Separation 101: Associations and Separation from Those Who Call Themselves Brothers, pt. 4

Part One and Part Two and Part Three and A Pure Church

Would Paul have continued in fellowship with those participating in religious ecstasy at Corinth?  No, of course not.  That needed to stop.  If the participants didn't repent, he would have withdrawn or avoided them and instructed others to do likewise.  John Piper participates in the religious ecstasy of Passion 2013.  He encourages people to "speak in tongues," and wants more of that.  Writing a book isn't good enough.  To obey God, you separate from him.  It isn't just an odd-ball view.

I've been using John Piper only as an illustration.  There are plenty of others.  Is intellectual only faith or repentance a false doctrine?  It is.  You hear this taught among fundamentalists.  You can't fellowship with those who teach this.  I wouldn't have anything to do with Clarence Sexton and Crown College for this reason alone.

There is a lot to explore here in explaining why we separate or what we separate for.   To start, it's best to consider what the Bible says, be clear about it, and then start to apply it.  It's true that you can't understand separation without understanding unity.  What is the basis of unity?  Is it a few doctrines or many?  Is it one core doctrine, everything the Bible teaches or something in between.  Over at SharperIron, an article was posted about "essentials" that at the time of this writing has 266 hits.  Meanwhile a debate in a sidebar about one church dropping the name "Baptist" received 4,460 hits.  You would think that the essentials article would be pertinent or at least controversial, because the author wrote the following about essentials:

If God’s glory is the ultimate good, and if we understand that all things are designed for that end, then everything is an essential. What business do we have of declaring something as of greater or lesser importance when we have no comprehension of how those things contribute to the greatest good that is God’s glory? We have no tools for making such estimations (the Bible doesn’t make such distinctions, but rather points us constantly and simply to God’s glory). Paul tells Titus to “speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine” (Tit 2:1). The focus is not on the importance of a teaching, but on its accuracy or correctness. Ours is not to create a hierarchy of doctrinal importance; ours is to handle doctrine (or teaching) accurately.

He said "everything" is an essential.  I believe that.  And he ends the paragraph by saying that we don't try to determine what is important or not, what's fundamental, but just handle what it says accurately.

The discussion should not be whether it is important or not.  If it's in the Bible, it's important.  I agree with this position, because it is in line with what the Bible teaches.  I don't know if the author has a practice on separation that matches this, but what he wrote is true.

We've read in the Bible passages that we separate over violations of biblical doctrine and practice---any of them.  Why don't people practice this way?  Why do they disobey this teaching, these commands?  I said I would talk about those reasons.  Disobedience to God is not loving Him.  It is hating Him.  It is quenching the Spirit.  It is grieving the Spirit.  It is dishonoring God.  It isn't glorifying Him. That all sounds bad, so why do they go ahead and do that?  And then they actually are more popular among evangelicals and fundamentalists for doing so.  They attack those who say otherwise, even though they are just reporting what God said to do.

Is it because they can't understand the passages, the verses?  No.  They're easy to understand.  The only way to squirm out of them, to justify not obeying them, is to explain them away, make them mean something else, twist them, corrupt them, handle them deceitfully.  And then either attack or ignore whoever says you are doing that.  Attack him by calling him names, going after him personally, and making him look like a quack.  It doesn't change anything with God, because God knows what He said and meant, but scoffing is a generally successful tactic, which is why it is used.

The reasons people don't believe and practice the separation passages are (in no particular order):

Popularity

You'll have a smaller coalition when you separate from people.  You won't be as liked.  People don't like it when you separate from them.  When you are less popular, you look less successful.  You want to be successful, even if you've got to admit it's a game that you're playing.  When you are success, then you could say that God has been working on your behalf and it will even make you look more "spiritual" or in favor with God.

Monetary

This relates to popularity.  You can't sell as many books when people don't like you or you aren't considered successful.  You won't have as many people in your college, which will hurt you financially.  Your offerings will be smaller.  Money will shrink, which will affect your standard of living.  Even if you are not into the money yourself, it will affect payroll and paying other people's salaries.  You keep disregarding the separation passages to meet payroll.  You won't be invited to conferences, big ones, if you separate from the people who will invite you.  You'll preach to less people, and that affects money flow.   Much more could be said here.

By the way, if you don' think this is true, listen to the Minnick-Dever interview in which Dever point blank says that they stay in the convention so that they won't lose the buildings and property.  Buildings trump obedience in separation.  Don't think I'm saying this because I don't like Minnick and Dever.  I like them both.  I like a lot of what they had to say.  This is par for the course, reading into this the idea that I'm saying this because I don't like them.  I like them more than you if I'm helping them.

Bad Theology

I have a hard time determining whether the bad theology comes from the popularity and monetary reasons (pragmatic ones), or whether they come from the bad theology.  I lean toward the former, but it doesn't matter.  Either way, you still get bad theology and disobedience to God out of it, and then the proceeding destruction.  The bad theology is a wrong view of unity.  True unity gets twisted.   Of course, I think this comes out of a wrong view of the church, but that is a big subject that I have talked about a lot elsewhere.  I'd rather not talk about it now, because it becomes a smokescreen for focusing on the separation passages.  If unity is required between all believers, doctrine and practice will have to go, and it has.  It has gone gladly in order to keep the fake unity likely for the sake of popularity and money.

If the bad theology comes first, I see it has happening as the following.  Men have lost trust in the Bible.  They don't believe they have all the Words, and they aren't sure they know what it all teaches.  That lack of certainty then leads them to reduce what is essential for unity.  If you can't really know, then how can you interpret and apply?  You can't, so you give a lot of space for differences.  I understand this as a teacher.  I make up a test that has multiple errors in it.  I'm going to be lax in my grading of the test.  I can't mark something wrong that can't be known or is confusing.  People are now that way with Scripture because they lack in certainty.  This is a staggering in unbelief.  The attack of truth in modernism and postmodernism have had their impact.

Sentimentalism or Inordinate Affections

Accepting bad behavior or false doctrine is the new magnanimity.  The way to love people is to make them feel welcome and affirmed when they don't believe or do right.   The new humility is accepting when people don't believe or practice like you do.   Hey, it's OK if you are covenant and not dispensational, OK that you're amillennial and not premillennial, OK that you are infant baptism and not believer's baptism, OK if you wear pants instead of dresses, OK that you believe in women preachers, and finally that you are homosexual.  If you don't think is happening through sheer sentimentalism and false humility, then you can go back under your rock or to your deserted island.  If you separate over things, then you aren't loving.  That's where it's at.  And who doesn't want to be "loving?"  Even if it isn't actually love, but fake love, to match up with fake unity.

God isn't being fooled by any of this, and He isn't excusing any of it because we've got our "reasons."

Maybe More to Come

Separation 101: Associations and Separation from Those Who Call Themselves Brothers, pt. 3

Part One and Part Two

How do associations come into a discussion of separation?  Someone preaches for someone or two men preach or teach at the same conference.  They are associating with each other.  The appropriate question is:  do they violate scripture?  When someone violates scripture he either intentionally or unintentionally disobeys God.  Then you have a person like myself pointing out the association.

