A thousand years before the Lord Jesus Christ died, David prophesied it in Psalm 22.  It’s an amazing prophecy.  It expounds numerous great and graphic details of the future crucifixion of the suffering Messiah, not yet invented by the Persians or incorporated by the Romans.  Psalm 22 itself is a song, lament, the servant Son crying out to His heavenly Father, David’s revealing the portrayal of this future event.  The prayer portion ends in verse 21:

Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

The Lord Jesus’ surrounding enemies are characterized by carnivorous animals:  bulls, lions, dogs.  Unicorns aren’t necessarily a single species of animal, but one — a factual, real one — with a single horn.  The one horn very often comes out as one and then separates into two or more, still though a unicorn.  The figure is a spear, a piercing, which characterized so many of the wounds of Jesus.  Later in a saving confession, the nation Israel mourns while looking upon Him whom they had pierced (Zechariah 12:10).

The salvation of Jesus, His own redemption, in answer to the prayer comes by the same means as all of us:  resurrection.  Even when Abraham would offer Isaac, his willingness proceeded from the “accounting that God was able to raise him up” (Hebrews 11:19).  Jesus would not be tossed with other criminals into the city dump in the Valley of Hinnom, but buried in the tomb of a rich man, as prophesied by Isaiah 53:9.  Three days later, He would rise again.

In Psalm 22, still in the prediction of hanging on the cross, one thousand years in the future, the Savior asserts (verse 22):

I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

In his book, Strength to Love, in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote (p. 37):

Let us now move from the practical how to the theoretical why:  Why should we love our enemies?  The first reason is fairly obvious.  Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.  Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

“Hate” has become another all-purpose term of opprobrium, like “Nazi.”  If you oppose someone for any reason, you are a “hater.”  If you disapprove of some idea or practice, you “hate” the people who hold that idea or follow that practice.  If you speak out about it, you may get accused of “hate-speech.”

The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system.

So somehow the “isness” of our present nature is out of harmony with the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts us. And this simply means this: That within the best of us, there is some evil, and within the worst of us, there is some good. When we come to see this, we take a different attitude toward individuals. The person who hates you most has some good in him; even the nation that hates you most has some good in it; even the race that hates you most has some good in it.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Part One    Part Two    Part Three    Part Four    Part Five    Part Six    Part Seven

In my last post on the practice of ghosting, I brought in the example of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.  Ghosting is an extreme, unscriptural form of separation, which has been defined as “the practice of ending a personal relationship with someone by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.”  There are varied degrees of the practice, because Harry and Meghan haven’t been able to totally eject from their situation.  However, from all reports, since before her marriage, she has ghosted her own father, despite his perpetually seeking a relationship with her.  It brings me to an important related point to ghosting, that is, what are the underlying reasons for it.

The ghoster says he ghosts because he’s been harmed.  He had to do it and mostly for his own mental health.  Before they lost their titles the very day I write this, Harry and Meghan used this reason.  Their mental health was affected by negative press.  I’ve noticed that anymore anyone who claims a mental health issue has one, and that provides a reason to ghost.  He’s got to ghost for his mental health.  This is also the explanation for the criminalizing of “hate speech.”  Hate speech is a broadening terminology that encompasses anything that can cause psychological damage.

Millennials and their older overseers weaponize mental health as a power over others. It justifies their ghosting, which is a punishment for behavior deemed cause of mental harm.  They must do it for protection and to punish the crime.  It’s a lie buttressed by a societal transformation, where lies have fed upon lies to form a new world of lies.  The mental health lie substantiates lust.  It is very similar to a lie a child tells his parents to keep listening to sinful music on his earbuds or to cover for disobedient behavior.  He wants the worldly activity and he forms the lies to exonerate himself.  He is not to blame, because he’s been damaged.  People lust, don’t want to stop their lust or cease making provision for it, and those who confront it, they have decided, inflict mental impairment.

The ghoster can find a paper or book, written by an expert who will agree, when mendaciously applied.  He’ll find plenty of support from others already freed or desirous to be free from the protective constraints of scriptural spheres of authority.  They will gladly concede to the coveted psychiatric diagnosis to have their way, to separate themselves from the sources of disapproval of their lusts.

