with the “all” in John 12:32 and many other texts with the like syntax—including, it is worthy of note, every related text in John’s gospel (compare John 1:7 & 9; John 2:24 & 2:25; John 3:26 & 27; John 5:23 & 5:21-22; John 11:48 & 12:19; John 13:35 & 17:21; also Luke 9:23 & 25; Acts 21:28 & 22:15; Romans 16:19 & 1:8; Ephesians 3:9 & 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:12 & 5:14-15; 2 Timothy 2:24 & 2 Timothy 2:25-26; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 3:2; 1 Peter 2:17 & 2:15; etc.)

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the New Testament or in extrabiblical Koiné that the noun foreknow (prognosis) or the verb to foreknow (proginosko) mean anything other than precognition.  The Calvinist contention that the words really signify predetermine or something of the sort are arbitrary, and no such meaning for the word appears in the Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon, since in that work theology is not driving the meaning assigned to these words.  In all the clear instances, the words simply signify precognition, and no text requires a different meaning, either in the NT (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2, prognosis, Acts 26:5; Romans 8:29; 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20 (the perfect tense probably explains the translation in the KJV); 2 Peter 3:17, proginosko, the LXX (Judith 9:6; 11:19, prognosis, Wisdom 6:13; 8:8; 18:6, proginosko), or elsewhere (cf. (1 Clement 44:2; 2 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 32:4; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 1:39, 92, 134; Josephus, Antiquities 8:234, 418; 13:300; 15:373; 17:43; 18:201; Apion 1:232, prognosis, Shepherd of Hermas 31:4; 66:5, Apology of Justin 1:28, 43, 45, 49, 53; Trypho 1:42, 70, 77, 140–141; Athenagoras, Resurrection 1:2; Josephus, Antiquities 1:311; 2:86; 4:121; 5:358; 6:54, 348; 7:57; 8:419; 13:175; 16:214; 18:218; War 1:55, 608; 2:159; 3:484; 4:236; 6:8; Life 1:106; Apion 1:204, 256; Pseudo-Hecateus 6:23; proginosko).  Nor is it valid for the Calvinist to assume that senses of other words, such as know, uniformly transfer to the noun and verb foreknow (by such reasoning, baptidzo could be made to signify “to dye” because the verb derives from bapto, which has this meaning);  rather than making such an assumption, the actual words for foreknow, which are common enough, must themselves be analyzed.  While John 15:16, isolated from other texts of Scripture, is certainly consistent with an unconditional personal election to salvation, it does not require such a doctrine, even if one assumes that election to salvation, rather than the election of the twelve to their apostolic office, is in view.  The syntax “ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” while it certainly places the emphasis upon God’s choice of man, does not require the exclusion of all activity on the part of humanity any more than Paul’s “the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19) means that Paul did no good at all, or the statement that “it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:20; Mark 13:11) excludes human speech entirely.

Romans 9 also provides no support for Calvinism.  See the exposition of the passage in the notes on Romans in the “College Courses” section, subsection “Greek Courses,” at http://faithsaves.net, or look at the articles on Romans 9 here on “What is Truth," such as  the "Why I am not a Calvinist" series.

Furthermore, while regeneration and faith are temporally simultaneous, the new birth is logically subsequent to faith (cf. John 3:1-21).  Scripture neither teaches the soteriology of Arminianism nor of TULIP Calvinism.  

Furthermore, statements advocating baptismal regeneration by Calvin and other Calvinists must be unequivocably repudiated and anathematized (Galatians 1:8-9).  Calvin taught:   “God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness . . . at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism. . . . In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins” (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4, 15).  “We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. . . . Nothing is plainer than this doctrine” (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5^th Session).  Note the discussion in “Were the Reformers Heretics?” and Heaven Only For theBaptized? by Thomas Ross, in “Paedobaptism and Baptimal Efficacy,” Rich Lusk, The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins & Duane Garner.  (Monroe, LA:  Athanasius, 2004), and in “Regeneration: A Crux Interpretum,” David R. Anderson.  Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13:2 (Autumn 00) 43-65.  Some advocates of Reformed theology follow Calvin in his error of baptismal regeneration (e. g., “The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us to Christ,” pg. 55, The Federal Vision; cf. pgs. 89ff., while others reject his doctrine and attempt to explain his statements away (e. g., James J. Cassidy, “Calvin on Baptism: Baptismal Regeneration or the Duplex Loquendi Modus? pgs. 534-554 in Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church, ed. Lane G. Tipton & Jeffrey C. Waddington.  Cassidy nonetheless has to admit (pg. 546): “[T]here are some quotations that make us scratch our heads and wonder whether [Calvin] did not, in fact, believe in baptismal regeneration”).  Baptismal regeneration as the view of the Westminster Standards is advocated by modern Reformed writers in Reformed Is Not Enough, Doug Wilson (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002) pgs. 103-104; Lusk, Federal Vision, pgs. 96-99, etc.