What is association?  The dictionary says that it requires getting together for a joint purpose.  It isn't being seen together in a photo.  It isn't even having a conversation.  If association and biblical fellowship are the same thing, then teaching on separation applies.  Disassociating one's self would seem to be an even stronger practice than biblical separation.  I mentioned association as it regarded eating meat offered to idols at Corinth.  There are ways that we can dangerously associate ourselves with a wrong idea or wrong practice or even the wrong people.  For instance, a swastika could associate someone with a wrong idea and practice.  Does rock music do the same thing?  Is rock music itself still associated with evil?  I believe it is, but it is also inherently evil.  It is wise not to associate with certain people, to be seen as receptive of them, giving the appearance that you're fine with them.  Ecclesiastical separation is different, which is what we're talking about here.

Preaching together might associate two people, which might be dangerous, but preaching together in the same conference is usually fellowship.  I say "usually" because someone could be there to preach against what it is that the people represent.  Paul didn't go to the synagogue for fellowship.  He went there to preach the gospel, which repudiated the synagogue message.  When John MacArthur appears on the Larry King show with Deepak Chopra, he isn't there to fellowship with Chopra.  That is clear.  However, Grace Community Church doesn't bring John Piper to the Resolve Conference to help Piper change in his Charismaticism.  They have become yoked up with Piper's Charismaticism.  They may say they haven't, but the Bible says otherwise.  Calvary Baptist in Lansdale doesn't bring Mark Dever to preach at its conference in order to change Mark Dever.  That's not how it's done anyway, but that isn't the purpose of bringing someone to preach to you. People who fellowship are two people yoked together in the same purpose.  Now, I wouldn't even be considering refusing to preach somewhere with someone if the Bible didn't tell me to mark and avoid and withhold fellowship from people.

Where does this idea of separation come from?  It's all over the Bible, but we see it modeled in the Old Testament.  Israel got in big trouble when she didn't separate from other nations.  She wasn't to fellowship with them.  To remain in good standing in Israel, you were supposed to follow what God said.  If you refused to do so, you could be cut off.  That was to please God and then retain purity in the nation.  False doctrine and practice were a disruption to unity, what I'll call "true unity" because of the fake stuff that is out there.

What is fake unity?  Fake unity is disregarding or ignoring doctrine in order to come together.  With most fake unity, not all doctrine and practice is disregarded and ignored.  Some of it is.  The example I gave was the Charismaticism or ecstasicism or continuationism or speaking in tongues belief of John Piper.  I used that because people will still fellowship with John Piper, despite their rejection of that belief and practice of Piper.  Is that what God wants us to do?

Unity is about God.  We want unity with God.   False doctrine and practice does not unify with God.  He separates from it.  Should we?  Do we?  Has God told us to minimize or reduce doctrine to one doctrine or a few doctrines as a basis of unity?  That's not how the Bible reads.  Nowhere do we see the Bible teach that.  We see just the opposite.  The Bible contradicts a coalition merely on the gospel or a few doctrines all around the gospel.

In parts one and two, I talked about Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 as an example.  I didn't talk about every excuse that people will use for not separating out of obedience to those verses.  Recently I read someone who said that Romans 16:17 is about unbelieving false teachers.  Paul is telling us only to mark and avoid unbelieving false teachers.  These are unsaved people, in other words.  It's not plain that Romans 16 is talking about people outside of the church.  It seems like he's talking about people in the church, people who call themselves brothers, because they cause division.  And if it isn't people in the church, then it would contradict what Paul taught about separation from unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10.  If we had to separate from every unbeliever, we would have to go out of the world.

Even if I conceded Romans 16:17 on this, I would still be left with at least 2 Thessalonians 3:6.  I say "at least," because these two are not the only verses that teach this practice in principle.  Matthew 18:15-17, for instance, teaches it in principle.  Ephesians 5:11 teaches it in principle.  And then you've got 1 Timothy 6:3-5 that seems to teach the identical truth:

If any man . . . consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; . . . from such withdraw thyself.

This teaching is all over the place.  I see it too in 2 Timothy 2:20-21:

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.  If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

There are vessels (people) from whom someone must purge himself to be a vessel unto honor.  But people will argue against 2 Thessalonians 3:6 by saying that it's talking only about people who won't work.   That's not how 2 Thessalonians 3:6 reads, but, as I said, there are still more and more places that teach ecclesiastical separation, and when they do, they are talking about more than the gospel or essentials or fundamentals.

I asked Albert Mohler if he could still be a Southern Baptist and obey 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.  He looked irritated (fevered maybe), after I asked it.  He looked resentful.  I realize we can't read too much into how someone looks, but isn't a question like that a good question?   He gave an answer, but it wasn't "yes" or "no."  He hasn't left the Convention, so maybe we know what he thinks.  He's got to make words be like gumby to get a "no" answer.  Come out from among them doesn't mean stay in and try to make it better.

To say that separation is "hand-wringing" or "fever-minded" is either a red herring or a straw man.  It's a red herring because it is focusing on the motive or the attitude of the one separating.  It still isn't dealing with whether separation should occur based on what the Bible says about separation.  It's a straw man because anyone might say that "hand-wringing" or "fever-minded" are bad, but we've still got to deal with whether separation should occur.

True separation and true unity are both taught and so both must be able to coexist.  You can't have one without the other.  The violation of one will mean the violation of the other.  You aren't more for unity if you are less for separation.  If you are more for separation, however, you are more for unity.  Separation is about unity.  To unify with God, you must separate from something.  Not separating from something will hinder or prevent unity with God.  If you can unify with people who are not unified with God, then you are not unified with God.  These are all simple, I think.  People can understand these things.  They refuse to take them into consideration for particular reasons, I believe.

I'll talk about those tomorrow, Lord-willing.

Separation 101: Associations and Separation from Those Who Call Themselves Brothers, pt. 2

Part One, Yesterday

Those reading yesterday's post didn't answer in the comment section, but I'm guessing that it's partly because of how easy the answer is.  It seems kind of like an insult to the intelligence.  I understand.  Some may say, "Well, no one answered, because no one is reading your blog."  Fair enough, except that I get more hits on average than I have ever had here.  Ever.  Just wanted to preemptively pop that balloon.

OK, back to the question(s).  "What does it in fact say?  What does God tell us to do?"

It tells us to mark and avoid.  I don't want anyone to make this a personal thing about John Piper or any other evangelical.  When I talk about these things, I use real names because this should be applied in the real world.

Alright, so Charismatic doctrine is unbiblical.  I run into Charismatics all the time going door-to-door (I've written a very helpful tract to give them too, that we hand them), and they are not only contradictory to the doctrine of our church, but also the doctrine of the church period.  The young evangelical I referenced chose to call it an "odd ball view."  Odd ball view?  It's false doctrine.  It contradicts scripture.  That's bad enough. We could stop there, but it does far more damage then that, and John MacArthur himself, this young man's pastor, has written a scathing book against the odd ball views.  It was one of MacArthur's early books, that went into a second printing, and he makes it look very bad and dangerous and hurtful.  He's correct on all fronts.  Bravo John MacArthur in your true exposure of these false doctrines!

