The Providence of God and Sickness

The terminology "providence of God" doesn't appear in the Bible, but it represents how God works in the Bible and, therefore, history.  God wants to be trusted.  Trusting God, as related to sickness, means remaining hopeful in light of God's love, goodness, and grace.  God cares about sparrows. God even cares about the grass of the field that grows.  Certainly God cares about men, and especially those of the household of faith.

Nothing occurs that isn't either caused or allowed by God.  If it happens, He could have stopped it from happening.  Since it did happen, then God either caused it or allowed it.  Because God is righteous, loving, gracious, powerful, and wise, then He can be trusted with what He allows or causes.  He's got some good reason for it, including sickness.

Most people get over most sickness.  Men recover from sickness much more than they retain it. Again and again God either causes or allows someone to recuperate from a sickness.  We should expect it.  Many more times than not, men get better.  I have witnessed men to survive many more situations where they should not have survived, then dying when they might have survived.  Men survive at an astounding rate in comparison to what could have occurred.

When someone dies of a sickness, God could have stopped it.  He didn't.  Since He didn't, He must have had a good reason not to have terminated it.  God would be justified in either allowing or causing any sickness for anyone.  Since we know God is in charge, we also know that God has done what is best.  A believer will rejoice in that and live with contentment in whatever God chooses to do or allow.  God is going to work everything toward the best.  The recognition and acceptance of God's perfect attributes trusts His providence.

Even if someone dies, if He is saved, He has died unto the Lord.   God might not keep someone alive. Believers should not be so preoccupied with this earthly life.  They should look forward to their heavenly home and its fellowship with God.  This isn't fatalism, where someone gives up on life. This is when someone does his best to prevent his own death, but also finds the prospects of death acceptable.

To express the above in a personal way, when I'm sick, I thank God for His goodness that He has caused or allowed me to live this long.  I acknowledge my acquiescence to whatever His plan.  I know God will do what is right.  This is not my rejection of living the best I can as long as I'm allowed.  God will either heal me or allow me to be healed if He wants.  I do all that I can or should do to stay alive and leave the outcome to the Lord.  With faith in Him, I please Him.

I expect to get over a cold or a flu, because that's the way God operates.  If I were not to get over a cold or a flu and I died from one of the two, I would know that is the good, righteous, and wise plan of God.  So far, I've survived all my sicknesses up to the age of 53.  What I believe is that what I've received is far more than what I deserve.  If someone else gets sick, I encourage them in the providence of God.  I pray for them spiritually to trust in the Lord and grow from the experience. Like the Apostle Paul, I don't see living in such circumstances to be superior to dying, even if I wish someone to live.

If I want to live longer, I believe I can affect that outcome with diet and exercise.  If I choose to eat in an unhealthy manner, I don't expect God to intervene despite the poor decisions I've made.  I deserve what I get.  That goes for others as well.  I understand how that someone who smokes for a few decades might die from a smoking related sickness.   Again, we should trust God's providence.

Paul wrote that godliness and contentment are great gain.  Contentment relates to the providence of God.  Contentment also relates to our physical conditions.  If we live godly, we are content with whatever state we are.  If we live, we live unto the Lord.  If we die, we die unto the Lord.

Damning Danger in Asking Christ into Your Heart: The Testimony of Baptist Pastor Ovid Need, part 4 of 4

Hardness & Hostility

A man who represented Accelerated Christian Education in our area once told me in the midst of an intense discussion about the plan of salvation presented in ACE’s material: “All the best scholars agree that the terms are the same—Ask Jesus into your heart and trust Christ as your substitute.” He went on to say that if what we were saying was correct then he was lost. That ended the conversation, for it was then obvious he was not defending God’s Word; rather, he was defending a false profession.

We confronted a missionary who worked with a printing ministry in the South over the false plan of salvation used in their materials. After a lengthy, heated discussion, he said that he had asked Jesus into his heart here in our church many years ago, and if that did not save him, then he was not saved.

We have found that those who become the most “hostile” over what we are saying are more often than not unsaved themselves. They are defending their own false profession of faith as surely as a man defends a city. Normally, their defense is not Scriptural, and if they admit that what is presented herein is true, they must admit that what they have is false. On the other hand, those who have trusted Christ rejoice over the message contained herein.

Not one time in Scripture is there even a hint that one can be saved by asking Jesus into his heart; it is a false plan of salvation being used by the devil to draw multitudes down the broad road to destruction.

The man from ACE said, “Boy, you sure are narrow!” when I would not consider any argument except Scripture. Yes! I am; furthermore, the Lord was very narrow, calling all others thieves and robbers. [Jn 10]

A Personal Testimony

The truth presented herein is largely overlooked in our day; therefore, I realize many who read this will not understand what we are trying to say. But, obviously, the risk is far too great to dismiss this lightly.

Though I am apprehensive about mentioning personal experience (the Spirit deals with individuals as individuals), I think it would be useful to mention that this little booklet is written from personal experience. This preacher was “deceived” by this other gospel for many years. Whereas there are “other gospels” which are just as dangerous as the one presented herein, this one appears to be the most prevalent today. Our prayer is that the Holy Spirit might see fit to use this little booklet to perform the same work in others which he did in this preacher’s life at 11:30 A.M., Oct. 29, 1977. Please do not attempt to compare experiences, for our only comparison must be with the Word of God. The Lord deals with unique individuals, and calls each to Himself in His unique way within the bounds of His Word.