Since it isn’t the safeguarding of mental health, what are the actual underlying reasons for ghosting?  I believe they are similar between unbelievers and the professing believers, but I’m going to address the professing believers.  I can’t say believers, because what sure, true believer ghosts anyone?  It doesn’t make any sense.  It seems like someone who has abandoned the faith, which is never to have it in the first place.  It’s possible though, if it is a short term practice by a vexed believer.  He won’t continue this way.

Not necessarily in this order, but he ghosts first, because he can’t confront the truth.  He doesn’t have a defense of what he’s doing, so he can’t face an encounter over it.  He’s not doing what he does based on biblical conviction.  He didn’t start by studying his Bible.  He began with lust.  Then he looked for people who would see things his way, that would help him justify what he did and does, to encourage it.  He can have only approval.  He won’t get it and he can’t explain from the Bible what he’s doing, so he ghosts everyone who loves him and attempts to help him.

Related to number one, he’s a coward.  That’s two.  Ghosting is cowardice.  It isn’t biblical separation,which requires real attempts at reconciliation, including mediation.  It avoids the confrontation out of fear.  Ghosters are weak.  They can’t face up to legitimate criticism and then won’t.  John wrote, perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).  The love for God and others defeats fear.  That love isn’t there.

Third is pride.  To give in to biblical teaching requires humility:  poor in Spirit, mourning, meekness, and then hunger and thirst after righteousness.  The ghoster is a lover of his own self.  He seeketh his own.  He looks on his own things more than the things of others.

Fourth is love for the world.  The ghoster is going out from, because he doesn’t belong in a pure church.  Among other things, it is likely the music, dress, entertainment, recreation, lifestyle, and popularity of the world.  He is a friend of the world.  He is a Demas, who loves this present world (2 Timothy 4:10).  He is not looking for the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, because he will not deny worldly lust (Titus 2:8-9).

Fifth is idolatry.  Paul says in Colossians 3:5 that covetousness is idolatry.  He can’t give up his own way, which is an idol.  This then looks like inordinate affection and sensual longing, what the KJV calls “evil concupiscence.”

Sixth, he doesn’t want a boss.  He wants only himself in charge.  He doesn’t like to do what he’s told.  Ghosting gets him out of distance where he would hear from anything authoritative.  He doesn’t want to be told what to do.  In 2 Peter 2:1, this is denying the Lord, who bought him.  Most of the time, he doesn’t even want suggestions, let alone commands.

Seventh, he is influenced or overcome by deceit and vain philosophy.  Paul commanded to beware of these two (Colossians 2:8).  Paul writes about evil speeches or communications corrupting good behavior (1 Corinthians 15:33).  The ghoster has bought into the lies of the philosophies of this world, even so-called science, which isn’t science (1 Timothy 6:20).

Eighth, he disrespects authority.  God rules according to a divinely ordained hierarchy through the family, the church, and government.  This person thinks he is a free agent, who doesn’t need to fit into those anymore.  Paul called this ‘thinking more highly of yourself than you ought to think’ (Romans 12:3).

I’m sure there are more than eight true underlying reasons for ghosting, but one of them is not to protect mental health.  Neither is it an advanced view of grace and liberty.  Without repentance, the reasons for ghosting are the same qualities and characteristics of an unbeliever or an apostate.

The content of this post is now available in the study of:

1.) Evan Roberts

2.) The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905

3.) Jessie Penn-Lewis

on the faithsaves.net website. Please click on the people above to view the study.  On the FaithSaves website the PDF files may be easiest to read.

You are also encouraged to learn more about Keswick theology and its errors, as well as the Biblical doctrine of salvation, at the soteriology page at Faithsaves.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12, the Apostle Paul writes the church at Corinth:

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

What is he talking about?  To understand, you need to back up to the start of the chapter.  Most people I read have said that the first half of chapter 6 discourages the bringing of lawsuits against other Christians.  Not exactly.  First, it is about not taking an internal conflict of a church outside the church into a secular court.  The conflict between two people should be resolved by the church membership.  Often commentators will denounce the “airing of dirty laundry,” which causes damage to the church.  It doesn’t say that anywhere in the passage, but I understand the implication, even though it isn’t the central issue or point.

In principle, the passage is about the elevation of the world and its spheres of power above that of the church.  Believers are not to see it that way.  This is clear as you work your way through the first eleven verses.  First, Paul says the saints will judge the world during the kingdom, not vice versa (v. 2), and even will judge the angels (v. 3) perhaps after the kingdom.  Even the least esteemed church members would do a better job than those in the world (v. 4).

