Remain Stedfast and Unmoveable Even When Others Don’t
In case you haven’t noticed yet, one of the things I like about the “Today in Christian History” enewsletter that I receive, is all the quotes that it provides from heroes of the faith. For example, the one I received yesterday quotes Francis Schaeffer on a topic that hits home with me. Here’s the quote: “‘You must not lose confidence in God because you lost confidence in your pastor. If our confidence in God had to depend upon our confidence in any human person, we would be on shifting sand.” This hits home because of an experience my father had many years ago. My father doesn’t go to church. But he is among the many who certainly do watch plenty of “Christian television.” When I was a kid I remember watching Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart with my dad on Sunday mornings before Mom took my sister and I to church. My mother’s opinion then was that it seemed to work, for a while, to soften my dad to the idea of going to church. But then it happened. Swaggart was arrested for doing you know what with you know who. And it was back to square one for my dad.
In the aftermath of the Swaggart scandal, as well as Bakker’s, I heard lots of talk from the pulpit along the lines of Schaeffer’s quote of the day. It helped me steel my resolve that the behavior of Christians was not going to affect my faithfulness to God. It comes in handy nowadays when faves of mine like Hank Hannegraaff are accused of less than honorable behavior regarding his ministry’s money and R. C. Sproul’s recent problems swirling around his son (whatever those problems are–I haven’t followed it very closely for obvious reasons). Both of these men have been tremendous influences in my life, but fortunately for them and me, I’m not God, so for now, I judge them for the benefit to me they’ve been over the years and don’t throw it all away because they’re less than entirely sanctified. They may be sinners–it only takes one, but hey, so am I.
Now, I’m not a Pollyanna, but, you know, if they robbed a bank or something extreme, maybe I’d start looking for greener pastures or pray that their ministries are led by men with better testimonies, but I’ll always owe a debt of gratitude to those men and others like them for the contribution they’ve made to my theological and spiritual development over the years.
From Rasict Ruckmanism to Reformed Theology
I just saw a great Day of Discovery program on television. The month of February is Black History Month. This month was selected because it contains the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. I’ve been noticing that Day of Discovery has been observing this by airing several of their programs which feature the contributions of great Christian African-Americans in American history, many of which I’ve seen in the past. This weekend, however, they kicked off a three-part series called Africa & the Bible. I got really excited about the first one, The Myth of a Cursed Race (at this link, you can watch the video online!). Part of the introduction of this video on the Radio Bible Class website reads, “Are all races created equal in God’s eyes? Down through the ages, some people have viewed those with darker skin as somehow less human—using skin color as an excuse to enslave and marginalize people.”
The reason I found this program so exciting was the fact that, in the past, during my sojourn in the worldview of “Ruckmanism,” I was taught this view that is among the historic blemishes that tarnishes the reputation of Christianity, along with such low points as the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. The view espoused by Europeans and Americans to justify the forced slavery of generations of Africans did not originate in the turmoil which led to the American Civil War, but is centuries old, and is ingrained in the thinking of many in some form or other, to this day.
There are three books by Peter Ruckman in which he perpetuates this harmful interpretation of Genesis 9:20-28, which has been used to subjugate and generally look down on the African race. Their titles are, Segregation or Integration, Discrimination: The Key to Sanity, and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Not that I recommend your buying these books, but for your information, these titles may be found at Peter Ruckman’s PDF bookstore catalog.
Segregation or Integration is found on page 15 of the 16 page PDF file; Discrimination: The Key to Sanity is listed on page 9; and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series is on page 1. These writings by Peter Ruckman persuade many of his readers to adopt a racist worldview in relation to the African race. I was persuaded to believe it for a while. I was persuaded to believe it, not because I have any animosity toward black people from my own experience, I was persuaded to believe it because I wanted to believe that Peter Ruckman was a great Bible teacher. Many of his readers adopt this racist view out of a similar motivation. They’re not bad people. They are misled people.
I am thankful that before I adopted the extreme views of Ruckman, I had had enough exposure to the greater evangelical world and its way of thinking that as I forced myself to subscribe to Ruckman’s bankrupt views, I was always aware of the evangelical views, or at least attitudes, which highlighted to various degrees, the holes in his teachings. Luther once wrote that “reason is a whore,” being able to serve whatever purpose you want. For a period of a few long years, I prostituted my mind to this tragic worldview called “Ruckmanism.”