When I got out of the Service in 1965, I worked construction during the day and took some evening Bible College courses. Our church had a large bus ministry, and the head of the bus ministry talked me into driving a bus, then into taking a bus route. The Lord allowed a successful bus route, so successful in fact, that when he left I was asked to take over the ministry. While I was there, the Lord dealt with my heart about salvation.

I had gone forward as a nine-year old child. I am certain I went through all the proper religious motions because I was baptized at that time. As I got older, I could remember nothing about it, and the message I kept hearing was, “If you can’t remember asking Jesus into your heart, then you aren’t saved.” I could not remember; therefore, one evening, in deep emotional distress, I went to one of my instructors saying, “I need to talk to you.” He took me into his office and I told him, “I’m not saved.”

“Ovid,” he said, “if anyone is saved, you are.”

I replied, “No, I’m not. Show me how to be saved.” He proceeded to show me that I needed to ask Jesus into my heart which I did.

The Lord moved us to another church where, once again, we were placed in charge of the “soul-winning” visitation and the bus ministry. With very few exceptions, each Sunday we had someone whom we had “led to the Lord” in their homes, walk down the aisle and publicly profess asking Jesus into their hearts.

After three years, we went on to the staff of another church and again were given charge of the soul-winning visitation program. Here my job included door-to-door “soulwinning,” as well as following up the new children from the buses. I spent six hours a day, five days a week, doing this. In my files I still have record of close to 1,000 names and addresses of those whom I led to pray, “Jesus, come into my heart, and save me.” The only reason I mention this is to point out that, in this particular area, I am not a novice. I have been there.

I noticed something different about the pastor at this new church. He used a soul-winning plan called “Circles and Steps” which he picked up from Tom Wallace. I saw the difference in this presentation as he pointed out the necessity of the substitutionary death of Christ before he said to the prospect, “If you are willing to trust Christ as your Saviour, take my hand.”

I felt this was a much better way of presenting the Gospel, so I changed the plan I used from “Ask Jesus into your heart to save you,” to “Take my hand to show you are trusting in Christ as your Substitute and Saviour.”

I had no problems with this until my pastor and I held a Christian workers’ conference in a little church in Missouri beside the Mississippi River. At the conference, I was teaching a class on soul-winning and was speaking about how so many people believed they were saved because they had walked down the aisles, shook the preacher’s hand and told him they believed that Christ died and rose again (Romans 10:9, 10). Then they would go on to be baptized, yet their sincerity didn’t save them. A lady on the back row raised her hand and said, “If that’s true, then I’m not saved.” Others raised their hands speaking their agreement with her.

I had to call in my pastor for help in leading them to trust in Christ. Everyone in attendance that afternoon was saved except the host church’s pastor, his wife, and a visiting pastors wife. 45 Christian workers from the area’s churches were saved.

As we made the 10-hour drive back home the following day, I was devastated, and wept most of the way. The question which kept burdening my heart was, “How could so many good, sincere people be so wrong?”

The next day, as we met with our ladies to send them out soul-winning, I told of what had happened in Missouri. As I did, I saw the lady who was in charge of our church’s nursery program began weeping. I gave an invitation, and she raised her hand. I sent her to my office to talk to her after dismissing the others. As I walked into the office, she said, “You got me, didn’t you?” Surprised over what happened, I led her to trust in Christ.

Later that day, as I drove back to the church following some hospital visits, the thought occurred to me: “Ovid, how do you know you are going to heaven?”

“Because I have asked Jesus into my heart,” was my reply, knowing that was not the right answer. I was then reminded that I had just led a lady to trust in Christ as her Substitute and Saviour who had my false hope.

I wrestled with the matter, arguing, “I wouldn’t be soul-winning every day if I wasn’t saved. . . . I wouldn’t be teaching the adult Bible Class. . . . I wouldn’t be scheduled to be ordained if I wasn’t saved.” (At this point I was the Associate Pastor, had been licensed by the church, was doing most of the baptisms and was going to be ordained in a few weeks.) “I wouldn’t be doing all of these Bible-based religious activities if I wasn’t saved.”

We had taken a $600-per-month cut in pay to come to this church. I was spending four hours each morning with the Lord, as well as fasting and spending one night a week in prayer. As I thought on these things, I understood that I was basing my salvation upon all of my good works. (“I wouldn’t be doing all these things if I wasn’t saved.”) Furthermore, I remembered that God was not and would not be impressed with my good deeds.

Still not wanting to give in, I fled to some standard excuses which I had confronted so many times in others: “Well, I didn’t understand about the substitutionary death back then, but I do now.” Then I remembered that we do not believe in evolution. The final argument to fall was, “What will people think?” The answer to this was the one I had used so many times with others: “Which is worse, hell or what people think?” [These were all answers that I had used to convince others of their lost conditions. My own arguments were coming back against my false hope.]

I put off a decision for another day, until Saturday morning. When I could avoid the issue no longer, I called the pastor at his office. He came into my office, and I told him I had to be saved. His response was that he knew; every time he had asked me how I knew I was saved, I had answered, “Because I prayed and ask the Lord to save me,” or, “Because I prayed and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart and life.” I saw myself that morning as one who was trying to climb into heaven by some means other than through what Christ had done for me.

This pastor was caught in the trap; I must say with Paul in Philippians 3, I now count it all lost. I had spent 12 years under this false plan of salvation; I taught it, practiced it and told people by the thousands that they would be saved if they would “pray and ask Jesus into their hearts,” when all the time I had nothing and probably gave them the same nothing.