Going outside of the church for rulings brings disrepute on the church, the premier institution of God’s authority on earth.  Jesus is its Head.  People in the world need to understand that a church is trustworthy for making decisions and has the ultimate authority or power.  It’s a shameful disparagement of the wisdom of God.  It also looks like, because it is, unresolved infighting in a church.  The church can’t settle itself.  It’s not the laundry being aired.  It’s the depreciation of the competence of the church, a stain on the assessment of God’s institution.  I find this normal today, putting worldly opinions, worldly fads, worldly ideas, psychobabble, fake news, all the lies of this world and foolishness, ahead of the church.

Paul is so serious about his point that he says that he expects that church members should rather be defrauded than take something outside the church, that’s how serious it is (vv. 6-8).  He says it’s a shame (v. 5).  Strong language.  To add emphasis to it, he compares the people they were bringing their conflicts to (vv. 9-10), to the ones who should be making the decisions (v. 11).  The people of vv. 9-10 look like the wrong people to look for counsel, to resolve conflicts, really for anything.  What are professing Christians doing?!?!  They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate.

Then we arrive at verse 12.  It might be lawful to do the thing Paul is discouraging.  It’s not expedient though.  There is no advantage to bringing church conflicts to the world.  The world doesn’t have an advantage over believers.  People outside of the authority of Jesus Christ are not better.  That is fake news.  The world thinks it’s better, and then professing believers, or just plain fellow unbelievers, just play right into its (and their) hands.

Advantage, expedience, is based on the right judgment.  It’s not an advantage to give up eternal things for temporal ones.  It might feel good in the short term.  It might be short term “advantage” without being real or true advantage.  Someone is not actually better off with it, which is why the world shouldn’t be making the decisions.  God’s people will rule over the kingdom, which is the point of all of this.  What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses the kingdom, the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the return to Paradise?  It’s the same as losing your soul.

Why do people want the world more?  In many cases, they’re not saved.  They are the world, and you can tell by their little mention of God, the Bible, the things of God.  They are ashamed of them.  That’s the easiest call.  They are loving the world by giving the world this priority.  I know professing Christians right now lapping it up.  They go to the world for their opinions and judgments, because the world offers them agreement with their lust.  They think it’s freedom too, when it really is bondage.

And we come to the second half of verse 12, which supplies the words of the title of this post.  Again, it might be lawful to go to secular courts or even get advice.  However, we should not be brought under power of any.  The “power” is not ability, but authority.  We should not be under the authority of any but God.  It is the verb form of exousia, which is the word for authority.  It is “to have the right of control.”  Believers should stay under the control of God and not submit their control to the world.  They stay under the control of the Lord in the church and by submitting in the church.  Nothing should take authority from Jesus Christ over the believers life, which is the ultimate point or issue of this passage.  Jesus should be the Lord of everyone and He will be in His kingdom.

The “not lawful” verbiage puts this instruction in the context of liberty.  The Christian life is not about what you get to do or you don’t get to do.  It’s about doing what is advantageous and about the right relationship with God, which is staying under His control.  People looking to the world for their mentorship, their advice, and their resolution of conflicts are being brought under the authority of someone else besides Jesus Christ.  This is not characteristic of a believer.  This is someone more at home with his own lust and the ways of the world.  Like Paul says, it is a shame, a complete shame.

Part One    Part Two    Part Three    Part Four    Part Five    Part Six

I’ve got no special affinity for the British monarchy, but I can understand why Queen Elizabeth II has been beloved during her reign.  It’s not just because of her sheer longevity and age of 93 years.  From my perspective and many others, she has placed the purposes of the country and her responsibilities ahead of her self.  She has a title, but she hasn’t acted and doesn’t act entitled.  For the monarchy to endure, she looks like she has understood and then submitted to the acquiescence to propriety and conformity to standard.  The office and the necessary model are bigger than her self.  People have loved that.  They cheer her on.  She elevates the office, not shrinks it, by the way she carries herself.

With Elizabeth’s example of sacrifice, it’s painful to see the circus around her, people who don’t have the title, yet feel entitled.  They receive immense privilege, but do not recognize or acknowledge it.  All of the royals I suppose must forfeit something they would rather enjoy.  They don’t have “normal” lives.  I say they are far, far better than normal.