But my mind had a prior commitment to learning the truth. In my late teen years, back when I was considering the claims of charismatic theology, I determined that before I run off willy-nilly from the Independent, Fundamental Baptist tradition in which I was raised, I would first learn exactly what it is that the IFB tradition teaches, and only if they are in error, will I ever leave the tradition in which God had me raised. As I read and thought, I came to the conclusion that the strain of teaching I need to follow is whatever is the most conservative Baptist teaching that I can find. So as I began my journey toward the “right,” eventually I found myself dangling by my fingernails from the lunatic fringe clutching the writings of Peter Ruckman under my other arm. Because I considered Ruckman one of the most “conservative” writers I’d ever read, I figured his were the views I needed to adopt. So, I began the process of assimilation.
I sincerely thought I was learning the truth. I sincerely wanted to believe that I was learning the truth. But even though I wanted to believe the views of this “most conservative” of Baptist teachers, the much more reasonable views of the greater evangelical world always haunted me–the kind that respected the King James Version, but had more confidence in the modern, critical, eclectic text of Scripture; the kind who confessed (whether in a creedal, or non-creedal way) “one holy catholic (universal) church,” as opposed to my “local church only” theology; the kind who thought Martin Luther King, Jr., was a genuine American hero, rather than merely an adulterous, communist-sympathizer who wanted to unleash a dangerous “jungle culture” on this Christian nation.
By God’s grace, as time progressed, and I continued to search for the truth, the holes in Ruckman’s teachings grew and grew, until one day I had to admit to myself, “You know, if I were honest, I’d half to admit that I simply don’t believe this stuff anymore.” In fact, I can tell you the exact spot where I stood when I was finally willing to have this thought. I was mixing ink at the Reformation Station (my nickname for the print shop at which I used to work with my friend, Gage Browning, but this was before he was hired), listening to R. C. Sproul on my Walkman teaching about the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. This was the moment when enough light had pierced the dark views of Ruckmanism that I began the process of genuine Reformation.
This is the reason I found Day of Discovery’s program, Africa & the Bible, part one: The Myth of A Cursed Race such an exciting and enlightening program. I highly recommend it. In fact, I’m about to go back to RBC’s website and offer my “gift of any amount” to their ministry, so that they can thank me for my support of their ministry with the gift of this three part series. I’m sure someday in the future I will be able to share it with others in my future teaching ministry at church. And then at or around February 23, I’m going to the theater to view Amazing Grace, the film about William Wilberforce’s successful efforts to abolish slavery in England two hundred years ago.
Dager’s Critique of the TULIP
Media Spotlight editor, Al Dager, in his report, “Eternal Security: What Hath Calvin Wrought?” attempts to criticize the five points of Calvinism, but generally does a pretty bad job of it.
Dager first attempts to correct the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity by writing, ” . . . This doctrine posits that man is so depraved that he doesn’t even have the ability to believe truth except that God first regenerate his spirit and then infuse the truth into him. This, Calvin got from Augustine, the most revered theologian of Romanism. But what does Scripture say?In his parable of the sower, Jesus alluded to the possiblility that some men may have good hearts:But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. (Luke 8:15)
Dager first attempts to correct the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity by writing, ” . . . This doctrine posits that man is so depraved that he doesn’t even have the ability to believe truth except that God first regenerate his spirit and then infuse the truth into him. This, Calvin got from Augustine, the most revered theologian of Romanism. But what does Scripture say?In his parable of the sower, Jesus alluded to the possiblility that some men may have good hearts:But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. (Luke 8:15)
This verse does not deny the Spirit’s sovereign work of sanctifying the heart (1 Peter 1:2), enabling it to hear and keep the word, bearing fruit with patience. Notice how clearly the element of perseverance is featured, though, in the reference to “with patience.”
Dager continues:
Dager continues:
It is true that all men are born in sin. But that does not mean that man created in the image of God, does not retain a sense of right and wrong. Certainly there are Scriptures that allude to the evilness of man. But there are some that apeal to man’s conscience. And there are none which state categorically that fallen men cannot choose right when convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Firstly, Total Depravity does not deny man’s conscience, or sense of right and wrong; Total Depravity teaches that all that fallen man does is sin before God, regardless of its relative benefit or harm done to others, which condition extends to his unwillingness and inablility (Romans 8:7) to respond favorably to Christ freely offered in the gospel. Secondly, it is convenient to demand a proof text that “states categorically” that which he refuses to acknowledge on the basis of valid inference and the analogy of Scripture. But compare Hebrews 12:17, which, although it refers to the Old Testament narrative in which Esau, having been denied the patriarchal blessing and inheritance, weeps bitterly and fails to persuade his father, Isaac, to change his mind and grant it to him after all, the author of Hebrews, when one considers the context, seems by means of a play on words or some clever turn of phrase, to apply the reference to Esau’s inability to repent of his own previous rejection of the patriarchal inheritance, in accordance with his preordained reprobation (Romans 9:12-13). Such tears of Esau reflect Paul’s reference to the “worldly grief which produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:9). So, we see, Esau’s conscience was intact, utilizing his God-given sense of right and wrong, yet he fell short of the ability to actually repent in his totally depraved condition, in which God, in his wisdom, purposed not to graciously intervene.
