Our mother who art in the shack

Whatever you think about Mark Driscoll, and if you’re reading this blog at all you know exactly what I think, he nailed the doctrine here!

Hating the Bible

It’s Not Mine!

In light of a recent comment I received on my last post, i felt like this article was so appropriate. I received this article immediately after reading the comment and although it is so applicable, it is not necessarily directed at that particular individual. This article is actually so “relevant” to many of my readers and even members of my own family at times. Here is the New Shepherd’s Staff Article:

 

WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE BIBLE?

By Dr. Clay Nuttall

We probably assume that we know why the world’s great religions, cults, and philosophers hate God’s Word, but the extent of that hatred is much deeper than most of us realize.  The atheist would say, “There is no God, so how could this be his word?”  The agnostic would postulate that, since we do not even know if there is a god, how could this be the word of God?  The modernist and the liberal would reject most of the Bible, and neo-orthodox minds would accept only what becomes the Word to them.  The neo-evangelical would cast doubt on such passages as those that deal with creation, believing that some portions of scripture are unreliable.  To hold any of these views is to despise some of the scriptures and put the rest in question.  Such humanism and intellectualism are really expressions of hatred toward the book given to us by the sovereign creator.

 

CLOSER TO HOME

It’s easy for us to evaluate the above points of view in others, but asking the same question about evangelicalism or fundamentalism is another thing altogether.  I often refer to “the theological error of the month” in evangelicalism.  This phenomenon, however, has now reached into fundamentalism.  It is deeply rooted in a person’s attitude toward the Bible.  Anyone’s hermeneutic, or system of interpretation, may reflect disdain toward holy writ.

 

A person’s or group’s innate negative attitude toward the Bible may not necessarily be an active one.  Detracting from, or adding to, scripture is what causes the fatal flaw in the maze of current theological errors, and it is usually done deliberately.  On the other hand, to ignore the scriptures is to reject a love for them.

 

CAN THIS MAN SAY HE LOVES HIS WIFE?

We need ask only a few questions to see why this is true.  Consider a man who is married to a woman whom he claims to love dearly.  The problem is that, although they are together much of the time, he only speaks to her for one or two hours a week; and that is on Sundays.  In a normal relationship, he could say he loves her, but what he says is quite different from what he demonstrates.  The opposite of love, after all, is hate.

 

And that is exactly the way many Christians are with the Bible.  They say they love it, but then they open the Word only a couple of times a week.  What that behavior demonstrates is not a love for the Bible; and remember – the opposite of love is hate!   Another practical illustration can be found in many average Christians’ approaches to finding answers for their questions about daily living; they go to the Bible in an attempt to find justification for their disobedient actions.  As a result, they reject the clear teachings of holiness and instead find proof-texts that they feel will allow them to practice sinful lifestyles.  The lesson here is self-evident.

 

THOU ARE STANDING WHERE I AM ABOUT TO SHOOT

One of my favorite illustrations is reportedly from an old Quaker’s sermon: “I would not hurt thee, nor do thee no harm, but thou are standing where I am about to shoot.”

 

Because I teach classes in Contemporary Theological Issues, I try to read as much current material as possible.  I purchase only a few publications, but the web is full of this type of information.  Just this week, I finished reviewing a highly respected publication.  Many of the authors of the articles contained in this issue are friends who travel in fundamental circles, and I enjoy reading their work when it is published.  The problem of people’s misinterpretation of scripture might not have even crossed my mind if I had not been working on this issue ofShepherd’s Staff.  When I went back over the material, I was shocked to note how many of the printed conclusions were indeed additions to the text!

 

At this point in my life, I continue to learn just how much there is that I don’t already know.  We fundamentalists have a bad habit of trying to give the impression that we have everything figured out; such pride and arrogance make us hardly any different from the liberals.  We are often so absolutely sure about our interpretations that we insert things into the text to prove that our traditional views are right. 

 

How can we say we love the Bible, when we consider it our prerogative to embellish the text in order to justify our human conclusions?  One of the arguments used by those who tend to edit scripture by adding to, detracting from, or ignoring the text is that of a faulty historical method. The claim is made that, if some theological position has been held for hundreds of years, then surely it must be right.  The problem is that many a theological error has been held for hundreds of years… but that still does not make it truth.

 

There certainly is value in a truth that has been tested by time, but we know it is truth only because the Bible text says so.  Profane history has immense value, but it definitely is not equal to scripture.  In the study of hermeneutics, we do not have a full and complete view until the historical setting of the written material is explored.  This type of exercise, however, though required by the one biblical hermeneutic, does not supersede the text; it only augments it.