A successful royal role would seem to require understanding that the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.  To preserve the monarchy for future descendants and for the sake of its benefits and betterment for the nation, the members of the family must resign themselves to the deprivation of individual desire.  They’ve got to give up personal freedoms for the sake of others.

Of all the factors that could or might end the British monarchy and its twelve hundred year plus history, it is a generation that sees their own desires and ambitions above the bigger or the whole, which would be the family and the nation.  Many words could describe it — narcissism, myopia, monomania — but let’s just say one word, selfishness.  If it’s two, it’s not “me too,” although that might be appropriate.  It’s “me first.”

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, better known as Harry and Meghan, announced a few days ago that they will abandon the royal family.  From all accounts, they did it without informing the queen first.  They talked to Oprah, it seems, then just went public with it.  They can see themselves doing better for themselves without the family.  The queen is pained.  The monarchy looks ugly.  A British critic of the two wrote:

I’m afraid their bombshell announcement smacks of millennial self-absorption, of values that prize identity, the expression of emotion and personal happiness above all else. The exact opposite, in fact, of the Queen’s wartime generation which believed that you didn’t throw in the towel, you stuck at things through good and bad.

Harry and Meghan weren’t getting what they wanted.   Many say it’s what she wanted and, therefore, what they wanted.  They, she, whatever, he’s going along with it, see themselves bigger than the entire British monarchy.  If it ends, who cares, he wasn’t going to be the king anyway, so they seem to be striking while the iron is hot.

In essence, these two lesser royal figures have ghosted the queen.  In a multitude of different ways, apparently the queen condescended to these two’s desires.  As a fiance, she appears at the Christmas party.  They get the wedding they want in the best castle.  They get to move to Frogmore with the two to three million dollar remodeled estate according to their tastes.  Now that the mansion is finished to their like, they will move to Canada.  They don’t like the way they’re being treated.  It takes away their freedom.

The royal couple could contend that with their move they now have the independence necessary to promote their woke social justice causes or at least a greater platform for virtue signaling.  They can use their notoriety and name as family of the British monarch.  This is the hypocrisy.  They use the resources gained from parents, grandparents, and the nation without even giving them credit, actually disparaging and then ghosting them, in order to promote themselves and fulfill their own desires.

Rather than Megxit, what about staying?  What about communicating?  What about reconciliation and working it out?  What about being a grown up?  What about an acknowledgement of debt and taking responsibility?  What about a dedication to doing the right thing?  After all that’s been done for them, the premier, stunning wedding at St. George’s chapel at Windsor Castle.  Ungrateful.  The person they are most indebted to, the queen, absorbs the greatest shame from this.  Their behavior is exceptionally shameful, but she is the one who receives the shame, much like what Proverbs 29:15 callings ‘bringing a mother to shame.’   The shame they don’t feel, she feels exponentially for them, because she can feel it.  They show zero sympathy for their elderly grandmother.  They are so desensitized by their callous selfishness, that they don’t feel the shame of their indifferent, wounding actions.

What is wrong with rolling up the sleeves and staying and working?  Nothing.  The two aren’t doing anything wrong by continuing or persevering.  If there is an immorality, it is in leaving.  If some evil needed exposing and correcting within the royal house by two righteous family members for the good of everyone, that would be the first step.  The misconduct here is two pompous, impetuous self-promoters, whose estimation of self-importance bypasses attempts at mediation or reconciliation.  All criticism is unacceptable.  Only approval is welcome.

Normal ghosters don’t have the queen as their grandmother.  They could just ignore her, except she’s the British monarch, Her Majesty.  The punishment they aim her way returns back on them.  That could happen with other ghosters, the normal civilian sort, if the parents and grandparents could receive the support they should.  The ghosters should become a pariah and forced into mediation and reconciliation.  Their toleration and acceptance marks a breakdown in society, like the inmates running the asylum.

When someone goes back into history, a discredited royal slinks into oblivion without access back.  I don’t know the future for Harry and Meghan.  Perhaps they will receive even greater notoriety for their liberating, thumb-in-the-eye move, that will translate into the investment in them by other progressives.  There is an industry to posing as victims or martyrs.  Many will feel sorry for them and embrace the fabrication.  They will be liked by many too, especially for their audacity and the rejection of the order and tradition.