Many Calvinists also hold the dangerous soteriological error, based on their view that regeneration preceeds faith, that infants and others may be regenerated, grow up, and go to heaven, without ever conciously coming to a recognition of their lost estate and consiously, for the first time, repenting and believing the gospel.  Thus, for instance, John Murray affirmed:  “Baptised infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly,” citing the Directory of the Public Worship of God prepared by the Westminster Assembly, which affirmed:  “The seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church have, by their birth, interest in the covenant . . . they are Christians” (pg. 56, Christian Baptism, John Murray.  (Philipsburg, NJ:  Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980).  Many others even repudiate the necessity of any kind of experimental religion (cf. the discussion in “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism,” William Young. Westminster Theological Journal 36:1 (Fall 1973) 48-65 & 36:2 (Winter 1974) 156-173, and the related discussion in “Edwardsean Preparation For Salvation,” John H. Gerstner & Jonathan Neil Gerstner, Westminster Theological Journal 42:1 (Fall 1979) 5-71).  Thus, while it is true that in exceptional and very unusual situations, such as a believer who suffers a mental disease and loses his memory of thirty years of his life, including that portion in which he was converted, when the Reformed affirmed “against the Anabaptists . . . that believers did not have to know, and could not always know, the time of their regeneration” (pg. 74, Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck, J. Bolt, & J. Vriend, vol. 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), they placed themselves on very dangerous ground.

-TDR

The "Fundamentalist Practice of Separation"?

I'm glad Fred Butler is even thinking about separation, let alone talking about it.  It's rare to have an evangelical say anything about it.  They usually are attacking separation (as they are here), but you're thankful for whatever you can get.  At the ETS in San Francisco, I asked the panel why no books on separation in the mammoth book display, and they said it was found in other books in the sections on church discipline, indicative of their missing separation chromosome.  If you think that church discipline is a synonym for separation, or even ecclesiastical separation, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Fred Butler critiqued my series, Separation 101 (uno, dos, tres, quatro) in a recent post at his blog.  First some house-cleaning.  One, Fred is older than I thought, and I get why I thought he was young.  He got  married a little later in years than I, and so it was more of an assumption.  I'm older (I'm 50, Fred, but I understand your thinking I'm younger, it's easy to mistake me for early 40s :-D).  I think he's 44 or so, so he's ancient.  And second, if you're reading him, you might think he's insulting, but don't read too much into that.  He's got strong opinions and he wants to be interesting as a writer.  I get all that.  He's using his serrated edge, to use Douglas Wilson terminology.  Third, I actually like Fred.  I like Phil Johnson.  I like John MacArthur.  I like Dan Phillips.  I like Frank Turk.  I don't care if they don't like me -- I like them.  Just because we have differences, doesn't mean I don't like them.  Even if they are insulting, I get what they're about.  It's part of their shtick.  Bear with them.  Fred's got some church curmudgeon in him.  Then fourth, I'm not a fundamentalist.  I could write a whole post about that, but if Fred knew what he was talking about, he would understand that I'm not, but no offense to Fred, because he's out of his league on understanding what fundamentalism is all about.  If evangelicals don't know what category to stick someone to the right of them, they go with fundamentalist, because it's an effective pejorative.  Other evangelicals do that with MacArthur.  They call him a fundamentalist because he's to the right of them.  He's technically not one as most anyone would define it, even historically.  He doesn't even refer to himself as one usually, even though he's not opposed to someone calling him one.  I'd be glad to be challenged on whether I'm a fundamentalist, but I know I'm not one and would be glad to explain it again some other time.