I fled to Romans 10:13 and Revelation 3:20, but using them alone wrests them from their contexts. Romans 10:13 is based on Romans 5:8 and 10:9-14, Revelation 3:20 is to a specific church. Anything less than a clear presentation of the atoning work of Christ is not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ; it is another Jesus, 2 Cor 11:3 & Gal 1:6. Anything less than trust in what He has done is not Biblical salvation. Every Bible scholar in the world can say differently, but that will not change God’s Word—“Yea, let God be true and every man a liar” [Rom 3:4]. It is not possible to be saved unless God’s plan is first clearly heard and understood.

Do not compare your experiences with this pastor’s or any other person’s.

Let Us Know

If God has used this to speak to your heart about salvation, please let us know so that we may both rejoice and be encouraged as we do what we can to advance the Kingdom of our God.

—By Ovid Need, Jr.

See here for this entire study.

TDR

Vulgarity, Meaning, Evangelicalism, Politics, and Hypocrisy

For fulfilling its particular purpose, I don't know of a better metaphor than the pot calling the kettle black.   Our culture, our society, loves vulgarity, craves vulgarity, embraces vulgarity. Evangelicalism loves vulgarity.  I think most of fundamentalism loves vulgarity.   Very few people dislike vulgarity in the whole United States.  Along comes Donald Trump and our society and evangelicalism say they don't want Trump because of his vulgarity.  This is the pot calling the kettle black.  This is not a defense of Trump.  If people are going to oppose vulgarity, they should start with themselves.  It really is moralistic to point out the vulgarity of someone else, really for self-righteous purposes, and then embrace it yourself, even advertise it yourself.  This is what evangelicalism does, following along with the rest of culture and society.  The most popular figures in social media, which some would say are the most popular people in the entire country, the biggest twitter and instagram followings, are likely the most vulgar people in the world.  Evangelicalism leans toward the same measures as if they might aid its effort to expand its numbers.

Recently I watched most of an episode of James White's program, what he calls The Dividing Line.  I believe that the dividing line would be scripture.  I could hope that would be the case with James White too, although for him the dividing line might be himself.   It seems you have to pass the White muster to get over the most important dividing line.  As part of a line being drawn that divides one side from another, such as Moses asked, "Who is on the Lord's side?", the Bible or God draws a line between the holy or the sacred and the profane or the common.  James White would have us expect that would occur on his program. I wish I could assume that and I hope the best, even as love hopes all things.

White's program was February 22, 2016 and it was called, "Psalm 101:3 and Worthless Things on Today’s DL."  White spent much of his time exposing the evangelical attraction to the movie, Deadpool.  White was using Psalm 101 to explain that he wouldn't go to the movie, Deadpool, because it was worthless. warning evangelicals about going to a movie like that in light of teaching there in Psalm 101.

"Worthless things" comes from some modern translations of Psalm 101:3, such as the ESV, as an example, from the Hebrew belial, which the KJV and even the NKJV translate, "wicked thing." "Worthless thing" is a legitimate understanding of belial, but it also means "wicked thing," and that is how believers have taken Psalm 101:3 for centuries.  For instance, Matthew Henry in his commentary on this verse, writes:

In all our worldly business we must see that what we set our eyes upon be right and good and not any forbidden fruit, and that we never seek that which we cannot have without sin. It is the character of a good man that he shuts his eyes from seeing evil.

The idea of "worthless thing" isn't, "hey, it's worthless, that is, it doesn't have any eternal value, but it isn't wrong."  No, the worthless thing is wicked.  It is either wicked because it is worthless or it is worthless because it is wicked.  Worthless things are not acceptable for God's people, so they are wicked.

Just the fact that White finds the need to address his audience about Deadpool says that something stinks in Denmark, which is evangelicalism.  When you hear him talk about it, he tip toes too, as if he knows this could be controversial and he could find himself in big trouble going after a movie.  He even says that he himself isn't prudish.

White spends most of the hour talking about movie-watching as related to Psalm 101:3, and admits that he goes to movies at the theater.  He says there are people who don't attend movies, and he said they were 'King James Onlyists who wear bow ties,' as a way to mock those people.  I guess people accept this from White, expect it really.  KJVO and bow ties?  Who are these people?   But this is typical of White to scorn people like this with his words.  He does this all. the. time. It is his regular method of operation to jeer and ridicule.  He gets some in return, but I've never seen him take as much as he gives.   He does it again and again.  Donald Trump has been called vulgar for using the same tactic.  I'm not saying that criticism isn't true, just that I hear this tactic used as much or more by James White.  White earns capital with his viewers with the name-calling that he can spend on Deadpool.  The people who love Deadpool and purchase a ticket to see it -- his audience -- hate the KJV and see its adherents wearing bow ties and likely living in area 51.

The movie that White endorsed as a fine one, one that had a purpose, that wasn't worthless, that he thought was worth going to the movie theater to watch, was "Saving Private Ryan."  His reason was that Saving Private Ryan did represent actual war.  He says it was given good reviews by actual World War Two veterans for its realism.  A parental guide for that movie says the following (with asterisks where the foul language is):

Approximately 23 uses of "****," 17 of "****," 15 of "***," 12 of "********," 10 of "************," 6 of "***," 6 of "****," 5 of "************," 4 of "*********," 3 of "******," 2 each of "***************," "*******," "*************" and "********," and 1 use of "*************," 1 of "**************" and 1 of "*******"

The word used 23 times is as bad as it gets.  Some of the others might be characterized the same, while many are various versions of the Lord's name in vain.