Writing a book is fine.  But what does Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 tell us to do?  It says "mark and avoid" and "withdraw ourselves" from these.  I'm not nitpicking.  I'm talking about applying what God commanded us to do.  Talk to God about it.  He's the one that said it.  Are we nitpicking if we report what God said?  If so, well, then I guess I'll be nitpicking.  And then he implies that we lack discernment, and that's why we can't have guys like Piper preach for us.  If he came, we'd get all confused and not know what we believe.  Right.  No, it really is wanting to obey passages of Scripture---that black stuff on white paper, those words.  That's how we're sanctified, is by the truth.  It's in those pages we see the face of Jesus, which changes us into His glory.  Are we changed into His glory when we don't do what He said?  No.

Association is important in the Bible.  Paul talked about association in 1 Corinthians 10.  He said that when you ate of the food offered to the idols, you were making an association like you did when you ate of the Lord's Supper.  Associations are made and they are serious.  But that isn't a main argument against not having Piper preach for you.

At this point, I want to consider though, why it is an evangelical would say that he doesn't obey Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6?  He's got excuses.  What's ironic to me, is that they definitely take stands on things that come out of left field.   Kevin Bauder has just recently written well about this in an article at SharperIron about The Gospel Coalition doctrinal statement.  (Wow.  I've been linking to people I don't fellowship with.  Isn't that risky?  We don't have discernment, after all.  Oh, that was a straw man argument.  Thank you.)  Almost everyone today wants nothing to do with someone who exclusively uses the King James Version as his English translation.  That's the kind of doctrine that men really bow up their backs and take their stand.

The problem for the evangelical and really for the fundamentalist too, as we've talked about again and again here, is their view of unity.  When they separate they cause disunity.  Follow me here, OK?  You are not causing disunity when you separate over doctrine.  The one causing disunity is the one with the different doctrine.  You, by dealing with him, are the one trying to get unity.  Unity is not some free floating, amoeba-like idea out there.  Unity is based on the truth.  It is based on God.  Jesus had unity with the Father.  Look through the book of John.  He believed and practiced everything that the Father did.  That's how He sanctified Himself (another evidence of the deity of Christ, because only God can sanctify Himself).  We, on the other hand, are sanctified by the truth.  Our unity with each other is dependent on the truth.  We don't have unity when we disregard doctrine (see 1, 2, and 3 John on this too, lots is written on this in our book, A Pure Church).  That is a fake unity, the kind like you  might have at the family reunion, where you must keep the subjects to the weather or the weather.

So evangelicals and fundamentalists keep up the facade of unity.  They take a cannister of something that isn't unity and put a unity label on it.  In the real world, that doesn't work.  Unity must actually be unity.  If I had John Piper preach for me, I would get to unity by disregarding lots of doctrines (or as Fred Butler calls them, odd ball views.  Why would you, incidentally, have a guy preach for you that has odd ball views?  He says because they were college students.  There we go.  Your young people need people with odd ball views.  They are the ones with the most discernment in the church, so it's no problem for them.  Yes.  But you have C. J. Mahaney for your adults.  They can sort through more.).  But Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 isn't obeyed.

The above really does get us to the next point, and that is, you start saying, will-nilly, that certain doctrines aren't that important.  Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 don't say anything about that.  And the latter actually sort of blows it away, because the specific example of its practice is a guy that wouldn't work.   Bodily resurrection.  Virgin birth.  Blood Atonement.  Guys gotta work.  Fundamentals.  No, that idea of unity and that idea of separation isn't in the Bible.  You don't get to treat anything that God said like the tomatoes falling out the back of a produce truck.

And so the incessant argument is "what's important," "what's essential," "what's worth separating over"?  Except for the evangelicals.  They don't talk about separating over anything.  God is separate, but they aren't.  There is a sad irony there.  But this is a regular argument, and different guys move their thing into the essential category.  This argument originated with the Pharisees, who argued over the greatest commandments, because they had reduced the law to something they could keep.  They kept unity by determining the essentials.  This disrespects God, His Word, the perspecuity of His Word, the authority of His Word.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists deal with someone who takes more than a short list of stuff seriously as a hyper-this or a hyper-that---the family reunion equivalent of the uncle who wants to talk about something more than the weather, so he rocks the boat.  He's persnickety.  He's a hand wringer.  And then they go into conspiracy theories, a type of paranoia, like the young evangelical.  These men are dictators.  They draw unscriptural boundaries.  They put you on a guilt trip.  They're the ones who send respectable believers over to the emergents.  Blah, blah, blah, blah.  Deal with the verses!  Stop the red herrings and the straw men!  Please.  They're just excuses for disobedience to what God said.

More later.

Separation 101: Associations and Separation from Those Who Call Themselves Brothers

This is a new and ongoing series on separation (get our book A Pure Church to read something important on separation).  Whenever I write about anything related to separation, it will be under Separation 101.

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

Last week I linked to a wacky post in which a young evangelical commented on separation.  It is rare that any evangelical even comments on separation, except for purposes of ridicule, and I'm afraid the latter is what this amounted to.  Nonetheless, it gives us something to explore, that is, what does biblical separation have to do with associations and separation from those who profess salvation?

To start, which is important for a 101 course on separation, we should review what separation is all about.  God is holy and He expects His children to be holy.  Those with His nature will be holy, because He is holy. Does that make it a gospel related issue?  Sure.  Truly saved people have been separated unto Him.  The whole separation doctrine is, like all others, about pleasing, glorifying God.  When we look at the glory of God in the face of Christ, we are changed into His image.  We want to reflect who God is.  And what does God say in His Word about this?  That's how we look into the face of Christ and are changed, that is, by looking into the Word.

Consider these two verses (first, Romans 16:17, and, second, 2 Thessalonians 3:6):

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Paul wrote both of those under the inspiration of God.  Both teach separation.  What is the separation over? The first says "divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned."  The second says "every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."  I think we should hold ourselves to exactly what the text says.  We should try to read the verses without predisposition, letting the words give us the message and the meaning.

To start, Paul related separation more to professing believers than to obvious unbelievers.  He taught to separate from professing believers' false doctrine in practice.   Remember 1 Corinthians 5:10:

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

We don't practice separation from unbelievers like we do with believers.  Our greatest concern is the false doctrine and practice of those who call themselves brothers.  Why?   Because that's what Scripture teaches. This isn't hand-wringing or fever-minded.  Those are just name calling, like scoffing that we read about in 2 Peter 3 and see in the example of the Pharisees with Jesus.

We really don't separate from professing believers because "the associations could be dangerous."  I'm not saying the associations might not be dangerous.  It's just that Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 don't even mention that.  We separate from them, first, because God told us to.  That would be like believing in the  Lordship of Christ, observing whatsoever we are commanded by the Lord, and loving Him and keeping His words, sayings, and commands.  Happy are ye if ye do them.  If we look in the face of Jesus, we will see His obedience perfectly to the Father, so we are following His example when we obey what God said.

Why do we obey these passages?  Because God is God.  Because God's Word is authoritative.  Other problems will occur when we disobey them, sure.  We will contribute to the dilution of doctrine and practice, the corruption of it.  We will be a bad example to other believers.  We can cause someone to stumble.   We will not shame the disobedient.

Notice the verses don't say, "gospel related," or, "having to do with salvation doctrine," or "fundamental teachings and practices," or "essential truths."  They don't.  You have to read that into the verses to get it out.  I know why men have practiced that way, but it isn't because of what the Bible teaches about separation from a brother.