I wished that Fred didn't read past what I wrote.  It's a bad habit to do that, and in many ways makes for a waste of time.  He writes a lot about the bad discernment of fundamentalism, actually assigning that as a motive or reason we really have for separation.  We can't discern, so we just jump right to separation.  That cracks me up, like Fred calling separation our cherished doctrine.  I guess I'm to assume that Fred doesn't cherish separation, and I would believe that.  The angels in heaven cherish it.  They don't cry "unity, unity, unity" in the heavenly throne room.  Everyone didn't make it on the ark.  The broad road doesn't get to join the narrow road.  Light and darkness are separated.  The tabernacle had an inner court separated from an outer court separated from the holy place separated from the holy of holies.   Curtains of various fabrics and skins were cut and sewn and clasped to separate the out from the in.  Christians cherish the doctrine of separation.  Paul wrote that if you didn't separate, God isn't a Father to you and you aren't sons and daughters to Him.  He wrote about separation in every of his epistles, but I picked just two places to use to apply the doctrine, and Fred blasted the two I used, like I couldn't have picked out others.  But we'll deal with his arguments.  I'm just glad he cared enough.  Thanks Fred, for caring -- serious.

Now let's get down to business.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on what he wrote first, because I want to deal mainly with his treatment of the two passages, but let's consider his "personal take" in the order he wrote it.  One, I believe MacArthur thinks about the differences between him and Piper and Mahaney, but he doesn't do what the Bible teaches.  He writes a book that makes their beliefs look very, very bad, and then he doesn't do what Scripture teaches about men who believe such doctrine.   Sure, have discernment.  Great.  Why is practicing separation against discernment?  It isn't.  You can have both.  Two, separation isn't throwing people under the bus.  It is a loving practice for loving God and the offender.  Not practicing is a form of sentimentalism that is devaluing the truth.  People who don't want to separate have to call it throwing someone under the bus.  Piper's false doctrine offends God and affects him and others, and not separating is to practice something that might be more warm and fuzzy, but it isn't love.  Not separating pushes someone in front of the bus in bus tragedy metaphor.  Three, separation is gracious.  God is always gracious and He still separates Himself.  Stating your opinion without separation is not more gracious.  Grace works toward separation.  It is grace to you (gty).  Four and five, is a conference fellowship?  It is.  Fellowship is working together in common ministry (2 Cor 6:14).  If a conference isn't ministry, then let's do away with conferences.  But if it is ministry, which is its intention, then biblical guidelines for fellowship should enter in here.  They may be in two different arenas for Fred's "discernment filter," but he needs to cherish separation more like God does.  Six, Fred asks questions about how much agreement people should have.  That's a common discussion in fundamentalism, not one so much had in evangelicalism.  Fundamentalists can't seem to agree on how much agreement there should be (ironic, huh?).  Our book, A Pure Church, answers these types of questions with biblical exegesis.  

Which brings us to the exegesis section -- Yes!

The big question here, really, is whether any New Testament passages teach that Christians, or better churches, are to separate from other Christians or churches over doctrine and practice.  I used Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 for this.  Fred doesn't seem to be very skilled at applying separation passages, and I would think that almost never hearing about it would be a major reason.  We also have 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Timothy 6:1-5, 2 Timothy 2, and others.  As well, the principles of Matthew 18:15-17 would apply.   But let's look at what he says.  Again, Fred, thank you for thinking about these.  You're rare in this for an evangelical.  Most move along through their lives in blissful ignorance of it.

Fred starts by saying that I take the passages woefully out of context, and later he conspiratorializes that "fundamentalists" do this kind of thing to keep their cherished doctrine intact.  That makes me laugh a lot, it's so crazy.  "The man" wants you to separate.  He's got computer chips in your cornflakes.  Don't let "the man" (big brother) control you, take away your liberty.  No Fred, it's the opposite here.  The passages guide our understanding of separation.  We didn't start with a doctrine of separation and then go to passages to attempt to conform them to a predisposed separation manual.  Very odd.