While James White spent an hour preaching against Deadpool, he was also promoting movies like Saving Private Ryan, that are also full of vulgarity.  My point, however, is that even among the most conservative of conservative evangelicals, they speak against the vulgarity of someone like Trump, and yet they pay for and sit themselves down voluntarily to watch worse than the worst of what Trump has said in this campaign.  Again, I don't say this to defend Trump, but to indicate the hypocrisy of a people who actually choose vulgarity on a regular basis.

I have already written now in a couple of previous posts that I believe that churches are most responsible for vulgarity, because they have brought it into their churches.  I'm using James White merely as an example, because he is fairly well known.

What is vulgarity?  Many evangelicals and fundamentalists now say they know what it is and that it is wrong, as seen in criticism of Trump.  They suddenly know, they say, what vulgarity is.  They are against -- really, really against it -- they say. They have strong contempt for vulgarity.  However, they like Christian rock and Christian rap and they say they can't judge that.  They promote it. They can't judge smoke on the stage and colored lights and Christian pianists who play like Billy Joel.  Those play and sing in their churches.  Those someone shouldn't judge.

Evangelicals have a verse: 1 Corinthians 4:6, which says (in the KJV), "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written."  This is a convenient use of this one phrase in this verse, which isn't functioning in the verse like evangelicals have found their primary and most common meaning.  If you judge the music they employ to help increase their number of attendees, they say that you are judging "above that which is written."  You won't find the words, "rock music," in the Bible, and so you are adding to scripture.  However, they can judge what "vulgar" is.  They know. They see it in Donald Trump.  They judge that vulgarity is wrong.  And that is actually judging within what is written, well, because that just is, because they know that it is.

Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines "vulgarity," first and second definitions:  (1) the quality or state of not having good taste, manners, politeness, etc., (2) something (such as a word) that is offensive or rude."  On February 2 here, I wrote:  "Trump is vulgar.  Trump could be the picture next to vulgar in the dictionary," so if I write that now about him, I had already written it the day after he lost the Iowa caucus.  Marco Rubio calls him the most vulgar presidential candidate in the history of U. S. presidential elections.  This was the person, Rubio, who started the conversation about Trump's hand size.  Maybe he had also forgotten about Bill Clinton.  It's pretty easy to say Trump is the most vulgar, because the entire news media and then other candidates are saying that.

You won't generally get in trouble for saying Trump is vulgar.  You will get patted on the back for that amazing observational talent you've got there, before you turn on some even more vulgar television or music and gulp it up like a slurpee, running down your chin.  Can anyone say that most of the Super Bowl halftime shows are not packed with vulgarity?  Good thing nobody watches those, huh?  My daughters go to state university and they see and hear vulgarity every single day from the teachers, not just from the students.  My son saw it, heard it, and continues to see it and hear it every single day in the Army.   Vulgarity also makes up a big chunk of the literature department in state universities if students wish to choose that field.  The vulgarity they are exposed to make the public Trump not look vulgar, but like he is a bright shining exhibition of pristineness.

If Trump were elected, maybe he would be the most vulgar president too, except that he's got a lot to beat there.  He's at least got the teenaged interns recruited by Kennedy for swim time and affairs in the White House.  Of course, you have Bill Clinton and his young intern Monica Lewinsky and the dress and the cigar.  I'm not saying those were White House behavior to which to aspire.  The left especially and really should stay quiet about vulgarity.  You can't come from the left and act offended.  You welcome it by denotation.  Perhaps some of you remember when the left wanted federal, taxpayer funding for the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition.

I'm not defending vulgarity.  I'm not defending Trump's vulgarity.  I say, if we are against vulgarity, then let's get rid of vulgarity.  Most television and the commercials are vulgar.  Most of the most popular radio personalities and programs are vulgar.  People watch and listen to vulgarity all the time. Trump comes along and they act like this is new.  Most of these same people watch regular almost non-stop vulgarity from the night time television talk show hosts.  They keep up with the vulgarity of Saturday Night Live.

RCP carries some clips from Bill Maher and just Saturday night one appeared there of his interview of a Raheel Raza and right toward the end (after 2:20), where she said to Bill Maher of all people that she was a grandmother and she would have to cover her ears at some of what Trump said.  Anyone who knows who Bill Maher is knows that was some of the biggest irony in history.  Bill Maher and most of his guests are known for their extreme foul language, far more than anyone has yet heard from Trump.  She said that statement to Bill Maher on his show and his foul audience, who almost always laughs and applauds the extreme vulgarity of Maher, clapped in agreement with her.

Phil Johnson has an excellent argument against Trump the man, which is worth considering for anyone. Here are the pivotal sentences in my opinion from a bunch of material he's written on his facebook page:

John the Baptist did not challenge Herod's political stance, odious as that was to the Jewish people. What he got in Herod's face about was his openly immoral lifestyle.

I wonder if anyone has gotten in the face of Trump for his immoral lifestyle.  Maybe someone has.  I don't think he should divorce his third wife, but someone should ask him if he still believes in what he said to Howard Stern, whom he calls his good friend, about his lifestyle in the late 90s through the 2000s.

I don't want to write anything positive about Trump in this piece, so I'm not, but I am writing about his vulgarity, because it in a very plain way indicates that professing evangelicals and worse think about vulgarity.  They are either attempting to smear Trump or they really do hate vulgarity.  If they can spot and diagnose vulgarity, then that means that they think that some type of behavior can be vulgar.  They are saying that certain behavior is vulgar.  When Trump calls Senator Rubio, "Little Marco," they see that as uncivil or his being a bully or again, vulgar.  They are judging Trump.