I call this a case study, because it has all the indicators of this rampant, hateful practice.  God requires a Christian, a true, biblical believer to function within God-ordained boundaries, spheres of sovereignty, the family and the church.  Separation sometimes is required, but only in instances of disobedience to God, and only after attempts at restoration or reconciliation with a mediator if necessary.  In the case of the royals, the family and nation are more important than self.  This corresponds to the family and the church taking priority over preferences.

Lust is also a common denominator.  People want what they want without accountability and concession to authority.  Scripture teaches the forfeiting of our own desires.  Scripture doesn’t require rock music, immodest clothing, and immoral entertainment.  It does require obedience to parents and the church, where there isn’t disagreement with scripture.  It means not being entitled.  It requires thankfulness or gratefulness for provision and sacrifice.  It demands change, which calls for humility.  No one who does this is either a Christian or at least is growing as a Christian.  If he wants to grow, he will need to repent of this behavior.  It is never justified.

Harry and Meghan give the opportunity look at a common, contemporary practice and see it for what it is.  As many millennials, they are born on third base, then receive a superabundance of incessant help and support over numbers of years, and then they act like they hit a home run.

As the children of Israel prepare to enter the land, Moses declares the requirements from God for them.  Sometimes speakers will say, if there is anything you should remember, it’s this.  Before Moses gets into all the details, which are many, he talks about their relationship to those details as an explanation of their necessary approach to what God told them.  If there is a God, which there is, and one, it would seem that what all-powerful, all-knowing holy God would want and should receive the attention of people.  In Deuteronomy 4, Moses prepares God’s people for the statement of what God wants from them.  Read these first ten verses of that chapter, a normal theme through the book of Deuteronomy, which stands as a handbook for an interpretation of the rest of the Old Testament as well.

1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? 9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons; 10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

The tendency in reading posts with large, even smaller, portions of scripture is to skip over them with your eyes.  Read those carefully.  Then I draw your attention to verse two, specifically, “neither shall ye diminish ought from it.”  If anyone would know about diminishing what God had said, it was Moses, who would not enter the land because of his disobedience in striking the rock.  God wants all of what He said kept or obeyed.  Moses diminished this one thing — one — and he didn’t go into the land because of it.

In the above portion of Deuteronomy, a book which reads like a treaty between God and His people, their making an agreement based on His terms, which is laid out in words, a less than subtle warning is given of future bad consequences for not hearkening to and obeying God’s words, communicated by the terms “statutes,” “judgments,” “commandments,” and “words.”  Verse 3 reminds, “Your eyes have seen what the LORD did . . . . the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.”  And then on the other hand, they lived because they cleaved to the LORD (verse 4).  To put it together, someone could truly say, if I diminish I could be destroyed.  It’s serious.

You can’t say that you are supportive of scripture if you are going to support the parts of it only that will allow your life to proceed without the hassle of decreasing size and overwhelming unpopularity — in other words, one that trusts — and fears — the Lord.  That diminishes the Word of God.  There must be greater fear of and love of God than there is desire for the earthly success associated with numbers.


The Diminishing of and by the Fundamental or Primary Doctrine Designation

“…fundamental, primary doctrines will be commonly recognized by like-minded men [under] the illumination of the one Holy Spirit, rather than privately found in the 21st century by young pastors looking to make a name for themselves.”

—Don Greenhttps://t.co/0d6l7dyRlz

— Phil Johnson (@Phil_Johnson_) December 25, 2019

The idea of fundamental and primary doctrines is an evangelical or fundamentalist chimera.  They’ve made it up to serve a need and now refer to it like it exists.  They also use essential and non-essential doctrines.  As I’ve written many times here, the list of essentials is shrinking.   What was once essential is now non-essential, when nothing that God says is treated as non-essential, just the opposite.

The Holy Spirit illuminates all doctrine of scripture, not “fundamental, primary” ones.  This is just diminishing the Word of God in the areas where conflict exists.  Certain teachings of the Bible especially clash with the world, causing a more difficult life.  Professing believers want a Christianity that affords eternal life and all the niceties and acceptability of the world.  It is a Christianity that diminishes the most unpopular teachings.  Even in the Johnson tweet of the Don Green quote, the more conservative evangelicals, who have capitulated already on teachings of scripture they consider secondary, fear further capitulation that is simply taking their same trajectory, except further along than where they have gone.