Turning to Unconditional Election, Dager “categorically” asserts, “This is a term not found in Scripture, but coined as a means to explain Calvinism’s belief that no man can choose God . . . ” Does Dager deny the Trinity? The word “Trinity” isn’t found in Scripture either. But the doctrine is. In the same way, though the term “unconditional election” was not written in the Greek New Testament autographa, nor has it been coined to dynamically translate any parallel words, the concept is clearly revealed in the most detailed passage which teaches us about God’s sovereign, unconditional election. The reference is Romans 9:11. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad (unconditional)–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works (again, unconditional) but because of his call–” Paul in this verse, sandwiches the word election with two parallel phrases emphasizing the unconditional nature of his election.
Though Calvinists certainly limit the numerical extent of the atoning death of Christ, Arminians like Al Dager unwittingly limit the effect of it. Calvinistic theology affirms that Christ’s death actually saved sinners, going beyond merely making men savable. Al Dager holds up the typical proof text that he thinks denies the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
Limited Atonement This tenet posits that Jesus’ shed blood is efficacious only for those whom God has chosen; it was not shed for the sins of the whole world. This is contrary to 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The Calvinist says this means only the whole world of believers. I will deal with this also later. Suffice it to say that John distinguishes between “us” (including himself) and “the whole world.”
Since Biblically, Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice actually turned God’s wrath away from those for whom Christ died, if the words “whole world” mean every individual ever born, then this text teaches universal salvation. Neither Dager nor myself would affirm this doctrine. But this is the interpretation of this text if “whole world” really refers to every individual in the history of the world. Rather than limit the efficacy of Christ’s propitiation for us, it is more theologically sound to look for a less erroneous sense for the term, “the whole world.” May we allow Paul’s words to shed light on this? In Romans 9:24, the Apostle to “the whole world,” the Gentiles, writes, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” This wording demonstrates that it is not erroneous to see Scripture as repeatedly distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles in terms such as are written in 1 John 2:2.
The way Al Dager deals with irresistable grace is kind of funny. It seems to me that it would fit better as a challenge to Perseverance of the Saints. He swiftly passes by the activity actually described by irresistable grace to deal with what comes after one receives God’s irresistable grace. I’ll cite the entire short passage:
Again, Augustine’s influence is seen in this aspect of Calvin’s TULIP. It posits that God’s grace is irresistible to those who are the elect. They cannot refuse to believe (here’s the only description of the doctrine in this paragraph!) and to act with purity of motive and practice. But if this were absolutely true, then it would be impossible for the elect to sin. This, Calvinists will not go so far to say, but they will say that it is impossible for the elect to continue in sin. God’s grace won’t allow it. Yet if God won’t allow His elect to continue in sin, why would He allow us to sin at all? The Calvinist concept of God’s sovereignty negates man’s will, thus making God the author of sin.
You see? After giving a brief, incomplete, yet typically cynical presentation of the definition of irresistible grace, he moves on to talk about the fact that Calvinists believe that God’s sovereignty ensures that those he saves will not “continue in sin.” He then accuses God of being the author of sin because, even though he has the power of keeping the elect from continuing in sin, he stops short of sovereignly preventing sin in the first place. But Scripture teaches at one and the same time that while he that sins is a slave to sin, God does not tempt sinners to sin. Calvinism affirms with Scripture that sinners are enslaved by sin, and also denies with Scripture that God is the author of sin. This is the art and science of biblical hermeneutics. Being able to include two seemingly opposing concepts without philosophizing an explanation for it, or for denying one concept in favor of the other. They are concurrently true, although all the details remain unrevealed to us. This is how Calvinism understands Scripture correctly , and how non-Calvinist systems, get off track.