This woeful take on separation that we have happens to be like other commentators I read, when they're just being honest with the text, not attempting to read anything into it, perhaps to protect a cherished practice of not separating (i.e., fake unity).   Lenski says about Romans 16:17 what I would say (read it here), and actually points out the error of what Fred is doing here, that is, stating "that Paul's words can be applied only to these errors, and that we cannot today apply Paul's admonition unless we are able to point to exact duplicates of these errors."  Lenski gives an interesting point in Acts from 15:5, when he talks about "a certain sect of the Pharisees which believed (emphasis his), " former Pharisees, now believers, yet errorists."  That's exactly how Romans 16:17 reads.  Professing believers, professing orthodox, causing divisions in the church at Rome, away from doctrines that were already established teachings.  What are the teachings, for instance, that Piper propagates, a kind of ecstasy like Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians.  It's very dangerous.  What do you do with it?  You mark it an avoid it.  Fred says, "No, you only mark and avoid teachers who teach a false gospel.  Period."  That's not what it says.

Colin G. Kruse in his commentary on Romans says, "These people presented themselves as believers, and in their own minds were probably true believers, but in Paul's eyes 'they were not serving our Lord Jesus Christ'."  Is Piper a believer?  I'm not arguing that one way or another.  I'm not saying "yes" or "no," because it's irrelevant.  Is he serving Jesus Christ with his Charismatic teaching?  That's how Kruse and Lenski handle it.   The people who divide from church doctrine aren't serving the Lord Jesus Christ, even if they profess to be saved (and actually are saved), which is why Titus 3:10-11 say to separate from them.  The point is, of course, to keep the church from their false doctrine.  It says though, "mark and avoid."  It doesn't say, "Write a book or have a private conversation in which we agree to disagree, and then promote through a conference or chapel invitation."   If you are serious enough about a doctrine to write a book about it, and hit that doctrine with a scathing rebuke, why is it not serious enough to separate from?  And when scripture teaches that separation is the thing you're actually supposed to do?

Paul uses the word skandalia ("offenses"), which is used of Christians as recent as Romans 14.  Christians cause other Christians to stumble.  Albert Barnes writes:  "some bold Gentile convert, might deride the scrupulous feelings of the Jew, and might thus lead him into sin in regard to what his conscience really forbade."

For the sake of argument, let's grant Romans 16:17 to Fred.  And then we go to 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.  Fred, squirms out of this one by saying that this "not working" practice was akin to a freaky Harold Camping holy huddle 'till the rapture, investing in blow guns and survival gear.   That really doesn't fly.  Sure, Paul gets into specifics, but he argues for the specific from the general.  Spurgeon, concerning 2 Thessalonians 3:6 writes:

Paul had been to Thessalonica, and had given oral teaching, and now he commits to the book what he had spoken; but he bids them take care not to associate with those who wilfully broke the ordinances of the church which he had taught them. There are some brethren with whom it is ill for us to associate, lest they do us hurt, and it is ill for them that we associate with them, lest we seem to assist them in their evil deeds.

It's obvious that it isn't just the idle found in the command to disassociate here, but the disorderly and any who do not abide by Paul's epistle (see vv. 6, 14, 15).  And it should apply to more than church discipline.  Consider the following BibSac article from 1895:

Baptists should read their own proof-texts a little more carefully,—2 Thess. iii. 6, 14, for example.  These texts are used by them as authority for the maintenance of church discipline.  But if they authorize withdrawal from one professed disciple because of his disobedience, they equally authorize withdrawal from all who disobey.  Note the language: ‘Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every’ —member of the local church?  No,—‘from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.’ The same comprehensiveness of statement is found in the fourteenth verse: ‘If any man obey not,’ etc.  Why should not these commands apply to ‘brethren’ outside the church, as well as within its membership?  Baptists should certainly feel constrained to a consistent withdrawal of church fellowship from the disobedient, which means abstinence from all church unions with them.

My Separation 101 posts were to begin exploring the doctrine of separation, its teaching and practice.  I used Piper and MacArthur as an illustration, because they're obvious to many.  As to ecclesiastical separation, with the exception of church discipline, who has MacArthur and his church separated from?   When have they ever encouraged separation?