God doesn’t accept the mere acceptance of some percentage of what He said.  It’s 100% with Him.  Sure, sanctification is a struggle, but believers are sanctified by everything He said, not just the primary things He said.  That is not how the Holy Spirit works, and it is a doctrine that misrepresents the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.  It is indefensible.  If there is a message someone should get from the gospel of John is that the Lord Jesus did everything the Father wanted Him to do.  When we pray the model prayer, that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven — everyone in heaven does everything God said, not categorize His sayings into primary and tertiary and allow the latter to go by the wayside.

I understand the concern of Don Green and Phil Johnson about young evangelicals ejecting from their so-called primary doctrines.  The degree of pragmatism and reductionism and sheer lust among millennial evangelicals is head wagging.  I appreciate that there are degrees of apostasy.  I see it in Revelation 2 and 3 with those churches, but the Lord Jesus didn’t come to any of those churches and say, “I warn thee of thy depreciation of the primary doctrines, and I will come quickly to deal only with these, leaving the secondary doctrines and practices ignored.”

By shoving apparent secondary doctrines and practices into a secondary or tertiary category or box, evangelicals diminish the Word of God.  They also send these young men of whom they state concern along the same trajectory that they take, except taking it further than what they have.  Everyone can opt out of something God said just by shifting it into a different category.  And then they can say, the Holy Spirit brought to my attention that this was secondary, which is why I’m not teaching it, practicing it, or defending it.

The doctrines and practices evangelicals and fundamentalists call secondary results in the diminishing of what they call primary.  Their secondary doctrines and practices sometimes have a greater impact.  I’m saying, as one example, that music style impacts life, both doctrine and practice in someone’s life, more than his doctrine of the Trinity in instances, not to justify the distortion of the latter.  Irreverent music shapes the wrong thinking about God, and forms a new god in their imagination not in line with the God of the Bible.  And they are giving God something He doesn’t want in the way of worship.  It makes provision for the flesh and sends someone away from God in love for the world.  They feel justified in their perversion because this is only a primary doctrine or practice to them.  It warps love of and for God, and then others, so that the two great commandments are not obeyed.

What I’m writing in this post thus far is right.  That should be what matters.  Is it the truth?  Men can ignore or shirk me, but the downward path will continue.  They will help grease the skid that empties further away from God and even in the lake of fire, all to protect this primary/secondary chimera.

I’ve got something to post tomorrow that is almost done, but you might find it interesting to use this twitter hashtag to read what Iranians are saying.  #IraniansDetestSoleimani Twitter is their only means of bypassing the powers that be.

The content of this post is now available in the study of:

1.) Evan Roberts

2.) The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905

3.) Jessie Penn-Lewis

on the faithsaves.net website. Please click on the people above to view the study.  On the FaithSaves website the PDF files may be easiest to read.

You are also encouraged to learn more about Keswick theology and its errors, as well as the Biblical doctrine of salvation, at the soteriology page at Faithsaves.

Three or four times, I think, an anonymous person has posted a comment in which he writes a short paragraph to say that I’m not a scholar, except in a very small circle of KJVO churches.  His evidence of this is the lack of acknowledgement received from evangelical scholarship.  I’m not recognized in scholarly circles, he says, which proves I’m not a scholar.  His point for these comments is to discredit what I write with hopes that no one takes what I write seriously.

Whether I’m a scholar or not had not occurred to me until this person had written these anonymous comments.  I’d like to address this, because now it seems like an interesting subject to me.  It brought back to memory an article written by Aaron Strouse, “What Is Biblical Scholarship?”  Does it matter if someone is considered a scholar?  What matters to me is if what I’m writing is true, hence the title of the blog, What Is Truth.

Obviously the idea behind anonymous’s comments is that recognition from certain association is what makes someone a scholar.  This reminds me of how the religious leaders dealt with Jesus.  To them, Jesus wasn’t a scholar, because He didn’t receive the imprimatur of the sacral society of the day.  These men essentially quoted each other and received their endorsement by approved person.  The Lord Jesus on the other hand spoke with direct authority, proving His doctrine from scripture.  I call this making your cake from scratch versus making it out of the box.  Jesus went directly to the source of authority.