Recently I wrote that judgment must begin in the house of God.  Before they look at Trump, evangelicals, if they think they represent the house of God (which I doubt), then they should start with their own vulgarity.  They should start with their own hatred of it.  They shouldn't start with Trump, because the problem of vulgarity starts with the house of God, and the house of God, as it pertains to even conservative evangelicals, doesn't seem to hate its own vulgarity.

The Baptist Distinctives Are Not the Bible

Most of my readers probably know or have at least heard of the terminology, "the Baptist distinctives."   The two words, Baptist distinctives, answer the question, what distinguishes a New Testament church in contrast to other religious denominations?   What sets a church apart as a New Testament church?  This assumes Baptist churches alone are the New Testaments churches.  Baptist churches trace themselves to the Jerusalem church of the first century, the church of Jesus Christ.

The concept of Baptist distinctives does go back a long ways.  The official terminology "the Baptist distinctives" I don't think you will find previous to the 20th century.  However, the notion of Baptist distinctives you can identify with the Schleitheim Confession in 1527.  That confession, written by Michael Sattler, is not a doctrinal statement per se, but a means by which those people of New Testament doctrine and practice differentiated themselves from Roman Catholicism.  After that, you can read language such as "Baptist principles" (Thomas Crosby, The History of the English Baptists, 1740, and Isaac Backus, A history of New-England, with particular reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, 1777), "historically distinctive Baptist principles" (Abraham Booth, A Defense for the Baptists: Being a Declaration and a Vindication of Three Historically Distinctive Baptist Principles, 1778),  "the distinctive principles" (Nathaniel Scudder Prime, A Familiar Illustration of Christian Baptism, 1818), "the distinctive appellations of Jesus Christ" or "denominational appellations" (R. B. C. Howell, The Baptists, 1838), and "their distinctive tenets" (James Barnett Taylor, Lives of Virginia Baptist Ministers, 1838).

Distinctives are no kind of systematic theology or doctrinal statement.  Lists of distinctives are intended to distinguish, which means that various lists will differ.  However, over time you will see and do see a certain amount of homogeneity to what those distinctives have been and are.  The lists of distinctives vary from one another in just a few ways.  These lists are themselves not the Bible.  I think every Baptist (or at least a vast majority) would say that the list of distinctives itself is not the Bible.

What are the distinctives?  The follow are what I have believed they are, and I'm writing this from memory.

One -- Bible Sole Authority for Faith and Practice

Two -- Regenerate, Immersed Church Membership

Three -- Autonomy of the Church

Four -- Pastor and Deacons:  Two Church Offices

Five -- Soul Liberty, Priesthood of the Believer

Six -- Immersion and Lord's Supper:  Two Church Ordinances

Seven -- Separation of Church and State

Eight -- Separation Personally and Ecclesiastically

Even though most historic lists of distinctives include number eight, I'm pretty sure that most American Baptists and Southern Baptists would not include those any more, even though they call themselves Baptists.

Why am I even writing this?  Do Baptists even think the Baptist distinctives are on par with the Bible?  As I look at this list, I believe that many times they do, and especially two of them.  I want to park on one of them, and that is the autonomy of church.

Certain very independent Baptists, and like them, I'm very independent, treat autonomy of the church as if it is the Bible.  The church says it, so it goes.  If certain churches (many) are challenged about almost any doctrine, they throw down the autonomy card -- argument over.  Churches don't want to be questioned about what they do.  This is what they see as being independent.  If you gave them a yes or no test on autonomy on paper, they would say that first something must be biblical, but in practice, their church must believe it.

To go one step further, in many cases, the churches that obsess on autonomy actually don't really mean autonomy as much as they mean pastoral authority.   It really isn't autonomy, but pastoral authority that is the issue here.  It really is the pastor who doesn't want to be questioned, and so he uses autonomy as his defense.

Many problems become entrenched in a church and then those problems spread to other churches through treating autonomy like it is the Bible itself.  If you are known to question another church, that spreads to other pastors and churches that you are opposed to autonomy, that you really don't like autonomy or that you like to mess around with the authority of other churches.  Pastors have a lot of problems to deal with in their own churches, so they would rather not have other problems arising from men outside of their church.  Rather than deal with a biblical issue, they claim autonomy like pleading an article from the bill of rights.

I see a threat with the view of autonomy I am describing.  Certain Baptist traditions become canonized like they are scripture or like they are the dogma of the church.  A tendency exists for certain churches to rise as greater than others, like the church of Rome after the first century.  Today this often relates to size.   The authority behind it isn't the Bible.  If it were Bible, it would hold up to scrutiny.  It is a tradition, and one that is defended by autonomy.  The tradition continues unquestioned because autonomy itself has reached biblical authority.  These traditions spread to other, often smaller, churches and become embedded as a biblical practice.

One point of having distinctives is that the church is one.  There is one church and that is the church of Jesus.  There is one Bible.  A church is a church because it is that church.  When Jesus said He would build His church, it wasn't two churches.  There is only one.  What makes it that one church is its unity with the Head, Jesus.  If a church doesn't submit to the Head by submitting to His Word, it is diverting away from an identity as a true church.  The distinctives are about being a true church. True churches have these distinctives.  However, if a church stops obeying scripture and does that in part by replacing biblical doctrine with tradition, it is not a distinctly New Testament church any longer.

Autonomy still surrenders to the authority of Jesus and the Bible.  Autonomy is not liberty to believe and act like you want.  This is how Roman Catholicism became what it was.  Church authority became preeminent to biblical authority.  Each church of Jesus Christ submits to His Word, to scripture.  This is very serious.  As it corresponds to churches relating with one another, we get an example in Acts 15 of two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, sublimating their autonomy to what is the right belief and practice, to the truth.  Churches can work together because the common ground is the same Head and the same standard for authority, the Bible.