Al Dager’s Opinion of the TULIP
One of the recent Arminian efforts to counteract the resurgence of Reformed theology among fundamentalists and evangelicals comes on the heels of Dave Hunt’s feeble efforts, by Albert James Dager, of Media Spotlight, a fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Arminian “discernment” ministry newsletter on which I cut my theological teeth. I’ve come a long way, Baby! I was amused to discover yesterday that my beloved Brother Dager has dealt at length with the doctrine nowadays labelled, “Eternal Security.” What amused me about it was that, now that I’m a Calvinist, I get to see how Al Dager deals with the fact that John Calvin once walked the face of the earth. While I was amused, at the same time I was interested by the fact that his reason for dealing with Calvin was because he at least recognizes that eternal security is a modern version of the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. I was fascinated as I was reforming to notice how that the Independent Baptist Articles of Faith to which I had subscribed over the years, all contained an article under the title “Perseverance of the Saints.” I had always experienced Baptists teaching “once saved, always saved,” which seems to stray from their formal doctrinal standard in that what they preached more often resembled the easy-believism of Zane Hodges and the so-called “Free Grace” theologians, which contends that a professing believer can even fall away from the faith and work against Christianity to his grave and yet go to heaven anyway. Realizing that all modern Baptists (probably even the Free Willers) used to be Calvinists, it struck me just how little the Baptists, at least that I associated with, were regulated by their formal doctrinal standards.
I’m in the process of going through Al Dager’s Media Spotlight report, “Eternal Security: What Hath Calvin Wrought?” and I’ll try to post on an issue raised for some of my next several posts. To kick things off, let’s examine how he treats the idea of describing the doctrines of grace by the acronym, TULIP:
Calvinism’s doctrines related to Grace have been conveniently categorized into the English acronym, TULIP. These letters stand for the pillars of
Calvinism’s theology of man’s relation to God. Total Depravity of Man It would be more correct to head the acronym with a “D” since “depravity” is the primary noun, and “total” is an adjective that describes the noun. This applies to almost all the elements of this acronym which would be more accurately stated as DEAGP. But religious men, being what they are, like to make things neat for us so that we unlearned can more easily understand, and thus embrace, their theological systems.
Calvinism’s theology of man’s relation to God. Total Depravity of Man It would be more correct to head the acronym with a “D” since “depravity” is the primary noun, and “total” is an adjective that describes the noun. This applies to almost all the elements of this acronym which would be more accurately stated as DEAGP. But religious men, being what they are, like to make things neat for us so that we unlearned can more easily understand, and thus embrace, their theological systems.
It’s caustic comments like this last sentence that motivated me to call myself, “Captain Headknowledge.” They so despise sound scholarship when it comes to spiritual things, that they have to hold up those of us who respect it as whipping boys and spit at us like we think we’re better than they are. But it’s commitment to sound scholarship that does a better job of preserving orthodoxy than does glamorizing “Spirit-led” ignorance.
But as for his opinion of TULIP, I submit that it is “more accurately” labeled by the adjectives because the adjectives describe the distinctively Pauline, Augustinian, Calvinistic nature of each doctrine.
Everyone knows man is depraved, but Calvinists differ with others on the extent of man’s depravity; Calvinism confesses that the Bible teaches that man is so depraved that he not only will not be subject to God’s law, but cannot be (Romans 8:7).
Everyone agrees that God elects certain people to be saved, but Calvinism confesses that Scripture reveals the unconditional nature of his election of sinners (Romans 9:11).
Everyone agrees that Christ atoned for sin, but Calvinists confess the Scriptural extent (Ephesians 5:25) and effectuality (Hebrews 9:12) of his atonement.
Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit is at work when a sinner is converted, but Calvinists confess the biblical doctrine that the sovereign Spirit’s calling (Romans 8:30) irresistably, or effectually, converts the sinner.
Since Dager agrues with eternal security, and doesn’t dispute the placement of the letter P, I will leave it untreated. Although, it is a fact that not everyone agrees on the Perseverance of the Saints, for Arminians and Pelagians teach that saints retain their salvation by their perseverance, while Calvinists confess the biblical doctrine that saints work out and give evidence of their salvation by their perseverance, relying on God alone to eternally preserve them in the faith.
Chez Kneel: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ
Chez Kneel: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ
While I’m sending you to other blogs, check out this review of my favorite novel about the Lord Jesus Christ! You can read a few other comments of mine about it in the comment thread responding to this post over at Chez Kneel.