Homework Assignment:

Let me suggest that a good test of this would be to read Acts, chapters 6 and 15.  Do not add one word of explanation.  Of extra value would be doing the exercise from the original language, if you have access to that wonderful tool.  When you have finished dealing with each word in the text, and have refused to add to or detract from it, then ask yourself exactly where we got some of our beloved traditions about polity.  Then, ask if we really love the Bible just as it was before we started editing it. 

 

Why would I deal with such a sensitive subject?  The answer is that over the past few months I have seen among fundamentalists such egregious attitudes toward the Bible as to grieve a righteous soul.  I am sure that many people do not purposely hate the Bible, but there is confidence and great joy in accepting exactly what God has said in His Word.

The Bible is a Book of Rules

There has been a large neoevangelical attack lately on the Bible and its relationship to the will of God. The attack goes like this: The Bible is not a book of rules! It’s about a relationship! Is that true? Yes and no. It is true that the Bible is about a relationship with the Almighty Creator of the Universe. Relationship, in God’s eyes, is funneled through the prerequisite of rules. It is a rule that no one can enter into a relationship with the Father unless he first accepts the Son (Jn 14:6). Prayer seems to be the “door to relationship” with God, but God has defined rules for prayer, if there is sin in your heart, God will not answer your prayer (Ps 66:18). Is the Bible a book of rules? Yes it is. Please notice some of the verses (ESV [1]) out of Psalm 119 and remember to see the note at the end of the list before you critique my post please.

 

Ps 119:7 I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.

Ps 119:13 With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth.

Ps 119:20 My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.

Ps 119:30 I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.

Ps 119:39 Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.

Ps 119:43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules.

Ps 119:52 When I think of your rules from of old, I take comfort, O Lord.

Ps 119:62 At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.

Ps 119:75 I know, O Lord, that your rules are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.

Ps 119:102 I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.

Ps 119:106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.

Ps 119:108 Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord, and teach me your rules.

Ps 119:137 Righteous are you, O Lord, and right are your rules.

Ps 119:156 Great is your mercy, O Lord; give me life according to your rules.

Ps 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

Ps 119:164 Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.

Ps 119:175 Let my soul live and praise you, and let your rules help me.

 

Now, I want to say one more thing. I made the statement that the Bible is, in fact, a book of rules. One clarification: the Bible is not only a book of Rules.

 

Endnotes

[1] In other copies of the Word of God, the word “rule” may be translated another way, like “commandment.” All in all, however, whether you want to play word games or not, any word translated for rules always refers to the idea of rules.

Pray for Piedmont

Students, Staff, Faculty, Interested Parties:

Please pray for this school today.

A Partial Critique of the Preterist View Using the Book of Daniel

Coming soon!

The “Non-mnipresence” of God

Introduction

Recently, one of the “buzz-topics” that has been floating around in the theological grapevine is the issue of God’s omnipresence and hell. Is God going to be present in hell? When I first heard the arguments which I shall state before they are refuted, I must admit I was swayed with this new “wind” of doctrine. However, upon closer examination I discovered that not only is the Bible clear on this issue–it is abundantly clear!

I will not begin with the greatest argument the Bible gives. When a carpenter is pounding nails with a hammer, he first lightly taps the nail three or four times to make sure it is straight before he gives it one or two good solid whacks to drive it all the way home. A good argument is arranged the same way as the carpenter pounding nails. Your smaller arguments come first. It builds suspense to the big finale. When those last several (usually airtight) arguments hit, the opposition feels the weight of the Bible pounding on them as if God Himself whacked them upright.

A Case for the “Non-mnipresence” of God

Non-mnipresence Defined

What is the argument? Breifly stated the whole issue is over God’s proximity to sin. The doctrine would state that because God cannot look upon or dwell with sin, He cannot be present in hell.

Non-mnipresence Defended

Keep in mind during these next points that I am presenting all of the arguments that I have heard regarding this subject. I am going to play “the Devil’s Advocate,” and will appear to be arguing against that which I truly believe. Please keep in mind: I do not believe what I am about to write.

God’s Proximity to Sin

Sin has separated man from God (Is. 59:2).  God has said in His word that He cannot even look upon evil (Hb 1:13). Because of this, “God cannot dwell with sin.”

2 Thess. 1:9 reads:

 ”They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power”

This text clearly shows that those who are going to be punished in Hell are going to be punished away from the presence of the Lord. If they are being punished away from His presence, they cannot be in His presence!