It would not be a goal of mine to change other churches.  However, we have instruction in the New Testament for churches to cooperate with one another.  That cooperation, which is fellowship, requires the same doctrine and practice.  If one of the churches with whom our church is in cooperation or fellowship changes in doctrine and practice or at least manifests unscriptural belief and practice, to continue in cooperation and fellowship, our church must question or challenge.  At that point, I really don't want to hear about autonomy, as if it is possible that autonomy has been violated.  God doesn't give churches the authority to disobey scripture.

Autonomy is not the Bible.  It is not more important to be Baptist than it is to be biblical.

Pay $12 For Unlimited Talk & Text on Your Cell Phone

The average cell phone bill in 2014 was $73 a month.  Verizon customers paid an average of $148 a month, Sprint customers $144, AT&T $141, and T-Mobile $120 a month. (source).  I pay $10 a month for uhlimited talk and text on my phone (c. $12 with taxes) with a company that I had never heard of (before we started looking) but which was rated very highly by Consumer Reports. (Otherwise I would never have considered them.)  What company is this, you ask?  Republic Wireless:

Republic Wireless offers a cell phone plan that provides unlimited talk and texting anywhere in the USA, and unlimited data wherever there is a WiFi network, for only $10/month.  Unlimited talk, text, and data everywhere is available for somewhat more, but still far less than with the major carriers.  (The average customer who wanted more than the base plan paid in the representative month of July, 2015 only $14.82!) In fact, even if you sign up for a more expensive plan that includes cell data, you can get refunded if you don’t use it! I don’t need the cell data, but if you do, and you use less than what you paid for, Republic Wireless will refund you the difference (remember that all data that goes over WiFi is free)! They also have a WiFi only calling plan for a mere $5/month.  For many customers–including the author of this article–the $10/month plan is all that is needed.  (We have two phones, so it is $20 a month plus taxes).

Thus, while I am happy without cell data at $10/month, if you need it you can avoid paying much more!  So, instead of spending $100 or more a month on your cell phone, why not pay $10/month and save and invest what you get to keep in companies that do good or other high yield investments?  When calls or data are routed over cell networks instead of over WiFi, Republic Wireless uses the Sprint network, so you have cell coverage wherever Sprint does and WiFi coverage everywhere there is WiFi.  You can check coverage for your area by clicking on the banner below:

Check your cell coverage, for when you don’t have WiFi.

However, Republic Wireless is not for everyone.  Customer service is not available over the phone, only over the Internet.  International calling is also not available (at least right now).  If these are a deal breaker for you, consider some of the other cell phone companies I review on my webpage.  However, paying $10 a month for unlimited talk and text, instead of some vastly larger amount with a different company, may well make it worthwhile for many consumers to get customer service over the Internet instead of over the phone and who do not need international calling.  The company offers a 30 day money back guarantee, so if you try Republic out and do not like the company, all you pay for is the initial shipping cost for your phone.  See if Republic Wireless is for you by clicking on the words below:

Is Republic right for me? Smartphone plans starting as low as $5 per month.

Or use this banner to get more information or sign up with Republic Wireless:

This post is an excerpt and abridgment of the study here.

TDR

Note: I have affiliate links with Republic Wireless. If you use the banners on this blogpost to sign up for their services, I will receive financial compensation.  I can in good conscience say that there is nothing on this blog post that I would not have said were I not an affiliate of the companies, and I believe that it is appropriate that we both benefit from the information I have put together for your betterment (1 Timothy 5:18).  However, if you are bothered by the fact that I will be compensated if you use these banners to sign up, you can sign up on the webpage without clicking on these banners, and I will get nothing.  If you choose to use the buttons on this webpage, I offer you my sincere thanks.

What Is Preaching? And What Is Not

Perhaps you've heard someone say he didn't like someone's "preachiness," or he said, "stop being preachy." Generally preachiness refers to stylistic aspects of someone's speech.  According to this understanding, someone may not have preached unless he takes on that speech quality.  Certain men haven't "preached" unless they get a "preachy" style of speech, a particular timber and cadence to their voice.  Many mistake this quality for something spiritual occurring.

Preaching isn't a style of speech.  Both the verb "preach" and the noun "preacher" (kerusso and kerux) don't refer to a style of speech.  The "preacher," the kerux, is a herald, that is, he speaks on behalf of someone in authority, a king.  "Preaching" is heralding or proclaiming the king's message.  "Preaching" relates to the content.  It must be the king's message.  If it isn't the king's message, no heralding, no preaching actually took place.

I've heard a lot of speech through the years that wasn't preaching and so the speaker wasn't a preacher.  However, the person did have a preachy voice and style to him that said to many that he was preaching.  I've sat through sermons that were a different message than what God said.  The message didn't represent God, but misrepresented Him.  It was counted as good preaching because of the style, not because of the message.

My first criteria for preaching, how I determine whether it was a success, is that it must be what God's Word says.  It must come from the Bible and it must reveal, unfold, expose what God said in His Word.  If someone delivers in an accurate way what the Bible says, I believe he has preached.  He has succeeded at preaching.  Preaching is the content, not the style.

In other words, someone could use a preachy voice and not preach and use a non-preachy voice and preach.  Any more, as soon as I hear a preachy voice, there is an instinct to think someone is not going to preach.  He's going to be preachy, but he's not going to preach a passage.