New Dimensions in "Evangelical" Liberalism
Charismatic preaching that uses an excessive number of exclamation points is geard to appeal to emotion. This tendency entered the Baptist world through revivalism before that. The goal is to provoke the hearers to respond in an uproar of “praise,” rather than to proclaim truth to which the people of God may respond in proper repentance, faith and adoration.
Many Baptist preachers wish their congregations would get excited and shout about the truth (much of which they continue to preach), but fear they are dulled to it, while, if my Baptist preacher friends would notice, much of the “shouting” going on in the congregations of other churches isn’t always in response to “the truth.” At best, it’s often a response to peripheral issues which have little to do with the truth. Pessimistically, I’d say much of it is in response to errors ranging from minor to major. On the extreme, there is rank heresy being foisted on Christian congregations by those who make a living knocking traditional Christianity. Most of the time, those who habitually “knock traditional Christianity” do so by belittling the foibles and failures of traditional Christians. They knock our unbiblical traditions. Fair enough. However, sometimes they take things way too far and begin rewriting Christian theology.
Case in point, Carlton Pearson.
For the sake of this cause, Carlton Pearson has sacrificed two very important doctrines: the existence of hell, and the exclusivity of Christ, not to mention the sufficiency of Scripture, considering the source of his information is the “conversation” Pearson had with “God” while waiting to be seated in a restaurant.
Read the following passage from Media Spotlight by Pentecostal Fundamentalist, Albert James Dager. Al Dager is one of those early influences which sparked an interest in me to begin searching for the truth behind Christian movements and activities in the world outside my fundamental Baptist enclave. While I have great nostalgia for him and his ministry and it’s influence on my theological thought process, and would certainly recommend some of his articles, naturally, nowadays I have quite a few theological differences with him, and would definitely not recommend all of them. Dager would probably fall well into the same category in which a Dave Hunt would be found.
Recently, I looked up his website and noticed an article he wrote back in 2005 when Joel Osteen began sending shockwaves through the Christian community by famously attempting to avoid declaring the exclusivity of Christ–the fact that one can only come to God the Father by salvation through Jesus Christ. Dager reprinted much of the transcript of Osteen’s interview by Larry King. But he didn’t stop there, he pointed out a few other “Christian leaders” who’ve been toying with the truth in their own ways in the media. These include Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Billy Graham and Joyce Meyers. But Carlton Pearson blew my mind. This guy at least used to claim to be an evangelical. But if I heard someone else preaching what Pearson preached once on TBN, I’d call him theologically liberal. Well, it looks to me like many evangelicals are no longer on what Spurgeon called the “downgrade.” It looks like they’ve already landed at rock bottom and are subsequently preaching a false gospel.
In “Joel Osteen: Another Victim of Larry King,” Dager writes about Carlton Pearson:
Then there are those who preach a new kind of universalism—called “inclusion”— which says every one is already saved; they just need to be told so. One example is self-proclaimed “bishop” Carlton Pearson, who appeared on a Trinity Broadcasting Network “revival” meeting in which he claimed God told him there is no hell. He told of going into a restaurant and declining the offer to sit in the bar while waiting for a table.
The Spirit of God spoke to me and said, “I’m over there.” He said, “Look at them drinking. The ones that are drinking themselves—you know why they’re drinking?”
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
“They’re just—tell them my blood! They’re already bought; they just don’t know. I paid for their sins! They’re justified! They’re accepted! Tell them that I love them!… “You have convinced them—[you] in the religious world—that I don’t have good will toward them; that I’m angry, and I’m a judge, and I’m going to send them to hell! Tell them I have good will; I’m pleasantly disposed toward them!”
…I’m sitting in front of my television, eating my dinner with my new baby girl—she’s about three months old or some thing, Majesty—watching the news. The Tutsies and Hutus are returning from Zaire to Rwanda, and they’re dropping by the thou sands on the road—flies caked in the corners of their eyes, and of their mouths, and sores all over their bodies, and they’re gaunt and drawn and starving to death. And I sat there with a plate full of food, and my baby in my arms, and I said—and I’ll be honest with you, I was angry—I said, “God, how can You call Yourself God, and let those people fall like that and just suck them right into hell?”
He said, “Oh, that’s what you think I’m doing?”
Now this is in my mind, God is speaking. I said, “Well, that’s what I’ve been taught.”…
He said, “Oh, you think I’m pulling them right into hell.” He said, “Do you believe that my Son died for them?”