True unity is based on the truth.  Unity is meaningless without separation.  The fellowship of unity is the light, the truth, the teachings of God's Word.   The false, fake unity gets along by minimizing or reducing doctrine to a low common denominator (reductionism).  Scripture doesn't present unity that way.

We're not concocting artificial qualifications.  These are teachings MacArthur himself by his own standard has said are very, very serious.  We're talking about biblical qualifications.

The point isn't whether MacArthur has compromised 40 years of ministry by having Piper and Mahaney.  The point is whether the Bible teaches separation and then what separation is.  There are too many passages that teach separation just to explain them all away.  None of us are beyond learning from John MacArthur and neither is MacArthur and Fred Butler beyond learning from someone else.

Separation isn't a fundamentalist practice.  It's a biblical and historical Christian one.  Michael Sattler wrote in 1527 in the Schleitheim Confession:

The community of Christians shall have no association with those who remain in disobedience and a spirit of rebellion against God. There can be no fellowship with the wicked in the world; there can be no participation in works, church services, meetings and civil affairs of those who live in contradiction to the commands of God (Catholics and Protestants). All evil must be resisted including their weapons of force such as the sword and armor.

Don't Fix Stupid: Stupid Doesn't Need Fixing

God hath chosen the foolish (stupid) things of the world to confound the wise

1 Corinthians 1:27

In last week's discussion about the blood, we had seen how someone said (and since retracted the pejorative) about people who took a certain position that disagreed with him, "You can't fix stupid."  There's a lot I could write on and would like to write on, but I want to write on this again, because I think that this is in fact a serious problem in evangelicalism and fundamentalism, that being, they're too afraid of being stupid.

I say "stupid"?  Yes, "stupid."  Evangelicals have decried the anti-intellectualism (perhaps a kind of stupidity or at least perceived stupidity) of fundamentalists.  The practice of the new-evangelicals was cooperation and dialogue and association in part to remain credible with the the liberal intelligentsia.   Prominent new-evangelical Harold Ockenga, famous pastor of Park Street Church in Boston, represented this idea in a renowned press dispatch in December 1957:  "The evangelical believes that Christianity is intellectually defensible, and that the Christian cannot be obscurantist in scientific questions pertaining to the creation, the age of man, the universality of the flood, and other debatable biblical questions . . . The new evangelicalism is willing to face the intellectual problems and meet them in the framework of modern learning."

The attack that they are in fact anti-intellectual has always been an issue for Christians.  Part of the pressure put on them is to fit in with the world system, and its intellectualism a major part of it.  Paul dealt with this in 1 and 2 Corinthians because it was a problem for him there.  The Greeks needed "wisdom," but that's not how God operates, which is why the Bible is full of paradoxes.  You just take what God says by faith, even though your head says it contradicts.

This enters the realm of epistemology.  How do we know what we know?  God's will, which is as smart as anyone can get, is apprehended by faith, not by an elite intellect.  Jesus said you've got to become like little children to enter the kingdom of God, a sort of purposeful naivety, dropping intellectual barriers to reception of Christ.

The original twelve disciples were unlearned and ignorant men.  Paul was assailed by false teachers at Corinth for his stupidity.  You read strains of an answer to this charge in 1 Corinthians 1-3 and then expressly in 2 Corinthians 4.  Not many mighty or noble were called because God saw fit to use weakness so that no flesh should glory.  I didn't say "defense," because Paul was admitting stupidity, "the filth of this world" and "the offscouring of all things" (1 Cor 4:13).  God used earthen vessels, mundane clay pots, like himself "that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of [him]" (2 Cor 4:7).  His enemies said he was stupid, and Paul's comeback, "Well, you're right!"

A swing toward evangelicalism in fundamentalism today relates to the issue of intelligence.  Fundamentalists are the straw man heading toward Oz to get a brain from the wizard of evangelicalism.  This pursuit of a brain, or at least recognition of one, is witnessed in many doctrines.