I've hinted at a corollary to the theme of this post.  Some people think that the preachy voice means that the Holy Spirit is doing something through someone.  A man speaks in a normal, conversational voice when you talk to him, but he turns into this preachy voice when he gets in front of people for a speech.  The man is talking, but now the Holy Spirit is working in some special way as signaled by the affected style of speech.

Parallel to the corollary of the previous paragraph is the thought that the Holy Spirit is doing something through a man with a preachy voice.   Because he has the preachy voice, the idea is that the hearers are getting something from the Holy Spirit.  The man opens the Bible and begins to preach a message with the preachy delivery and people are moved or smitten or affected by how he does it.  They think that is the Holy Spirit working and it is good preaching.

When someone uses a preachy voice, the standard for whether his speech is preaching hasn't changed. A person still must consider whether what the man is saying is in fact from the Word of God.  He may open the Bible and he may even use words from the Bible, but that does not mean he has preached the Bible. Sometimes, as I wrote before, it is just the opposite.  However, men often are credited with having said something authoritative and as if it were from God without it having been said in the Bible or even in the passage they have used.  It doesn't matter to many in many audiences, because the style transcends the substance of the speech.  He may deliver a false message or one that is of little to no value, but because it was communicated in the affected style, preaching occurred, and the message is accepted.

What I'm describing is a sort of continuationism in thousands and thousands of churches throughout the world.  It exists all over fundamentalism and among independent Baptists.  I don't say this because it is wrong to be an independent Baptist.  I'm an independent Baptist.  Some of what I'm portraying here at its best is bad preaching.  Much of it isn't preaching and yet its hearers not only think it is, but it is good.  This is one of the worst devastation of discernment in churches today.  People rarely hear preaching or good preaching and they don't even know it.  What they are hearing they accept because they think it is of God, because of a feeling they get, that they think is the Holy Spirit.   I know what I'm writing is not only true, but it is prevalent.

Someone might have a contrived vocal quality and still deliver what the Bible says.  I can fight my way through the style to get something from that.  I would rather that he use his normal voice.  I would call that authentic.  Preaching is better when it is authentic.  It is true.  I believe that the person giving it also believes it in part because he is not using a contrived voice.  When I hear a fake voice then it's hard for me to get past the person being a fake.  Like I said, I fight it, when I hear it, but I hope someone reads this, and stops speaking with his fake preachy voice.  Some of those men think they aren't preaching unless they use that voice for reasons I explained above.

When someone uses a preachy voice, I can listen to it and enjoy it if it is biblical in content.  However, something has gone wrong when someone uses a fake voice.  At some point, that person has been conditioned either by what he has heard or by what he has been taught to think that the fake voice is needed to be preaching.  He should use a normal voice, his real voice.  That doesn't mean he must go all out monotone.  If he believes what he is preaching and he cares for his audience, he can communicate it in an interesting way.  Many would call that, keeping it real.

A major influence of what I'm explaining here comes from pastors who have conferences.  They allow men to "preach" who are not actually preaching.  This spreads this false idea of preaching.  These men are failing to prove all things.  This encourages more of the same.  When I attend a conference, first, I want to hear preaching, what is actually preaching.  Second, I want good preaching. I want someone who is skilled at digging out what God says in His Word.  The good preacher studies and then he delivers what he learned form the Word of God in a clear and practical way.  It's better if he argues and provokes thought, like we see with biblical preachers.  Most of all, he needs to tell us what the passage says.

I believe it is very, very harmful when we authenticate non-preaching as preaching and bad preaching as good preaching, just because of its affect on people.  We've got some options with bad preaching. We can walk out on it.  We can stay in a generous way, hoping that it was just an exception, and then talk to the person later.  We shouldn't put up with it.   Putting up with it is why it continues.

College Class on Bible Texts and Versions, Manuscript Evidence, and Biblical Preservation

At Mukwonago Baptist Church we have started a course on Bible Texts and Versions, Manuscript Evidence, and Biblical Preservation.  The course outline states:

This course on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions, and manuscript evidence will examine God’s promises concerning the perfect preservation of Scripture and its perpetual availability to His churches.  The fulfillment of those promises throughout history in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the Authorized, King James Version of the Bible will be surveyed through an examination of the history of the Hebrew and Greek text’s transmission.  The errors and corruptions found in the Greek alternatives to the Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the English Authorized Version will be examined and refuted, as will the unbelieving presuppositions underlying these non-preserved texts and the unbelieving authors of those presuppositions.  The historic Baptist position on the preservation of Scripture will also be examined, as will the history of the Bible in English.

If you are in the area, we would love to have you join us.  If you are not, the course lectures are being posted online here.  Discussions about class content should also be available for those taking or auditing the course at a distance in conjunction with each lecture at the same website.

TDR

Judgment Must Begin in the House of God, pt. 2

Part One.

We look around the nation and the world, and people aren't doing what God says.   I see one major contributing factor to the demise with one corollary.  First, people want to do what they want to do, and they're easier to get along with if you let them do what they want.  Second, the corollary, uncertainty buttresses this self-will.  Without absolute truth, people can do what they want.  More toleration equals larger coalitions.  Sometimes getting and then staying big provides enough incentive to discard teachings.

The Charismatic movement -- continuationism -- doesn't produce signs.  Its "healers" don't heal like Jesus and the Apostles.  They don't create new eyes and replace missing limbs.  The "tongues" of its adherents are not real languages.  What I'm saying is, it's a fraud, a lie, a complete fabrication.  Its worship is false.  It undermines discernment with a perversion of true spirituality.  The one and only God is mutually exclusive from lies.  Satan is the liar and the father of lies, not God.