I said, “Yes.”
“Do you believe that His blood can cover their sins?”
I said, “Yes.” “Well, if you think they’re all going to hell, if you go over there and tell them, do you think that that would save them?”
I said, “Yes.”
He said, “Well how come you’re not on the first thing smokin’ to get over there?”
And I got mad. I said, “God, don’t put that guilt trip on me.”
I said it. I said, “Don’t put—don’t do it; I cannot save every body.”
He said, “Ex actly. I am the Savior.”
He said, “I’m not sucking them right into hell! They’re already in hell; can’t you see it? I’ve prepared a place for them.”
I said, “Wait a minute; wait a minute! They didn’t hear my message and respond to my ‘Just as I am’ song and altar appeal.”
He said, “My blood covers. While they were yet sinners I died for them. I was wounded for their transgressions; I was bruised for their”—we have not preached the full Gospel!
We don’t understand the finished work of Christ. We think they gotta all come in our way—our church, our altar call, our four spiritual laws. I don’t believe that any more. Now maybe you all don’t want me to come back, but I believe that Jesus covers sins. We are to tell them, “You’re justified! You’re forgiven! You just don’t know it! He owns you; He bought you!”
The devil has convinced you; he said “All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.”
… [God said], “Stop tell ing them to get saved, and start telling them they are saved.”
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute now, wait a minute; they couldn’t be saved.
“What do you think I died for? You have n’t been preaching the Gospel right. You’ve been preaching your gospel, not Mine. Tell them that while they were yet sinners I died for them.”
… I said, “Wait, wait, wait, Lord, you’ve got to send somebody to hell! You know, we’ll have another Jerusalem council to try to—wait a minute Lord, some of these people gotta go to hell! You’ve gotta find a way for some of them!”
We would argue. If you found out that everybody was going to Heaven you’d lose your religion.
“Somebody gotta go to hell, God, please!”
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Speaking of sinners who consider themselves unworthy to be in a church, Pearson tells them to forgive themselves:
First of all, accept God’s love. I’m not going to tell you to stop sinning first, because you don’t know how to do that by yourself. Accept God’s love; accept His deliverance. Stop judging yourself. You see, you can’t expect God’s forgiveness if you don’t forgive yourself.5
Notice that Pearson attributes God’s Word to Satan: “The devil has convinced you; he said, ‘All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.’”
How ungodly is that? To take a biblical truth, spoken by one of God’s greatest prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and attribute it to Satan. That in itself should convince us that Pearson was not hearing from God. And if not from God, then what demon gave him this “gospel”?
Pearson’s doctrine of “inclusion” states simply that we do not need to tell people to get saved; we need to tell them that they are already saved. If this were true, that would have been the apostle Paul’s response to his jailer: Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.” (Acts 16:29-31) Why did Paul and Silas not simply say, “Don’t worry, you’re already saved”? Paul further states that God desires that all men would come to salvation. Nowhere does he, or any one else in Scripture, say that every one is already saved, and all that is needed is for them to be told about it.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men—for kings, and for all that are in authority—so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl edge of the truth. (1 Tim o thy 2:1-4)
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Read more about the heresy of Carlton Pearson straight from the horse’s mouth–or, rather, the heretic’s own website.
"And God saw that the light was good."
Perhaps you’ve noticed over the past several weeks on my sidebar a link to a website that was in the works. This morning I checked the link and noticed they’re getting a lot closer. We’re not yet able to download anything, but we are given a glimpse of the good things to come. Just like the image at left, the light is slowly beginning to trickle in. We need a restrained, incremental approach of so much great material, because we may just be blinded by the light, otherwise.
Okay, enough of the imagery. I’ve been eagerly awaiting my opportunity to introduce you to the teaching ministry of my friend, Dr. Thomas Rufus Browning (I hope he doesn’t mind his middle name getting publicity). Dr. Browning is the father of my other friend, Gage Browning, who had heretofore been operating the blog, “Experimental Calvinism.”
Now what I’m about to say is not my merely borrowing some Madison Avenue marketing slogan, it was not focus-group tested, it’s the unvarnished truth . . .
The ministry of
Dr. Tom Browning changed my life!
But it was more indirect than it was direct. A few years ago, I had lots of contact with several members of his old church, who had the distinct privilege of being used by God to perform brain surgery on my four-point Arminian, dispensational-premillennial, King James Only, Independent Fundamental Baptist convictions.