Let's see how this works in real life.  Our church teaches that sign gifts have ceased.  They have.  It's clear.  That is contrary to what our church has learned.  It is also walking disorderly and not after the tradition our church has received of us.  John Piper calls himself saved by grace, a brother in Christ. John Piper says speaking in tongues is fine and he wants to see more of it.  John Piper is dividing from the doctrine we preach and is contrary to it.  What do we do with John Piper?  Scripture doesn't say, "Go ahead and fellowship with him, but just make sure you don't have him teach on the sign gifts."  It doesn't say, "Have John Piper preach for you or fellowship with him, but just make sure to use discernment on this area where we disagree?"  The issue here is not all about association, and what association with him will do to your people.  That's not all it's related to.  OK, so we've thought a little about what it doesn't say to do with John Piper.  What does it in fact say?  What does God tell us to do?

I'll await your answer before I write more.

Dangers in Samaritan Ministries

Dangers in Samaritan Ministries part 2

Dangers in Samaritan Ministries part 3

Health Threats from Samaritan Ministries part 1

Health Threats from Samaritan Ministries part 2

I cannot say that I am excited about writing this blog post.  I am a member of Samaritan Ministries, and I think it is definitely superior to traditional health insurance.  I would recommend that Christians with traditional insurance seriously consider switching to Samaritan or some similar health-sharing ministry instead.  What I am going to say below does not change what I have written in this paragraph.  I think the fundamental idea underlying Christian health-sharing is wonderful and am very supportive of it.

With that said, there are very clear spiritual dangers in Samaritan Ministries that believers need to be aware of.  I have noticed these types of things for some time, have contacted Samaritan about a variety of them on various occasions, but have not noticed any improvement.  These things are dishonoring to the Lord and grievous to my soul.  Dangers in Samaritan—all of the following illustrated in their latest Christian HealthCare newsletter (February 2013)—include the following:

1.)   Ecumenicalism and the promotion of false teachers.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is glorified on pgs. 10-11 of the Newsletter.  A book promoting him as a “prophet” and a “martyr” is likewise promoted.  The following facts about him are entirely skipped over:

1.     He denied the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture, believing that the Bible is only a “witness” to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it “speaks” to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). 2. He denied the biblical God, believing that the concept of God as a “supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness,” is a “spurious conception of transcendence,” and that “God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated” (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 122, 164, 360). 3. He questioned the Virgin Birth (The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215). 4. He denied the deity of Christ, advocating that “Jesus Christ Today” is not a real person and being, but a “corporate presence” (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 75-76; Christ the Center, p. 58). 5. He denied the sinlessness of Christ's human nature and further questioned the sinlessness of His earthly behavior (Christ the Center, pp. 108-109). 6. He denied the physical resurrection of Christ, believing that the bodily resurrection is in “the realm of ambiguity,” and that it was one of the “mythological” elements of Christianity that “must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith.” He also believed that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ are “mythological conceptions” (Christ the Center, p. 112; Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 93-94, 110). 7. He believed that Christ is not the only way to God (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 55-56). 8. He was an evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143) and believed that the book of Genesis is scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3). 9. He adhered to neo-orthodox theology and terminology concerning salvation (Testimony to Freedom, p. 130), was a sacramentalist (Life Together, p. 122; The Way to Freedom, pp. 115, 153), believed in regenerational infant baptism (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, pp. 142-143) as well as adult baptismal regeneration (The Way to Freedom, p. 151), equated church membership with salvation (The Way to Freedom, p. 93), and denied a personal/individualistic salvation (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, p. 156). Dr. G. Archer Weniger declared, “If there is wholesome food in a garbage can, then one can find some good things in Bonhoeffer, but if it be dangerous to expect to find nourishment in a garbage can, then Bonhoeffer must be totally rejected and repudiated as blasphemy. It is worse than garbage” (FBF Information Bulletin, May 1977, p. 12). (copied from here)

The newsletter also promotes the “National Center for Family-Integrated Churches” on pgs. 4-5.  This organization is filled with very serious false doctrines (see here.).  Vision Forum is also promoted on pgs. 4-5, despite the false gospel taught by Vision Forum, including baptismal regeneration (here and other material with a false gospel (cf. here).  You can expect to have heretics and unconverted spiritual wolves promoted in issues of the Samaritan newsletter. This is a consequence of the fact that the organization is by no means restricted to separatist Baptist churches, or even Christian fundamentalists, but includes a section of Christendom much wider than the Lord’s church.  Vast numbers of people in Christendom who are blown about with all kinds of winds of doctrine, and many who are themselves unconverted, are members of Samaritan.  If you are a Samaritan member, I would suggest giving out the gospel with your monthly check and letter of encouragement—you cannot assume the person whose need you are assisting is himself truly converted, and you certainly cannot assume that he is part of a true church.  I typically refer the person to my evangelistic and Christian website(s) (here; or here; or here).

2.)   New Age “Medicine” and Quackery

You should expect, not only the promotion of false teachers, but also the promotion of all kinds of New Age medicine and simple quack nonsense in the Samaritan newsletter, influencing the impressionable for evil among the people of God.  I have never read an issue of the Samaritan newsletter that warns against any New Age or quack therapy or promotes scientific medicine or the Biblical practice of the scientific method over quackery or the New Age.  Sometimes issues do not promote any treatments at all—those are a relief. Whenever something is promoted, medical science seems to be out in the cold, and quackery is in.  The February issue is, unfortunately, no exception in its promotion of New Age “medicine” and quackery.  For example, on pgs. 8-9 a book is promoted by a lady who discovered what herbs would heal her child by praying that God would teach her and make her child hungry for whatever foods would help him most.  God answers prayer, but would you want to fly in a plane if you were told, “This plane has not been rigorously tested as to whether it will fly or not based on the laws of gravity, etc.; however, we have prayed that God would help us design it in such a way that it will fly”?  God has designed the world so that we can subdue and have dominion over it by rigorous testing of evidence—that is, the scientific method, which this lady did not pursue. Nevertheless, the idea that she discovered herbs that cure malaria and heal liver damage because of an e-mail testimony from some people in Uganda (pg. 9) is mentioned.  Real science does not rely on testimonials—it employs placebo-controlled trials.  Testimonials can “prove” absolutely anything.  The lady ended up starting a quack herbal supplement company and writing a book promoted in the Samaritan Ministries newsletter.  Her company, Mountain Meadow Herbs, also promotes people such as the New Age quack Hulda Clark (here), advocate of the New Age practice of bio-energetic testing (see the expose of New Age energy medicine here.).  Clark also claimed to be able to cure all cancer in five days and that one should stop radiation, chemo, etc. because she had the cure for all cancer; see: here.  She led many to an early death until she herself died of cancer in 2009, but she continues to be promoted by organizations such as Mountain Meadow Herbs.  It is extremely dangerous for someone who has cancer to be influenced by such garbage as was promoted by Mrs. Clark—but Samaritan Ministries promotes her advocates.  Indeed, on pg. 6 of their newsletter a special diet is mentioned that has “success . . . in treating epilepsy . . . diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and autism.”  Do you want to commit unintentional suicide, or encourage a fellow believer to die early?  Then listen to Samaritan Ministries and think that adopting a faddish diet will cure your cancer.