Intellectualism made room for another account of creation in Genesis 1 for evangelicals.  It picked up textual criticism or eclecticism as the method for deciding Scripture in contradiction to faith.  It accepts egalitarianism.  It commends contextualization.  It assigns its own meaning to already established expressions of holiness.  It invents its own standards of unity for coalitions beyond God's ordained institution.  It's all very, very smart.

Evangelicalism is smart like David was smart when he had the ox cart built to hold the ark.  It's smart like Cain with his fruit and vegetables.  It's smart like Nadab and Abihu with their new recipe for incense.  And fundamentalism wants to be smart too.  They bring in smart people.  They associate with smart people.  They praise smart people.  And they ridicule the stupid people, the foolish ones.

You can't fix stupid.  Don't fix stupid.  Stupid doesn't need fixing.

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 5

Those who came to believe in Jehovah and His Messiah, and consequently lived by faith in Him, were those who “trusted[i] in the LORD God of Israel”[ii] and in His Word (Psalm 119:42).  Such a trust manifested itself in obedience to His Law in the trials of this life,[iii] and brought both temporal[iv] and eternal deliverance (Psalm 125:1).  Trust also led to an acknowledgment of Jehovah in one’s practical life (Proverbs 3:5-6).  All the nation was called to such a trust (Psalm 115:8-11).  The Lord saves and preserves those who trust in Him (Psalm 86:2), so that true Israel can say:  “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation,”[v] while the ungodly trust in evil deeds or plans,[vi] men,[vii] false gods (Isaiah 42:17), external ritual (Jeremiah 7:4), or their own righteousness (Ezekiel 33:13) instead of in Jehovah only (Zephaniah 3:2).  Those that truly know the Lord trust in Him, and He will not forsake them,[viii] nor allow them to be confounded, but deliver them,[ix] and surround them with mercies (Psalm 32:10), since they trust in His mercy[x] for ever and ever (Psalm 52:8), and they will dwell in the Land (Psalm 37:3, 5).  The Bible contrasts those who trust in Jehovah with those who “believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation . . . a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God . . . [that] kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law . . . [that] sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.”[xi]  In short, trust in the Lord marked the true Israelite,[xii] he who was blessed[xiii] with temporal and eternal salvation.

Other Hebrew forms related to the verb trust[xiv] similarly indicate that temporal and eternal salvation was received by those who trust in Jehovah.  Those would be “saved” who placed their “confidence” in Him.[xv]  Those who “hope” in the Lord rather than placing their “confidence” in any other source are blessed, without any limitation to either this life or that to come.[xvi]  The Old Testament consequently declares:  “Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust” (Psalm 40:4), for He is the only fit object of “confidence” (Psalm 65:5) or “trust” (Psalm 71:5)—all other objects of “trust” are like a “spider’s web.”[xvii]  “Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint,”[xviii] while those whose “trust” is “in the LORD” find in Him “strong confidence” and a “place of refuge.”[xix]

Thus, Jehovah is Himself the salvation for the “righteous,” those who take refuge or trust[xx] in Him (Psalm 64:10).  Believers can say:  “God . . . in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour.”[xxi]  To “all them that trust in him” He is a shield and place of safety.[xxii]  “[A]ll those that put their trust in [Him] rejoice . . . because [He] defend[s] them” (Psalm 5:11).  They are blessed, now and forever (Psalm 34:8), receiving of the great goodness He has stored up for them (Psalm 31:19).  The believer, one who forsakes confidence in men to trust in Jehovah only (Psalm 118:8-9),[xxiii] can say: “O LORD my God, in thee do I put my trust: save me,”[xxiv] while those who trust in false gods (Deuteronomy 32:37), evil men (Judges 9:15), or pagan nations (Isaiah 30:2) are destroyed.  Because of His “lovingkindness,” believers will “never be ashamed” or “desolate” or “destitute” or “put to confusion” because they “trust in” Him, being rather “deliver[ed]” in His “righteousness” and having their souls “redeemed.”[xxv]  The “LORD . . . knoweth them that trust in him” (Nahum 1:7), so those “afflicted and poor people” who “shall trust in the name of the LORD” (Zephaniah 3:12) receive His promise:  “he that putteth his trust in me shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain” (Isaiah 57:13).  They will “abide” in His presence “for ever” (Psalm 61:4), and have a refuge and sure hope in death (Proverbs 14:32).  Those who “come to trust . . . the LORD God of Israel” will receive a “full reward” (Ruth 2:12), for He will “save them, because they put their trust in him” (Psalm 37:40).  Trust in Jehovah is connected with trust in His Son (Proverbs 30:4), the Messiah;  all those who repent and trust in the Son of God receive temporal and eternal blessing, while those who do not will perish under Messianic wrath:  “Kiss[xxvi] the Son,[xxvii] lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12).