I had looked into Calvinism on my own off and on for years before running into these guys. Michael Horton of Modern Reformation Magazine and The White Horse Inn Radio Show, was the first actual Calvinist I’d ever heard explain in detail what the Bible teaches about the doctrines of grace and their positive effect on the believer’s evangelism, but that was before MR or WHI, Horton was running his old group called CURE (Christians United for Reformation). I ordered CURE’s newsletter, and read it as much as I could, but, being a teenager at the time, the material was a little over my head. I knew this was really cool stuff, but my attention was eventually diverted back to other things. But the seeds were planted.
Years after that, I had a Presbyterian friend in the army with whom I formed quite a bond, and he worked on me non-stop, like a good Calvinist should. I gained a lot of respect for Calvinists at that time, though I was at that time resisting what I was learning. But I knew Calvinist lay people knew their Bibles and they knew theology, which was more than I’d ever seen in my IFB environment, except among the preachers to a greater or lesser degree. But the seeds were watered.
Then a few years after that, God opened the door to work with a print shop full of Calvinist bull dogs who went to Tom Browning’s church! I would walk in at 7:30 (okay, more like 8:00 or 8:30 on most days) and those bulldogs would latch onto my ankle and mercilessly not let go until the end of the work day. It was okay, because they already knew arguing theology was my favorite sport. But of course, being good bosses, they didn’t latch onto my ankle until I walked up to them and stuck it out to them, pulled up my pant leg and whistled, if you will! One of my bosses had a veritable library of White Horse Inn tapes and he generously loaned them to me all the while prophesying, “Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!” Late in the process, Gage joined the staff and entered the group brain surgery being performed on me. After a few years of employment at what I call “The Reformation Station,” I was at long last assimilated! God gave the increase. To him alone be the glory!
My life has not been the same, since the light of the Reformation began to pierce my darkness. God is at work in my family and church, God’s truth is marching on!
Dear readers, my advice to you is to get yourself over to “Post Tenebras Lux,” partake of the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and you’ll see what adventures (not Mis-adventures) a real Captain Headknowledge can take you on!
is about to take the blogosphere by storm!
(this was an unsolicited, shameless plug for Post Tenebras Lux. Absolutely no money changed hands–however, greater faith in the sovereignty of God did change hands, and this is my way of passing it on to you!)
Jerry & Jimmy: History Repeats Itself
Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate was enforced by the medieval Roman Catholic Church as the only acceptable version to be studied to the exclusion of original language sources. Roman Catholic clergy studied Latin and gained some knowledge of Scripture, but were chiefly schooled in theology with little critique of it in light of Scripture. They accepted tradition and papal decrees as equally legitimate sources of divine revelation intended by God to inform the faith and practice of the Church.
The Renaissance emphasis of “ad fontes” brought original language scholarship into vogue among some Roman Catholic scholars. Comparison of the Latin Vulgate with original language sources led many to criticize the Latin translation, and comparison of medieval church tradition with Scripture and patristic writings also led them to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Numerous calls for Reformation were diligently suppressed for centuries until the civil government began to side with the views of the Reformers in the sixteenth century, with an eye on the economic and nationalistic advantages that they saw could result as well.
Generally speaking, the modern fundamentalist proponents of the exclusive use of the King James Version of Holy Scripture repeat this history. Like medieval Roman Catholicism, many modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists similarly discourage or exclude all critical comparison of their favored translation with original language sources. This is inconsistent with the work of the Protestant Reformers who risked and sacrificed so much for years for the right and privilege to translate the original language sources of Scripture into the language of the common man. This rejection of modern translation of even the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Version leaves the English Bible less readable to the common man, ministers and laity alike, who are not well-versed in reading the often archaic English of a version translated almost four centuries ago.
Modern extreme fundamentalists seem to refuse to learn the lessons of even their own Protestant heritage, and in this way, among others, repeat the mistakes of history. Fundamentalist discouragement of critical thinking and study is a tyranny comparable to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, while exposure to the views of the broader evangelical community in regard to textual critical and translational issues will inevitably prove both enlightening and liberating to the truth-seeking fundamentalist. Words Martin Luther directed toward the tyranny of the medieval Roman Catholic Church apply well to modern Protestant fundamentalist King James Onlyists: ” 90. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy. ” Although King James Onlyists don’t have the civil authority to literally force their followers to abstain from modern biblical scholarship and modern Bible translations, and do, in fact, offer reasons for this expectation, the social pressure exerted in their preaching and personal relationships, likewise “makes Christian people unhappy” who seek to honestly examine for themselves the competing claims of both sides of the English Bible Version debate.