Non-mnipresence Debunked

1. The Definition of Omnipresence

Omnipresence is defined as being present everywhere at the same time. Although this word cannot be used to entirely disprove the Non-mnipresence of God, it is very important. The same people who say that God cannot be present in Hell sign doctrinal statements that say that God is omnipresent. If one believes that God cannot be present in Hell, then He is not omnipresent, a different word must be used to define this particular attribute of God.

2. The Present Omnipresence

The verses that are used to show that “God cannot dwell with sin” (Hb 1:13; Is 59:2) are interpreted to mean that God cannot dwell with sin. There are several major problems that the exegete encounters. The first major problem is the problem with Satan in heaven. Both in the book of Job and in Revelation the Bible records appearances of Satan’s entrance into heaven. If God cannot dwell with sin, the author of sin surely would not be allowed into heaven to speak face to face with God!

Secondly, (if those who are in hell are viewed to have imputed sin) if God cannot dwell in Hell because of sin then how could He dwell on the face of the earth right now with the very people who will be in Hell?! If those who are in hell from now, through the church age, Millennium and into eternity are “tainted” to the point that God cannot be in their presence, then how can He be in their presence now? The obvious answer is that He can’t. But the Non-mnipresentist would not argue that God is Non-mnipresent on the face of the earth because the Bible specifically states that He is (Is 66:1)!

3. Sheol

Psalms 139:8 says the following:

If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
         If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.

The word for “hell” here is the Hebrew word “Sheol.” In the Old Testament, this was the place for all of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous. Sheol was a general word to describe the place that the two “holding tanks” of souls were kept. Some discredit this view saying that the word Sheol here may only mean the “tank” of the righteous. Although it is not within the scope of this article to go into much detail on the place of the dead in the Old Testament, the word is used throughout the Old Testament to describe the place of the Righteous and the Unrighteous. If God was in the presence of the Righteous souls in the Old Testament, He was also present with the souls of the Unrighteous.

4. The Millennial Kingdom

Isaiah 66:24 shows us that in the Millennial Kingdom, Hell will be present and viewable on the face of the earth:

“ And they shall go forth and look
      Upon the corpses of the men
      Who have transgressed against Me.
      For their worm does not die,
      And their fire is not quenched.
      They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” 

 During the Millennial kingdom, however, Christ will also dwell on the face of the earth in Jerusalem (Is 24:23). If Christ can dwell in the presence of Hell in the Millennial Kingdom, why not now or in the future also?

5. 2 Thessalonians 1:9

Now that I have “tapped” enough to get the nail straight, it’s time to drive home the argument.

A very general, even uneducated glance at this passage in the original greek text reveals that the text was translated incorrectly. The phrase “away from the presence of the Lord” in the greek is actually

απο προσωπου του κυριου

A first semester Greek student can read this simple statement. In English it actually says: “Away from the face of the Lord” (emphasis mine).This translation fits perfectly into Is 59:2 and Hb 1:13. Isaiah 59:2 says

But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
      And your sins have hidden His face from you,
      So that He will not hear.

Just as in this verse, sin has hidden God’s face, so is judgment done in 2Th 1:9 away from the face of the Lord. This idea is completed by Hb 1:13 that says God cannot look upon sin. 1Pe 3:12 says that the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, but the face of the Lord is turned to those who do evil.

6. Imputed Sin

2 Corinthians 5:19 says:

that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Christ, in dying on the cross, does not impute sin to anyone, Christian or Heathen alike. Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross (1Pe 2:24), and He is the propitiation for all sin, not ours only but also for the whole world (1Jn 2:2). If Christ already satisfied the debt of sin, and sin is not imputed to the accounts of those in Hell, those in hell will not suffer for sin. In this case, God would not be dwelling with sin anyways.

7. Revelation 14:10

This verse says:

he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

The verse in context is speaking of the beast and his image in Revelation. The phrase in the greek for “in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” is:

ενωπιον αγγελων αγιων και ενωπιον του αρνιου

It is easy to see here that this is not speaking of the “face” like 2Th 1:9, but the presence. Context also shows that the “Lamb” here is Christ. As a final piece of evidence, this verse expressly says that the Beast will be tormented in the lake of fire (Rv 19:10) where the unsaved will also suffer for eternity (Rv 19:15). If God will be in the presence of the suffering of the Beast, He will also be in the presence of the suffering of the lost world.