I wish I could say that the February issue was the only one promoting the New Age and quackery, but it is not so.  The January issue spoke about a conspiracy to cover up the "truth" that "all root canals are infected" (pg. 9) and recommended the quack practice of biological dentistry.  Furthermore, Samaritan has just elected to its board a gentleman who owns a health-food store that promotes quackery, even what is really the ultimate in quack nonsense and also a plain-as-day New Age error, homeopathy;  see here and here for the promotion of homeopathy at their health-food store;  the book Homeopathic Medicine at Home is listed under "Great Books" in their store here.  Much more, unfortunately, could be said.

Following the pseudo-medical nonsense advocated in the Samaritan newsletter can bring you under the chastisement of God for fellowship with the demons dancing with the New Age.  You might also die young.  You are almost certain to be a bad steward and throw away the Lord’s money on junk, as well as filling your head with falsehoods.  It is most unfortunate that Samaritan promotes the anti-Christ New Age movement and quackery in this fashion.  I think the fundamental idea of Christian health-sharing is wonderful, and Samaritan is superior to medical insurance that funds abortion, etc.  However, you should reject the false teachers, the New Age junk, and the quackery promoted in its newsletter.  Anyone who is part of Samaritan ministries should be warned about these extremely dangerous errors, so that they are not led astray from the truth, do not dishonor God by accepting New Age lies, do not die young, and do not waste the financial resources with which God has entrusted them.

Some reliable resources exposing New Age medicine and quackery are here.

If you are a member of Samaritan Ministries, and you are opposed to the New Age, quackery, and the promotion of false teachers, I would encourage you to politely contact them here.  I do not believe that they are deliberately promoting misinformation or assisting the devil with the promotion of the New Age but are doing it unintentionally.  Please show them the respect due to professing Christians, those who profess to be adopted by God the Father through Jesus Christ by the Spirit.  Please also consider letting others you know who are members of Samaritan about these issues with the ministry.

Dangers in Samaritan Ministries part 2

Dangers in Samaritan Ministries part 3

Health Threats from Samaritan Ministries part 1

Health Threats from Samaritan Ministries part 2

Reliable material on unconventional and New Age therapies in Christian perspective

-TDR

Fundamentalist Floundering, pt. 2

If you visit an art museum, maybe you remember the surreal or avant garde in the modern section.  They look at an object and then allow their own personal chaos to go to work.   Painting inside the lines doesn't really matter, just put the paint wherever you want, and especially use a broad brush.  That would describe a recent young evangelical's essay explaining Lance Ketchum.  You won't be able to blink out the distortion---that's really what he wrote---lies and all.

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

The doctrine of bibliology didn't start in the early 20th century with fundamentalism or even in the late 19th century with Warfield.   The history of Christian doctrine does in fact move into several previous centuries.  You really are not heteredox if you agree with what the saved, whether Baptist or other, believed about the Bible.  Premoderns thought there was one Bible.  Funny, huh?   There is one God with one truth, with one goodness, and one beauty.  To them, you knew what you knew by faith.  Theology was the queen of all sciences, so if the Bible said God would preserve every Word and that they would all be available to every generation, well, you just believed it.  That made it the truth.  You worked out how that all happened later.  Now if people can't get a satisfying human explanation for how it happened, they question the belief, question what the Bible teaches about it.  That's called staggering in unbelief.

Modern evangelicals and fundamentalists are not sure now.  If they say there is one Bible, they mean one inspired Bible.  They're not talking about one you could hold in your hands.  Come on silly, you don't really believe that, do you?  And why not?  It really is hard to explain since that's what the Bible teaches and how Christians believed up until evangelicals and fundamentalists got in touch with modernists.   Mike Harding wrote more on issue number one:

Almost twelve years ago I said publicly at the national FBFI meeting that fundamentalism wasn't certain as to what the gospel was nor was it certain as to what the Bible was; other than that we were in great shape.  I quoted Dr. McCune and said that fundamentalism is bleeding on these issues; let it bleed.  King James Onlyism and rampant easy believism characterize a large segment of fundamentalism.  You see elements of it in Ketchum's blog.  Those elements are heterodox.

I agree with Harding about the fundamentalist uncertainty on the gospel, and I would attach to that sanctification.  I don't think Ketchum is easy-believism.  I've never read him present that idea.  However, I was bemused by this part of Harding's statement:  "nor was it certain as to what the Bible was."  That is also true, but not like Harding says.  I would be encouraged to hear that Harding really is certain as to what the Bible was.  I've read his writings and presently he doesn't know what the original text of Scripture is, and doesn't think that anyone else knows either.  That is neither a biblical or historic bibliology.  Please show me that in a Baptist confession.  Harding's and other fundamentalists' and evangelicals' view of the Bible is very, very damaging.  It is heterodox, but it is a root cause of much that is wrong both in professing Christianity, in America, and in the world.  If we can't know what the Words of Scripture are, which Harding believes, then the authority of Scripture itself is lost.  This is why now the doctrines are so up-for-grabs as well.

I told you I would deal with two issues from that thread that were of interest to me, and the second is music. What I'm considering here is very serious, but there is a lot that is funny too in fundamentalism, in an ironic way.  Bauder writes:

 I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.

Based on Bauder's own judgment, his position on music makes him a hyper-fundamentalist.   It really makes that label irrelevant, or at least it was already irrelevant, but even more irrelevant, if that is possible.  And if Bauder is out of the mainstream of fundamentalism with music, shouldn't we also throw "heterodox" at him too.  Oh, that's right, Mike Harding actually would agree with Bauder, so Bauder can't be heterodox.  It really makes these classifications seem silly.  Later, Bauder piles on about music:

I think that it can be Scripturally demonstrated, to about the same extent that any other practical application can be Scripturally demonstrated (including the practical application of the gospel). Furthermore, you are correctly drawing out the implications of my statement. Certain kinds of music are so incompatible with the Christian message that their use is blasphemous. They represent an apostasy, not from orthodoxy, but from orthopathy.

Bauder calls people with the wrong worship music "apostates."  Why be a fundamentalist?  Why try to hang on to fundamentalism?  You can't practice biblical separation if you must keep fellowshiping with apostates in order to be a fundamentalist.  This is why Bauder says he will try to continue to do.  Why even try to do that?  Later, Harding writes:

However, I know the difference between a departing "brother" (apostasy), a disobedient brother (willful disobedience to the clear dictates of the Word of God), and a disagreeing brother (someone with whom I disagree with enough not to partner with, but nevertheless see a great deal of good in their ministry).

Would Harding agree with Bauder that someone with the wrong worship music is apostatizing?  That is, is he a "departing brother"?

Later, Joel Tetreau steps in to show he is clueless on what Bauder means about music:

1. If you can't prove it from Scripture (and Kevin, you can't) it is not legitimate to equate one's approach to music to the importance of a Fundamental of the Faith.

2. If the statement is consistent then a failure in music (as a failure in the Virgin Birth) cannot make you a bad Christian. If you miss the Virgin Birth, you miss salvation, which means you aren't a bad Christian, you are a non-Christian. One can hardly say if you miss "music" you miss salvation. (I'm sure this was not the aim - but in my view this is a reverse implication if Kevin's view goes full circle). 