Consider the following passage from William Tyndale: A Biography by David Daniell (copyright 1994 by Yale University). On page 287, Dr. Daniell writes, under the heading of Scripture as a Whole Book:
” . . . that there was a language called Hebrew at all, or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the ordinary population. Religion was in Latin: the Mass was in Latin; all the other services, like baptism, were in Latin; everything the priest did was in Latin; the Psalms in the Mass were in Latin; the Bible-readings in the services, such as they were, were in Latin; the Bible, when visible, was a big Latin volume; some priests, and most laymen, had only a few words of Latin, if that.”
This was the passage that opened my eyes to the way the extreme King James Only movement repeats the history of the medieval Roman Catholic Church in placing obstacles between the laity and the Word of God. Indeed, considering the common discouragement of critical thinking and research among modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists, it is almost as if the fact that there is a language called Hebrew at all (or Greek, for that matter), or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the followers of King James Onlyists.
Funny how history repeats itself. From St. Jerome (Jerry) to King James (Jimmy), there is nothing new under the sun.
Illustration of Tyndale by www.reformationart.com
The Old King James!
Here’s a little ditty I came up with about 12 or 13 years ago, back when I was a flaming King James Onlyist who was currently reading through Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions for the second time straight. Now, for those of you who don’t know, that’s unusual for me. I’m a slow reader, but I found the steam to plow through almost 700 pages of mediocre writing and even worse scholarship twice in a row! Truly, New Age Bible Versions was, I repeat was, one of the landmark (no pun intended) experiences in my theological journey. Of course, my first wife had just left me at the time, so I guess that’s where I found all the free time.
There’s another product from that little “sabbatical” of sorts related to my zeal for the Old King James that I intend to share with you one day, but for now, I’ll introduce you to one of my masterpieces. The song, “The Old King James,” is written to the tune of a song featured in the movie which is my namesake, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The original song is entitled, “Me ol’ Bamboo.” It was an entertaining song and (dare I say it? There are Baptists reading this!) dance routine featuring Dick Van Dyke, portraying inventor Caractacus Potts, who is hiding out from a hostile pursuer whom he’d just victimized at the fair with one of his lame-brain inventions.
This period of “divorce recovery” was early in my membership at my previous church, as well. At that period of my life, I was a subscriber to Peter Ruckman’s “Bible Believer’s Bulletin,” and an avid reader of his books, so when I found out that this new church I was considering went to camp every year on the week when the camp director welcomed Ruckman to preach, I signed up without any more ado! One summer, after I wrote this song, I even had the privilege of forming a quartet and performing this song in the presence of the man himself–The king of the King James Onlyists! The speed-readin’ German with the mouth that puts Luther to shame! The one, the ONLY (God is gracious!), Dr. Peter S. Ruckman!!! I didn’t have the heart to look behind me on the platform where he sat after we sang our song, but my good friend with the guitar said Ruckman was slapping his knee and cracking up.
After the good Doctor ended his sermon, and the chapel service concluded, a young lady representing one of the youth groups in attendance approached me for a copy of the song so that they may edify themselves in their faith in “The Bible God uses and Satan hates” back home. I hope they’re still enjoying it! And I hope my KJV-Onlyist readers enjoy it as well, and for those of you who are not of that persuasion, I think you may find it likewise serves as quite a parody, if you ‘ve got the stomach for it. So, may I now introduce to you . . .
The Old King James
by John D. Chitty, circa 1994-5
(sung to the tune of “Me ol’ Bamboo,” from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)
A new king named James Stuart
came to England long ago,
He called a group together
to see how to run the show.
They said, “Let’s make the Bible
to be cherished far and wide!”
In seven years came the Old King James,
we call the Authorized!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James,
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Scribes and Pharisees may think
their versions fill the bill,
But nothing else will ever better
manifest his will!
The Bible’s quick and powerful,
and sharper than a sword,
To make a wayward sinner come
and call upon the Lord!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
In the word of a king
is the power to win souls!
Any less authority
is likely full of holes!
God said it! So believe it!
Now, you know that it is true:
“For God so loved the world,
he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son to die for you!”
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign!
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Reformation Bible
keeps sound doctrine as it is!
It don’t delete the message
like the Catholic Bible did!
The Authorized King James Bible
is what it claims to be:
The Word that God inspired,
translated and gave to me!
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