This year Together for the Gospel meets in Louisville, Kentucky, April 12-14.  What is getting together for the gospel?  Apparently, it ignore the lies of continuationism, because this conference brings continuationists (Mahaney and Piper) and cessationists (MacArthur, etc.) together for fellowship -- tongue speakers and healers together with those who say they deny it.  Why?  How?  Not all doctrines rise to a high enough level of importance.  Some things God says are less important compared to others, even if it means the lies of continuationism, which is a series of lies about God, His power, the Holy Spirit, worship, sanctification, and more.

Continuationism isn't all.  They are together for the gospel, but not for premillennialism.   You can allegorize most of the prophetic passages of scripture with amillennialism (Duncan, Dever, and Sproul), but that isn't important enough to exclude someone from fellowship.  Prophecy is non-essential.   Getting together for the gospel does not exclude those who sprinkle infants like Duncan, Sproul, and DeYoung.   When these distinctions are dismissed to get together, it's no wonder that the church and the world both don't think someone can know the truth.

No one has written more than me on this matter of essentials and non-essentials, primary and tertiary doctrines.  This post continues in that theme.  In December of last year, David Cloud picked upon on that subject, especially as he reads it among independent Baptists.  I'm assuming he's been reading here or A Pure Church.  You hear the same tune from them on this as you would from the evangelicals, and for the same reasons.  He quotes Paul Chappell from his Church Still Works (p. 215):

On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of independent Baptists has been calling non-essentials, essential. . . . . Practically speaking -- it will be impossible for our churches to be what God intended and to make the difference that ‘salt and light’ should make if we are debating minor issues.

Cloud's article is excellent and worth reading, as it moves into almost every circle of independent Baptists to join the Southern Baptists and evangelicals in this unbiblical teaching.

False doctrine and practice is justified by calling it a non-essential or tertiary doctrine or practice. When evangelicals use that language, they especially mean biblical standards of dress, holiness with regards to entertainment and recreation, and worldliness in music and worship.  The use of unbiblical methods is another area that you will be discouraged from judging, because it is a non-fundamental part of the Bible.

Last week, the wife of former NBA head coach of the New Orleans Pelicans and assistant coach of the Oklahoma City Thunder, Monty Williams, died in a fatal, tragic car accident.  Because of the celebrity of Williams, her death was national news.  Williams said a lot of great, actually amazing, things at his wife's funeral at Crossings Community Church in Oklahoma City.  I was interested in what kind of church that might be, so I looked at its website, and I read this statement among others to inform potential attendees:

We will focus our teaching on the non-debatable principles of Scripture while leaving freedom for personal convictions related to non-essential doctrinal issues.

On the "I'm new" page, the lead pastor writes the all too typical:

What’s it like at Crossings?  Well, we are most definitely a “come as you are” church.  The comment I hear most from people is that the big building was a bit intimidating at first, but once inside, it was so friendly and easy to get around that “I just fit right in.” Dress is a little bit of everything—some in coats and ties, many in jeans.  Just be yourself—and be comfortable.

I’m also asked what Sunday services are like. We offer five Sunday services with three unique styles in three different worship environments. If you prefer the sounds of a large choir and orchestra offering a blend of traditional and contemporary music, choose either the 9:15 or the 10:45 a.m. service in the Sanctuary. If you like a relaxed, upbeat atmosphere with all contemporary Christian music, led by Josh Edington and Venue Worship Team, then one of the two services in The Venue (9:15 and 10:45 a.m.) is the right place for you. For a more traditional, yet powerful, worship, where communion is offered every Sunday, come to the 8:15 a.m. Chapel service.

So much is preferential and personal taste.  You can choose whatever worship or worship environment or dress you choose.  None of that means anything, unless you judge something to be wrong.  Come as you are.  Come to God as you want.  If Cain or King Saul could have known the same.

I use Crossings Community as an example, not because it is even the worst.  It's pretty typical today. Most populated areas are inundated with these types of churches, varying mostly in how small their list of essentials is and how extreme they'll go in their entertainment and creature comforts -- the more tolerance, the bigger the church.  If you don't want sinners to feel too uncomfortable, you've got to shrink the list of requirements.  Crossings is the kind of church to host an occasion of a large number of celebrities.

A percentage of the Bible and a fast decreasing amount really matters.  As long as a certain and diminishing agreement can be found in a shrinking number of essentials, everyone will be fine. Nothing is more important than toleration.

Judgment must begin in the house of God.


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

As an aside, but maybe not -- I wanted people to know that I was adding this, who might wander over here to read this today.  There is a bit of a "fight" among those "together for the gospel," because of a few of the characters involved.  Phil Johnson, most well known assistant to John MacArthur, has a strong conflict with Thabiti Anyabwile over #blacklivesmatter.  I'm not going to attempt to explain it, but a lot of your readers know of an interesting lean toward liberal social issues and causes even among those included in conservative evangelicalism.  It might be hard to wrap your brain around, but it is happening.  While they have this conflict, John MacArthur and Anyabwile are still getting together for the gospel with the T4G conference that I mentioned above.  At what point does anyone separate over anything -- does any of it matter?  It has to be explained as a non-essential even though it is very fervent and heated in its non-essential-ism and tertiary-ism.

The other relates to John Piper's recent discussion about self-protection and gun rights.  Piper has come out plainly as anti-gun, and in the midst of this says he wouldn't even defend his wife in given violent situations.  This is, again, "a non-essential."  Everyone gets together anyway.  This position of Piper can't stand as isolated belief.  You can't take that type of position without having other problems.