3. The only way this might be true is when one's music is so "anti-God" and/or so "anti-Gospel" that it would make impossible the understanding of God or the reception of the gospel. (The overwhelming amount of CCM music that is being used by serious-minded evangelicals and theologically responsible fundamentalist are using gospel-centered music that clearly get's the gospel across. To equate what they do in music with missing the virgin birth is a "stretch" to say the very least - come on guys! You have to do better than this.)

It's true, though, that Bauder is extreme for evangelicals and fundamentalists here.  He's way off the deep end to them.  Tetreau represents the typical evangelical thinking.   The "you can't prove it from Scripture" is a cop-out.  A lot of Bible application goes outside of Scripture to make its point.  There is truth in the real world and applying God's Word requires understanding those truths.  Everyone knows this, but they deny it in order to live like they want in some fashion.

Bauder doesn't back down.  He later affirms:

Whatever music you use to speak about God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

Later, Bauder explains how he gets out of his own hyper-fundamentalist definition:

But I don't think so, for the simple reason that I do not hold up my views on music as a standard by which to judge anyone's standing as a Fundamentalist, nor do I seek to enforce my views upon anyone else. 

If he either (1) held up his musical standard by which to judge whether someone was a fundamentalist or (2) tried to force his musical standard on others, he would be a hyper-fundamentalist, so, whew, he's not one.  And why is that the definition?  Because he says so.  This is really difficult.  Those who don't take his views are apostate, but he tries not to enforce that on others.   Is there anything we should try to get someone to believe, like the virgin birth?   I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees his position as a complete contradiction.  Kevin should come and join me on the other side of fundamentalism from evangelicalism.  I agree with him on music.  Completely.  The truth and true worship is more important than being either a fundamentalist or fitting in with you "friends."  Aren't we first responsible first to be a friend to God?  Come out from among them and be ye separate.  Come out and join us, Kevin Bauder!

I believe two fears are the issue.  On the textual issue, it is an intellectual fear.  Fundamentalists don't want to look stupid.   That fear is the same one driving the movement toward evolution today.  On the music issue, it's a fear of losing young people.  Young people are being influenced by the world system, and churches are struggling to keep them, because of the alternative.

Fundamentalist Floundering, pt. 1

The commentary under Kevin Bauder's recent open letter to Lance Ketchum exposed a trove of fundamentalist absurdity.  I can't stay away from two of the points, both of which strayed from the thread of Bauder's letter.  Mike Harding, a fundamentalist leader, wrote:

Lance Ketchum in his published post by necessary implication condemns the London Baptist Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith which is the most accepted confession of faith among historical, biblical, orthodox, separatist churches in North America. Our own fundamental association of Baptist churches in Michigan openly confesses the NH Confession and requires pastors to sign a statement that they and their churches are in agreement with said document.

Then he wrote a comment he titled, Apples and Bowling Balls:

As a member of the resolutions committee at the FBFI, note that we have passed umpteen resolutions against all forms of King James Onlyism.  It is heterodoxy, plain and simple.  We respect those who hold the King James preferred position as well as those who use other well-done formally equivalent translations such as NKJV, NASB, and ESV.  Most of our members are either majority text or eclectic text such as myself, Minnick, et. al. 

Concerning CCM (the wedding of pop/rock styles with Christian words for worship) the FBFI has consistently opposed it to this day.  The two issues are not remotely identical.

In another thread about Ketchum, someone else wrote this:

And the compiler and "textual critic" of the Received Text was Erasmus - a Roman Catholic monk!

The above is just one example of many fallacies in the article.  The sad truth about articles like this is that they exemplify the mentality that drives folks like myself away from "fundamentalism".  Even sadder is the fact that this mentality (I believe) has driven many people away from the church altogether.  There is no honor (eternal or temporal) in stubborn belligerence.

And then another guy, this:

So, Independent, fundamental, Baptists separate from historic Protestantism but cite historic Protestantism in defense of being KJV only.   hmmm

OK, let's take these one at a time, because they're four different problems about the same issue.  Fundamentalists and evangelicals keep telling themselves these types of things and they're wrong.

First one, Harding doesn't believe the London Baptist Confession here:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.

The Philadelphia Baptist Confession is the same and these mimic the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Their understanding of providential preservation, of "kept pure in all ages," was the perfect preservation of Scripture.

John Owen wrote:

The whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining. . . . In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.

This is clear from a multitude of quotations from the authors and signers.  Harding doesn't believe this.  Based on his own terms of evaluation, he's heterodox and factional.

Then Harding says that his music issue and King James Onlyism are not remotely identical.  Wrong again.  There is one truth, one goodness, and one beauty.  Without one truth, you lose one goodness and one beauty.  There is one God.  He wrote one Bible.  Harding's position necessarily says more than one set of words for the Bible.  This is the relativism that gave us subjective beauty or more than one beauty.  They are directly related.   You could also say that man is deciding what the truth is and then man is deciding what beauty is.  Both are man-centered.

For comment number three, the received text didn't originate with Erasmus.  None other than Kurt Aland himself writes:

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

This is the view held by Baptists and Protestants.  Saying that Erasmus originated the textus receptus is people with an agenda repeating ignorance.

The last comment from a guy who pulls his history from a cracker-jack box.  Baptists didn't get their position from Protestants.  They got it from the Bible.  Just because they agree with Protestants, doesn't mean that they took their doctrine from them.  The Baptists didn't disagree with the WCF on preservation of Scripture.  Baptists wrote the same statement in Philadelphia Baptist Confession.  Most Protestants today don't even take the same position.  They are the one who departed from their own belief.

One Wednesday I'll move to the second point.

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 2

Before getting into my post, as an Eagle Scout, let me mention that the Boy Scouts are considering the acceptance of sodomites in their organization.  This is an awful idea--they would be asking for an increase in child molestation, and sharing a tent with a sodomite, not to mention the group showers, etc. out in the back woods, is intolerable.  Acceptance of sodomy would violate the Scout's swearing to be "morally straight" also.  Please read the article here and either call or e-mail them and politely request that they retain their current policy.  The phone  number works, but you may need to call a few times to get through.

part 2

The verb employed in Genesis 15:6, to believe, (Hebrew ‘aman)[i] signifies to trust in, to believe in in the Hebrew form employed in Genesis 15:6,[ii] and signifies to be firm, trustworthy in its foundational idea and to prove to be firm, reliable, faithful, trustworthy in a different, frequently passive verb form.[iii] Commenting on a part of the meaning of ‘aman that relates to Genesis 15:6, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes:

[T]he concept of Nma embraces a twofold relation: recognition and acknowledgment of the relation of claim and reality, and the relation of the validity of this claim for him who says Amen to all its practical consequences. . . . This leads us to the simplest definition of the hiphil NImTaRh (“to believe”), which the LXX renders 45 times by pisteu/ein, 5 by ejmmisteu/ein, and once each by katapisteu/ein and pei/qesqai. It means “to say Amen with all the consequences for both obj. and subj.” . . . [T]he use of NImTaRh toward men gives prominence to the total basic attitude along the lines of “to trust.” . . . A further point is that the OT uses NImTaRh only for the personal relation, for behind the word which is believed is the man whom one trusts. The hiphil finds an analogous use as an expression for man’s relation to God. Here, too, it has declarative rather than causative significance. It means “to declare God NDmTaRn,” “to say Amen to God.” But this does not embrace the whole meaning . . . the mutual relation between God and man is of the very essence of faith . . . God is the true author of the relation between God and man. . . . [T]he setting and origin of the religious use of the stem Nma in the OT tradition is to be sought in the sacral covenant with [Jehovah]. . . . In the relation denoted by NImTaRh the OT saw the special religious attitude of the people of God to [Jehovah]. (pgs. 186-188, 191, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Kittel)

B. B. Warfield notes on the tense of ‘aman found in Genesis 15:6, the Hiphil + the preposition beth, the following:

Obviously it is a subjective causative, and expresses the acquisition or exhibition of the firmness, security, relability, faithfulness which lies in the root-meaning of the verb, in or with respect to its object. The NyImSaAm is therefore one whose state of mind is free from faintheartedness (Isaiah 7:9) and anxious haste (Isaiah 28:16), and who stays himself upon the object of his contemplation with confidence and trust. The implication seems to be, not so much that of a passive dependence as of a vigorous active commitment. He who, in the Hebrew sense, exercises faith, is secure, assured, confident (Deuteronomy 28:66; Job 24:22; Psalm 27:13), and lays hold of the object of his confidence with firm trust.