Conclusion

God is omnipresent. By definition this means He is everywhere all at once. It does not violate the holiness of God to be in the presence of Hell because all sin was paid for at the cross. The Bible expressly tells us that Christ will be in the presence of Hell in the millennial Kingdom and throughout eternity and He has been in the past. If anyone says anything contrary to this fact, he is adding and taking away from the Bible, both have severe consequences (Rv 22:18-19). In closing, listen to the words of Paul concerning the teaching of bad doctrine:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

1 Timothy 6:3-5

1. “omnipresence.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 15 Dec. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipresence>.

A Quick Theological Question

Here goes:
Why do “people” say that doctrine is practical and then separate the “Doctrinal” sections from the “Practical” sections when they outline the Pauline epistles?

Sin, What (‘s) Sin?

If I wanted to pin this down, it could be done very easily. All I would have to do is write some quotes down from Joel Osteen and we’re good to go. Mr. Osteen doesn’t but open his mouth and he becomes Bible-Fodder because his claims simply do not rise from the text of scripture. I am not, however, trying to write a post about Joel Osteen – enough of that has been done. There are two issues that I am to expose in this article, and both are not problems only in Joel Osteen’s Church; I am addressing these problems in Postfundamentalism. These two issues arise in the area of Harmartiology and are very significant changes. The ignorance of what is sin has lead in part to the ignorance of sin.

The Ignorance of What Is Sin

Sin has changed over the last 40 years – did you know that? I have written before about turning the church into a glorified conference center – but that is the direct result of this sin that keeps changing. Shame on sin, how can we know how to please God if you keep changing? Sin has not changed, we have, in our effort to be more “becoming” to the world we have actually become the world. With this change, we have “Christianized” our minds into Justifying our similarity to the world – which is sin. Romans 14 still says that it is better for us to give up our rights than to cling to “liberties” that we don’t have in the first place.

I think at this point, I do need to address the concept of “freedom” in Christ and “Liberty” in Christ. This phrase is thrown around by enough self-proclaimed “theologians” (little “t”) and chapel song leaders that profane the God they think they are glorifying that it makes my stomache turn. What is our “freedom?” It is freedom from sin. How is it that these “Libertarians” (big “L”) get so offended by someone who would rather give up freedoms to avoid offending another justify trampling other people’s beliefs and convictions because “they have liberty.” Our God is ashamed at you. The Bible clearly states that it is better to err on the side of caution rather (once again referring to Romans 14) than liberty or do you not see that? The people who grasp so desperately for more Liberty would rather abuse their weaker brother than control themselves. They cannot deny this, actions speak louder than  words.

Because of this mis-construed concept of Liberty in Christ, we have made a lot of things that are sin totally “acceptable” in God’s eyes – but not really. Now women can wear mini-skirts with their breasts hanging out in the presence of God at church and our men can come looking like they got hit by a car and its “ok.” We have this mis-construed concept of sin.

What is sin is not important anymore.

The Ignorance of Sin

The second side of the equation is an ignorance of sin. I make a distinction in the two because when you convince yourself that what you are doing is not sin, then you are totally ignorant of sin in your own life. My good friend wrote an article about this very concept. I won’t go into much detail because he covered this topic so well. I actually started writing this article on April 29th, but so much has been going on that I was unable to finish and I am so glad because he totally nailed this issue. The article can be found by clicking the link under “Blogroll” entitled “He’s not neoevangelical”

When we get to the points in our lives where we cannot even see our own sin, the necessity for a cure is gone (in our minds). Imagine a person dying of cancer but has not been diagnosed yet. That man would never walk into a hospital and demand chemotherapy or surgery or radiation because in his mind he has no need for it. The same is true about this important issue. If the mind no longer recognizes sin, it no longer sees a need to remedy the situation.

This very problem is the reason that churches are in a flat spin. The pastors are so blinded by their sin that they can’t see clear enough to neutralize the yoke and break hard on the rudder in the opposite direction that they are going! Sin creaps into the pulpit and then it spreads like oil to the rest of the congregation. We already know that only  a little leaven is needed to ruin an entire lump (1Co 5:6)!

Conclusion

Are we as a church doomed? Absolutely not! What then, is the cure? We need people who are able to stand in the gap, those who are willing to confront the Status Quo.  The Bible says it quite simply, and the Bible is always right:

“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. “                      1 Corinthians 5:7

The Shepherd’s Staff – Sometimes it Hurts to get Whacked

Who is this?

Its not mine! Something a little more scholarly, finally, on this site. This article was written by Clay Nuttall (D.Min.) and I don’t think that he would mind me telling you that he is the dean of the Graduate School at Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate School. If you never listen to anything that I say on this site – please take careful consideration of this article.