A long time ago I knew that I would not get the acceptance of mainstream scholarship.  It gives its approval to its own people, which must take “correct” positions.  It’s very much like the accreditation of the state schools.  Almost all of it relates to power and money.  Darwinism is a prerequisite for inclusion in the scientific establishment.  We all know that a establishment exists in Washington, DC that protects itself from outside competition.

The money factor in establishment scholarship relates especially to the schools and the publishers.  Schools need a broad position to attract the most possible students for more tuition and money to pay for buildings and faculty.  Accreditation relates to size.  Publishers, as one might understand, need books that will sell enough to make money.  The two are interrelated and scholarship means fitting into positions acceptable to a larger group of people.  The power lies in positions that will bring the money that pays mortgages.  Someone who does not toe the line will lose out.  He should know that in advance as he makes his decision to elevate the truth above acceptance and power.

I’m saying that the truth trumps so-called scholarship.  The real power is in heaven, and the approval should be Jesus Christ.  Moses rejected the court of Pharoah for the people of God.  When I go door to door, the people I talk to don’t ask me if I’m a scholar.  I’ve got to stand and show them the truth from the Bible, where they believe it because it is God’s Word.  I don’t quote and footnote and explain that so-and-so Dr. Scholar says.  When someone does discipleship in the church, he doesn’t say, let’s do this because “most scholars say.”  He opens his Bible and proves things straight from the Bible.

The Lord Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them.  When He said that, He was saying that you judge someone by what kind of fruit is produced, the followers.  Are the people following you obedient to the Word of God?  As a result, are the people following you living obedient, holy lives in surrender to Jesus Christ?  That’s also what builds a church.

My approach on this blog is to present a biblical and historical position.  That will stand up to scrutiny.  If I write something here that is true — it is biblical and historical — and someone says, “that’s not scholarly” or “you aren’t a scholar,” that doesn’t overturn what I’ve written.  What should matter is whether what I’ve written is true.

I could point to at least five or ten different issues or matters where I have proven something from scripture to overturn a “scholar.”  Daniel Wallace, who is considered a scholar in the mainstream, wrote an article that said that God did not in fact preserve every Word to be available for God’s people.  I dealt with every one of his arguments in a biblical manner without getting an answer, except for personal attack.  What I wrote stands, whether he is a scholar or not.

Many years ago, I unveiled the gender discord argument between Hebrew noun and pronoun that backs up the position of a masculine pronoun as antecedent of a feminine noun in Psalm 12:6-7.  I sent a paper out by email that made its way all over the country.  With clear proof of that gender discord position with numerous examples relating to the Word of God, I never received an answer from those who took the wrong view.  Proximity of antecedent to the noun comes back into play.  I debunked the argument of gender discord, but “scholars” would not rescind.  This dishonesty is scholarship, I’ve found.  What is more important?  Being a scholar or telling the truth?

I’ve written many articles proving from scripture that unity is based upon all the teaching of scripture and not the “essentials.”  There is no biblical proof of unity based on “essential doctrines.”  This is very important if unity is very important, which it is.

I understand that I’m defending unpopular positions here, but that doesn’t mean that what I’m writing is false.  The “scholars” should prove that what I’m writing is wrong, based upon scripture.  They don’t do that.  Are they really scholars?  Is that what we want scholarship to be?

Even if I’m not a scholar, which I’m happy to agree, that I’m not one, I believe Thomas Ross, who posts here on Friday, is a scholar in a class of anyone who might be called a scholar.  He has his personal devotions in Hebrew and Greek.  I believe he has large portions of scripture memorized in the original language.  I’ve read a lot of scholarship, and he is a scholar.  He stands up easily to other so-called scholars, except actually being a scholar.  Thomas Ross writes here, perhaps because he recognizes that I write the truth.  Is in a regular, consistent way proving the truth, scholarship?  That should be what matters.

In the end, we’re going to stand before God, and He’s going to judge.  That’s the judgment I’m concerned about.  Many, if not most of these scholars, will stand before God, but not at the bema seat judgment.  They’ll stand before Him at the Great White Throne Judgment.  They aren’t even saved, and this is evidenced by their elevation of “scholarship” ahead of truth.  God is going to judge based upon the truth, not what men agree is scholarly.