The most common construction of NyImTaRh, is with the preposition b, and in this construction its fundamental meaning seems to be most fully expressed. It is probably never safe to represent this phrase by the simple “believe”; the preposition rather introduces the person or thing in which one believes, or on which one believingly rests as on firm ground. This is true even when the object of the affection is a thing, whether divine words, commandments, or works (Psalm 106:12; 119:66; 78:32), or some earthly force or good (Job 39:12; 15:31; 24:22; Deuteronomy 28:66), It is no less true when the object is a person, human (1 Samuel 27:12; Proverbs 26:25; Jeremiah 12:6; Micah 7:5) or superhuman (Job 4:18; 15:15), or the representative of God, in whom therefore men should place their confidence (Exodus 19:9; 2 Chronicles 20:20). It is above all true, however, when the object of the affection is God Himself, and that indifferently whether or not the special exercise of faith adverted to is rooted in a specific occasion (Genesis 15:6; Exodus 14:31; Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Psalm 78:22; Jonah 3:5). The weaker conception of “believing” seems, on the other hand, to lie in the construction with the preposition l, which appears to introduce the person or thing, not on which one confidingly rests, but to the testimony of which one assentingly turns. This credence may be given by the simple to every untested word (Proverbs 14:15); it may be withheld until seeing takes the place of believing (1 Kings 10:7; 2 Chronicles 9:6); it is due to words of the Lord and of His messengers, as well as to the signs wrought by them (Psalm 106:24; Isaiah 53:1; Exodus 4:8, 9). It may also be withheld from any human speaker (Genesis 45:26; Exodus 4:1, 8; Jeremiah 40:14; 2 Chronicles 32:15), but is the right of God when He bears witness to His majesty or makes promises to His people (Isaiah 43:10; Deuteronomy 9:23). In this weakened sense of the word the proposition believed is sometimes attached to it by the conjunction y;Ik (Exodus 4:5; Job 9:16; Lamentations 4:12). In its construction with the infinitive, however, its deeper meaning comes out more strongly (Judges 11:20; Job 15:22; Psalm 27:13), and the same is true when the verb is used absolutely (Exodus 4:31; Isaiah 7:9; 28:16; Psalm 116:10; Job 29:24; Habakkuk 1:5). In these constructions faith is evidently the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. . . .

God Himself is the object to which [Old Testament saints] believingly turn, or on whom they rest in assured trust, in some eleven cases. In two of these it is to Him as a faithful witness that faith believingly turns (Deuteronomy 9:23; Isaiah 43:10). In the remainder of them it is upon His very person that faith rests in assured confidence (Genesis 15:6; Exodus 14:31; Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Psalm 78:22; Jonah 3:5). It is in these instances, in which the construction is with b, together with those in which the word is used absolutely (Exodus 4:31; Isaiah 7:9; 28:16; Psalm 116:10), to which may be added Psalm 27:13 where it is construed with the infinitive, that the conception of religious believing comes to its rights. The typical instance is, of course, the great word of Genesis 15:6, ‘And Abram believed in the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness’; in which all subsequent believers, Jewish and Christian alike, have found the primary example of faith. The object of Abram’s faith, as here set forth, was not the promise which appears as the occasion of its exercise; what it rested on was God Himself, and that not merely as the giver of the promise here recorded, but as His servant’s shield and exceeding great reward (xv.1). It is therefore not the assentive but the fiducial element of faith which is here emphasized; in a word, the faith which Abram gave Jehovah when he ‘put his trust in God’ (e˙pi÷steusen tw◊ˆ qew◊ˆ, LXX), was the same faith which later He sought in vain at the hands of His people (Numbers 14:11; cf. Deuteronomy 1:32; 2 Kings 17:14), and the notion of which the Psalmist explains in the parallel, ‘They believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation’ (Psalm 78:22). To believe in God, in the Old Testament sense, is thus not merely to assent to His word, but with firm and unwavering confidence to rest in security and trustfulness upon Him. . . . In the Greek of the Septuagint pisteu/ein takes its place as the regular rendering of NyImTaRh, and is very rarely set aside in favour of another word expressing trust (Proverbs 26:25 pei÷qesqai). . . . It was by being thus made the vehicle for expressing the high rfeligous faith of the Old Testament that the word was prepared for its New Testament use (“The Biblical Doctrine of Faith,” Warfield, in Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of Works).

Faithfulness and trustworthiness arise from faith, and are impossible without it, so that faith, through the initial exercise of which justification was received, may, by continued acts of faith that are a product of a believing new nature,[iv] evidence the saint’s inward faith and faithfulness in outward fidelity.  Thus, the Old Testament teaches that one who believes in God,[v] another person,[vi] an event,[vii] or a thing,[viii] reckons the thing in question, or the person, as one who will continue or endure the same,[ix] as trustworthy[x] or faithful,[xi] or sure,[xii] or confirmed or established,[xiii] and therefore worthy of assured confidence.[xiv]  Those descendents of Jacob who believe in Jehovah, those who believe and consequently become the faithful, of whom Abraham is the paradigm,[xv] are those who are redeemed and counted as righteous[xvi] and will in the last days receive the Promised Land, along with believing Gentiles (Jonah 3:5, 10) who will similarly inherit the Millenial earth and the eternal kingdom.

This post is part of the complete study here.

-TDR

---

[i] Nma.  The complete list of texts with the verb is: Genesis 15:6; 42:20; 45:26; Exodus 4:1, 5, 8–9, 31; 14:31; 19:9; Numbers 12:7; 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 7:9; 9:23; 28:59, 66; Judges 11:20; 1 Samuel 2:35; 3:20; 22:14; 25:28; 27:12; 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Kings 8:26; 10:7; 11:38; 2 Kings 17:14; 1 Chronicles 17:23–24; 2 Chronicles 1:9; 6:17; 9:6; 20:20; 32:15; Nehemiah 9:8; 13:13; Psalms 19:8; 27:13; 78:8, 22, 32, 37; 89:29, 38; 93:5; 101:6; 106:12, 24; 111:7; 116:10; 119:66; Job 4:18; 9:16; 12:20; 15:15, 22, 31; 24:22; 29:24; 39:12, 24; Proverbs 11:13; 14:15; 25:13; 26:25; 27:6; Isaiah 1:21, 26; 7:9; 8:2; 22:23, 25; 28:16; 33:16; 43:10; 49:7; 53:1; 55:3; Jeremiah 12:6; 15:18; 40:14; 42:5; Lamentations 4:12; Hosea 5:9; 12:1; Jonah 3:5; Micah 7:5; Habakkuk 1:5.