B. B. Warfield notes:

“[A]long with an ever more richly expressed corporate hope, there is found also [in the Old Testament] an ever more richly expressed individual trust, which finds natural utterance through an ample body of synonyms bringing out severally the various sides of that perfect commitment to God that constitutes the essence of faith. Thus we read much of trusting in, on, to God, or in His word, His name, His mercy, His salvation (jAf;Db), of seeking and finding refuge in God or in the shadow of His wings (hDsDj), of committing ourselves to God (lAlÎ…g), setting confidence (lRsR;k) in Him, looking to Him (JKAmVsˆ…n) relying upon Him (NAoVvˆ…n), staying upon Him (JKAmVsˆ…n), setting or fixing the heart upon Him (qAvDj), binding our love on Him (qAvDj), cleaving to Him (qAb∂;d). So, on the hopeful side of faith, we read much of hoping in God (hD…wIq), waiting on God (lRjˆy), of longing for Him (hD;kIj), patiently waiting for Him (lElwøjVtIh), and the like.

By the aid of such expressions, it becomes possible to form a somewhat clear notion of the attitude towards Him which was required by Jehovah of His believing people, and which is summed up in the term “faith.” It is a reverential (Exodus 14:31; Numbers 14:11, 20:12) and loving faith, which rests on the strong basis of firm and unshaken conviction of the might and grace of the covenant God and of the trustworthiness of all His words, and exhibits itself in confident trust in Jehovah and unwavering expectation of the fulfilment of, no doubt, all His promises, but more especially of His promise of salvation, and in consequent faithful and exclusive adherence to Him. In one word, it consists in an utter commitment of oneself to Jehovah, with confident trust in Him as guide and saviour, and assured expectation of His promised salvation. It therefore stands in contrast, on the one hand, with trust in self or other human help, and on the other with doubt and unbelief, despondency and unfaithfulness. From Jehovah alone is salvation to be looked for, and it comes from His free grace alone (Deuteronomy 7:7, 8:18; 9:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Ezekiel 20:6; Jeremiah 39:18; Malachi 1:2), and to those only who look solely to Him for it (Isaiah 31:1; 57:13; 28:16; 30:15; Jeremiah 17:5; 39:18; Psalm 118:8; 146:3; 20:7; 1 Samuel 17:45; Job 31:24; Psalm 52:9). The reference of faith is accordingly in the Old Testament always distinctly soteriological; its end the Messianic salvation; and its essence a trusting, or rather an entrusting of oneself to the God of salvation, with full assurance of the fulfilment of His gracious purposes and the ultimate realization of His promise of salvation for the people and the individual. Such an attitude towards the God of salvation is identical with the faith of the New Testament, and is not essentially changed by the fuller revelation of God the Redeemer in the person of the promised Messiah.” (“The Biblical Doctrine of Faith,” Warfield, in Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of Works)

This post is part of the complete study here.