If you want his contact information to get the monthly letter that he creates “The Shepherd’s Staff” Please send me an email at: ntbdejure@gmail.com .

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR CHURCH?

 

The April Shepherd’s Staff set off an interesting and animated discussion. After reading the responses, I am more convinced than ever that the real issue is theology. The problem isn’t that we fail to understand why methods rise from theology, but rather how they flow from theology. Often, errant theology invades the local church, and even the leadership is not able to recognize it.

 

I enjoy weekly discussions with a group we call the “Round Table”. Recently, our discussion has centered on the “emerging” and “emergent” church. In preparation for meeting with this group, I read an article written by Roger Oakland, entitled How to Know When the Emerging Church Shows Signs of Emerging in Your Church. You might want to read this excellent discourse at (www.understandingthetimes.org)

FORGET THE DISCUSSION ABOUT LEAVES

 

Long ago, I gave up on debates about music, worship, and the things that rise from theology. The philosophical, experiential issues are leaves; the root is a theology that is biblical. For that reason, allow me to focus on the theological issues that pave the way for the movement that has left Bible authority behind. Even the elementary student of doctrine will be able to spot these subtle warnings.

 

The seasoned theologian will not view these doctrines as light, incidental, or peripheral. One of the ten biggest lies is that such theological issues are debatable or unimportant. The first thing you will need to look for in your church is erroneous “kingdom theology”. Every time you hear the word “kingdom”, stop and ask why and how it is being used. Ask which kingdom is being spoken of, and, if you don’t know the answer, do some serious study. Fifty years ago, when someone spoke of bringing in, building, or growing the kingdom, you knew they were liberal in their theology; now the same terminology is frequently heard in evangelical and fundamental churches.

 

It is more than proper to speak of any kingdom clearly defined in the Scripture, such as the Millennial, Messianic, or Davidic kingdom. There is an eternal, universal kingdom, and even the kingdom of God. None of these, however, is equal to the church, which is the body of Christ. The church is not a kingdom and is not equal to any kingdom. God’s plan for this age is the church. The church is part of the eternal kingdom, but it is not equal to it. The saved individuals in the church are part of the kingdom of God, but the two are not equal. The church as the bride of Christ will reign with Him during the Messianic, Millennial kingdom, but the church is not equal to that kingdom. God is building His church. We are not building His church, and we are not growing His church; that is God’s workmanship, not man’s.

 

Where did this kingdom language in the emerging church come from? There are only two possibilities. It could possibly be ignorance on the part of people who simply mimic those they trust, or it might be erroneous theology. This kingdom issue is not just about the use of a word; it results from false teaching. Those who have invented a theory about the relationship of Israel and the church see the church as replacing Israel or that the church existed at the same time Israel has. The Bible clearly separates these two peoples – past, present and future.

A DEFINITION OF “EMERGING”

 

It is not my goal to define the emerging or emergent church. I don’t think that is even possible. People who are in the movement are really on a continuum. The movement is not really a position, but rather a process or a direction. It is often viewed as a conversation on the road to re-inventing God. Most of those people do not believe the same things, so there are many views within the movement. Trying to define the movement is like trying to pick up mercury or nail Jell-O to a wall.

 

Not all of them would use the word “kingdom” in the same way, but it is safe to say that a biblical view of the kingdom would be hard to find in the milieu.

HOW TO KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR CHURCH

 

The point of this article is that a great majority of the time, when the word “kingdom” is used in our churches, it is used outside the Bible definition. This is only one of the warning signs of the move toward the left in any church. Space constraints require that we continue these warning signs in subsequent articles.

 

What is really behind these ministry fads that leave Bible authority and sufficiency behind? In churches, missions, and educational institu-tions, it is the same process. While it will take some clarification in the future, the process of “emerging” begins when form replaces substance and content; when human reason replaces faith; when concern for numbers and dollars replaces theology; when opinion replaces truth; when allegory and spiritualization replaces a normal, plain, ordinary, consistent, literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

When this takes place, you have a person glibly using the word “kingdom” as if it were something that is magic, rather than truth that rests on the authority and sufficiency of the biblical text.

 

Note: You may be interested in the article I authored on the emerging and emergent movement (I struggle to call them churches). It was published in The IBFNA Review as The Evolution of Agnostic Deism. Use the above email address for your request.

Note: This was the “May 2008″ Shepherd’s Staff

This is a Pointed Question . . .Does it Prick You?

If Dancing is OK because the OT saints Danced – especially King David – here is my question:

Can I dance naked because King David did?

Leave a comment and answer my question.