[ii] The Hiphil + b. Nma + b is found in Genesis 15:6; Exodus 14:31; Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 28:66; 1 Samuel 27:12; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Job 15:31; 24:22; 39:12; Psalm 27:13; 78:22, 32, 37; 89:38; 106:12; 119:66; Proverbs 26:25; Jeremiah 12:6; Jonah 3:5; Micah 7:5.  The definite majority of these texts refer to belief in Jehovah.  In all these texts, except Psalm 78:37; 89:28; and one of the three instances of Nma in 2 Chronicles 20:20, where the verb is in the Niphal, Nma is always in the Hiphil.

[iii] The Niphal.  Note the lexicon:

Nma basic mng. to be firm, trustworthy, safe; MHb., Ph. n.m. Nmala; Syr. etpe. to occupy oneself constantly with; Hb. hif. > Arm. NyImyEh, Syr. haimen ˘ BArm., DISO 17, to believe, > Arb. haymana to say Amen :: Arb. }amina to be safe, }amuna to be faithful, IV to believe, Soq. to speak the truth, OSArb. }mn(t) security; Eth. Tigr. }am(a)na to believe (Leslau 11, Wb. 356a); Eg. mn to be firm. . . . nif: . . . 1. to prove to be firm, reliable, faithful Gn 4220 1K 826 Jr 1518 Ps 788 (lEa_tRa to God, of Aj…wr,) 37 8929 (Owl concerning him, of tyîr;Vb) 935 1016 1117 1C 1723f 2C 19 617 2020, to remain faithful to (MIo) Hos 121 (:: Sept.); pt. trustworthy, faithful 1S 235 2214 1K 1138 Is 121.26 82 2223.25 3316 Jr 425 Ps 198 8938 Jb 1220 Pr 2513 Neh 98 1313; (of God) Dt 79 Is 497; —to be permanent, to endure: people Is 79, dynasty 1S 2528 2S 716, tokens of mercy Is 553, God’s name 1C 1723f, water Is 3316, illness Dt 2859; hÎnDmTa‰n that which is trustworthy Hos 59, Aj…wr_NAmTa‰n be faithful Pr 1113, NDmTa‰n intended to be faithful Pr 276; —3. ;Vb NDmTa‰n entrusted with (alt. proved to be reliable) Nu 127, with Vl appointed 1S 320. . . . hif: . . . causative —1. to believe = to think (:: 3 !) with inf., that Jb 1522, with y;Ik Ps 11610 Jb 916 La 412; with Vl and inf., to be convinced that Ps 2713; —2. to regard something as trustworthy, to believe in: a thing Hab 15, a word Ex 48f 1K 107 Is 531 Ps 10624 Pr 1415 2C 96; with ;Vb, to (have) trust in Nu 2012 1S 2712 Mi 75 Sir 36 [33]31; with Vl Gn 4526 Ex 41.8 Jr 4014; abs. Ex 45 Jb 2924 (dl. aøl, alt. as 4); —3. to have trust in, to believe in, God: with ;Vb Gn 156 Ex 1431 (and in Moses) Nu 1411 2012 Dt 132 2K 1714 Jon 35 Ps 7822 2C 2020; with Vl Dt 923 Is 4310; abs. to believe Ex 431 Is 79 2816; ˘ TWNT 6:182ff; RGG 2:1588f; Eichrodt 2:190ff; Pfeiffer ZAW 71:151ff, relation between pi÷stiß and pisteu/ein Ebeling ZThK 55:70ff; —Ju 1120 (trad. to entrust, Sir 4513 hif. or hof.) rd. NEaDm◊yÅw; Is 3021 …wnyImy;Et (: Nmy hif); cj. Jb 3924 (usu. keep still) (lyIaVmVcÅy aøøl◊w) NyImy´´y (Duhm Hiob, Hölscher Hiob). (KB)

[iv] While the New Testament teaches more explicitly and apparently the growth of faith in the believer, the Old Testament suggests the possibility of strengthening and development in Nma, rather than a simply static notion, through the uses in 2 Kings 10:1, 5 & Esther 2:7 for supporting, nourishing, or bringing up as related to confirming or strengthening (see BDB; cf. tiqhno/ß in 2 Kings 10:1, 5, LXX & qrepto/ß in Esther 2:7).

[v] Exodus 14:31; Number 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 9:23; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Nehemiah 9:8; Psalm 78:8, 22, 32; Isaiah 7:9; 28:16; 43:10; Jonah 3:5.  In a text such as Isaiah 7:9 belief in Jehovah and in the message of His prophet are indivisibly connected;  cf. Isaiah 53:1.

[vi] Genesis 45:26; Exodus 4:1, 8, 31; 14:31; 19:9; 1 Samuel 27:12; 2 Chronicles 20:20; 32:15; Proverbs 26:25; Jeremiah 12:6; 40:14; Micah 7:5.

[vii] Exodus 4:5; Job 15:22; 29:24; 39:24; Psalm 27:13; Lamentations 4:12; Habakkuk 1:5.

[viii] Exodus 4:9, 31; 1 Kings 10:7; 2 Chronicles 9:6; Job 9:6; 39:12; Psalm 78:37; 106:12, 24; 116:10; 119:66; Proverbs 14:15; Isaiah 7:9; 53:1.

[ix] Deuteronomy 28:59; Jeremiah 15:18.

[x] Genesis 42:20; Judges 11:20; Job 4:18; 12:20; 15:15, 31; Micah 7:5.

[xi] Numbers 12:7; Deuteronomy 7:9; 1 Samuel 2:35; 22:14; Nehemiah 9:8; 13:13; Psalm 101:6; Proverbs 11:13; 25:13; 27:6; Isaiah 1:21, 26; 8:2; 49:7; Jeremiah 42:5; Hosea 11:12.

[xii] 1 Samuel 2:35; 25:28; 1 Kings 11:38; Job 24:22; Psalm 19:7; 93:5; 111:7; Isaiah 22:23, 25; 33:16; 55:3; Hosea 5:9.

[xiii] 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Kings 8:26; 1 Chronicles 17:23-24; 2 Chronicles 1:9; 6:17; 20:20; Psalm 89:28, 37.

[xiv] Deuteronomy 28:66.

[xv] Genesis 15:6; Nehemiah 9:8.  Note that Nehemiah 9:8’s ~ÔKy‰nDpVl N∞DmTa‰n, with its Niphal of ‘aman with lamed following, is different from Genesis 15:6’s use of the Hiphil + beth in h¡DOwhyèA;b N™ImTaRh◊w.  Faithfulness in the heart is a result of coming to initial faith in Jehovah.

[xvi] Genesis 15:6; Isaiah 1:21-27.  The “redeemed” (hdp) believing remnant in Zion in Isaiah 1:21-27 result in Jerusalem being the “city of righteousness, the faithful city” (h`DnDmTa‰n h™Dy√rIq q®d$R…xAh ry∞Io).