-TDR

---

[i] jfb.  The complete list of references in the Old Testament is: Deuteronomy 28:52; Judges 9:26; 18:7, 10, 27; 20:36; 2 Kings 18:5, 19–22, 24, 30; 19:10; 1 Chronicles 5:20; 2 Chronicles 32:10; Job 6:20; 11:18; 39:11; 40:23; Psalm 4:5; 9:10; 13:5; 21:7; 22:4–5, 9; 25:2; 26:1; 27:3; 28:7; 31:6, 14; 32:10; 33:21; 37:3, 5; 40:3; 41:9; 44:6; 49:6; 52:7–8; 55:23; 56:3–4, 11; 62:8, 10; 78:22; 84:12; 86:2; 91:2; 112:7; 115:8–11; 118:8–9; 119:42; 125:1; 135:18; 143:8; 146:3; Proverbs 3:5; 11:15, 28; 14:16; 16:20; 28:1, 25–26; 29:25; 31:11; Isaiah 12:2; 26:3–4; 30:12; 31:1; 32:9–11; 36:4–7, 9, 15; 37:10; 42:17; 47:10; 50:10; 59:4; Jeremiah 5:17; 7:4, 8, 14; 9:4; 12:5; 13:25; 17:5, 7; 28:15; 29:31; 39:18; 46:25; 48:7; 49:4, 11; Ezekiel 16:15; 33:13; Hosea 10:13; Amos 6:1; Micah 7:5; Habakkuk 2:18; Zephaniah 3:2.  Note that in Psalm 78:22 jfb and NImTaRh are in synonymous parallelism;  compare also 2 Kings 17:14; 18:5.

[ii] 2 Kings 18:5, 22, 30; 19:10; 2 Chronicles 32:10; Isaiah 36:7, 15; 37:10.

[iii] Psalm 62:8, 10.

[iv] 1 Chronicles 5:20; Jeremiah 39:18.

[v] Isaiah 12:2; 26:3-4; 50:10.

[vi] Isaiah 30:12; 47:10.

[vii] Psalm 56:3, 4, 11; 118:8-9; Proverbs 29:25; Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 17:5-7.

[viii] Psalm 9:10; cf. 4:5.

[ix] Psalm 22:4-5; cf. 25:2; 26:1; 28:7; 31:6, 14; 33:21; 40:3.

[x] dRsRj.

[xi] Psalm 78:22, 8, 10, 32, 37.

[xii] Psalm 112:7; 143:8.

[xiii] Proverbs 16:20; 28:25, 26.

[xiv] That is, the rest of the jfb word group.

[xv] hDjVfI;b in Isaiah 30:15; NwøjDÚfI;b in Isaiah 36:4; 2 Kings 18:19;  also Ecclesiastes 9:4.

[xvi] Jeremiah 17:7; 2:37; 48:17; Ezekiel 29:16.  jDfVbIm, “trust, reliance” (KB), “confidence . . . 1. the act of confiding Pr 21:22, 22:19, 25:19. 2. the object of confidence Jb 8:14, 18:14, 31:24, Psalm 40:5, 65:6, 71:5, Je 2:37, 17:7, 48:13, Ez 29:16. 3. the state of confidence, security Pr 14:26, Is 32:18” (BDB).

[xvii] Job 8:14; 18:14; 31:24.

[xviii] Proverbs 25:19; cf. 21:22.

[xix] Proverbs 22:19; 14:26; contra 25:19; 21:22.

[xx] hsj;  Cf. in English, Psalm 57:1:  “Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth [Qal perfect hsj] in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge [Qal imperfect hsj], until these calamities be overpast.”  The complete list of references for the verb is: Deuteronomy 32:37; Judges 9:15; Ruth 2:12; 2 Samuel 22:3, 31; Psalm 2:12; 5:11; 7:1; 11:1; 16:1; 17:7; 18:2, 30; 25:20; 31:1, 19; 34:8, 22; 36:7; 37:40; 57:1; 61:4; 64:10; 71:1; 91:4; 118:8–9; 141:8; 144:2; Proverbs 14:32; 30:5; Isaiah 14:32; 30:2; 57:13; Nahum 1:7; Zephaniah 3:12.

[xxi] 2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 144:2.

[xxii] 2 Samuel 22:31; cf. Isaiah 14:32; Psalm 61:4; 94:4.

[xxiii] Psalm 118:8 is the middle verse in the Bible.

[xxiv] Psalm 7:1; 11:1; 16:1; 17:7; 18:2, 30.

[xxv] Psalm 25:20; 31:1; 34:22; 36:7; 71:1; 141:8.

[xxvi] qvn, also translated “be ruled” in Genesis 41:40.

[xxvii] Note the use of the Aramaic form rA;b, elsewhere found in the Hebrew Old Testament only in Proverbs 31:2;  the Son of God is set forth in Psalm 2:12 as the Object of faith for the nations.