Almost All Historians Get History Wrong
Habakkuk as a Paradigm
In the first four verses of the book of Habakkuk, the prophet questions God, “Why does He permit evil in Judah?” God answered Habakkuk in verses five through eleven by saying, “I am raising up Babylon to chastise Judah.” Habakkuk wanted Judah punished for her sin. How could God use Babylon, a more wicked nation even than Judah, to punish Judah? Habakkuk further complained (verses 12-17), “If You will chastise Judah, LORD, then why would You not do worse to Babylon?”
The answer from God to Habakkuk is one of the most famous and important verses in all of scripture. In Habakkuk 2:4 the LORD says to Habakkuk:
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
It is a kind of message in a message from God to Habakkuk. All of history has two essential groups, one that lifts up its soul so it is not upright and the other that is just or righteous by faith. To put it more simply, someone either doesn’ t believe or he does believe. Babylon is the former.
Babylon and Judah
When someone or a nation like Babylon or Judah lifts itself up, which is not believing, it will not be just, neither will it live. Judah had its opportunities and still didn’t believe, so God sent her into captivity. Babylon could have turned to the LORD by faith too. It didn’t, and the Lord destroyed it.
God expects faith especially from Judah and especially Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s response to God is a microcosm of what God expects of every soul. If Judah would believe, definitely Habakkuk should. Upon the hearing of the Word of God, the righteous respond by faith.
In the end, the righteous live. They live by and because of faith. No one lives without it. Faith is a conduit for the saving grace of God.
But how does all this have to do with the title of this piece? God raised up a great world empire like the Babylonian or Chaldean empire. God also destroyed that empire using Cyrus and the Persians. He also used the Chaldeans to chastise or punish the Southern Kingdom of Israel.
Cyrus and the Persians and Reading History
Read history. Which historian says God used Babylon as an instrument in His hand in the 6th century B.C.? Furthermore, name a historian who says that God designed Cyrus to defeat Babylon to fulfill prophecy? God said in Isaiah 45:1-7:
1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God told the name of Cyrus and predicted what he would do over 150 years beforehand. Every historian should point to this truth.
Caesar Augustus and the Correct Viewpoint of History
Which historian will say that God produced Caesar Augustus to tax the world (Luke 2:1) to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2? God sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem when she was nine months pregnant. He used Caesar Augustus to do it. The emperor of Rome was a pawn in God’s hand. That’s a historical truth.
The LORD, who is sovereign over history, talks about the correct viewpoint of history. He wraps it all up in Isaiah 41:22, when He says:
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
God connects the former things, history, with what they be, the present, and then the latter end of them, when He declares things to come. Former, present, and future interconnect. God does that.
Considerations
Consider the American Indian. Historians will not consider the paganism of American Indian tribes as a reason for their fall. Historians treat the American Indians as true owners of North America, because they were here first. They do not trace their downfall to idolatry or rebellion against God.
The just shall live by faith. And then there is the alternative — cursing for those lifting themselves up and against the one and true God. Overall, blessing comes by faith. Cursing comes by unbelief. This is our Father’s world. God will sometimes use wicked people to punish other wicked people. No one will get away with wickedness, because God is the Final Judge. Almost all historians get history wrong.
The Expectations of the Apostle Paul for the Visit of an Unbeliever to a Meeting of the Lord’s Church
Seeker Sensitive?
Maybe out of spiritual sensitivity someone seeks to visit a church meeting. Such seeking happens though in far less frequency today. A tension exists about the issue of seeking.
On the one hand, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:11, “There is none that seeketh after God.” That must be true. God said it.
Yet, on the other hand, twenty-nine times scripture says “Seek (ye) the Lord.” As if someone can seek the Lord when scripture says not. A classic location for this is Isaiah 55:6. It reads: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”
One might ask, “How could God command someone to seek Him, when none can seek Him?” Although by nature dead to God, He enables men to seek Him through His revelation. When man seeks God, God caused that. He wants man to find Him.
The Grace of God and Seeking
With the grace of God that appears to all men, men can seek God. Without that grace, they would not. A good overall understanding of this truth, the Apostle John writes in 1 John 4:19, “We love him, because He first loved us.”
Seeking based on the grace of God begins not with a worldly temptation to attend a church service. That seeking is not seeking God. That person follows his lust to a meeting, because a church drew him with it. The worldly or fleshly enticement is not God’s love. God doesn’t allure or entice.
The attraction of God is either God Himself or the things of God. Those surpass any worldly or fleshly allure. Yet, unbelievers still seek worldly or fleshly allure. Church leaders know this. To increase attendance, they use other attractions besides God and the Word of God. Those don’t seek God.
Unbeliever Visits a Church
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
If an unbeliever sought after God and went to a church as a part of his search, what would he find? The Apostle Paul writes what he should find in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25:
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Carl Trueman wrote about this in World magazine:
Second, the church is not called to mimic the world. Far from it. There is only one description in the New Testament of how an outsider should react when he blunders by accident into a church service. It is in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25. Paul tells us that such a person will be convicted and fall on his face, knowing that God is there.
Presumably, this is because he finds himself in the presence of a holy God and is overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness. Turning worship into a comedy skit seems unlikely to produce the same result. In fact, far from being sensitive to the needs of any seeker, it sends a clear signal that the gospel is unworthy of attention by any serious-minded person, believer or unbeliever.
The Apostle Paul describes the random visit of an unbeliever to a church. Trueman calls it, blundering by accident into a church service. Paul’s description of a church meeting provides authority for what should characterize one. These verses open a window into the worship of the first generation church.
Psalm 40:3
1 Corinthians 14:24-25 remind me of what David wrote in Psalm 40:3, depicting the worship of God’s people:
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
In this one verse, unbelievers witness the distinctive or new song of believers. They see their praise and what? Fear and then trust in the LORD. These unbelievers aren’t excited, entertained, enchanted, or mesmerized when they join a meeting of God’s people. Instead, they are shaken by “seeing” this praise from the mouths of a believing congregation.
Experience of Visitors with True Worship
When unbelievers choose to join a church meeting, 1 Corinthians 14:25 says the experience includes secrets of the heart made manifest. Gill writes that these visitors are shown “the naughtiness of” their hearts,
discovering the lusts that are in it, detecting the errors of the mind, and filling the conscience with a sense of guilt, and a consciousness of deserved punishment; so that the person looks upon himself as particularly spoken to.
He falls on his face, speaking of a visitor’s shame over sin. It also humbles him. The first experience of a true seeker is “worship.” God seeks for true worshipers (John 4:23-24), which is why they can seek Him. The first act of true worship means the offering of a soul to God. He converts or restores the soul of the one who offers it by faith. Jesus called this, losing one’s life for His sake.
Contrast with Contemporary Evangelical Experience
Qualities of 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 and Psalm 40:3 do not depict what most evangelicals offer an unbelieving visitor. These churches or “communities” long ago departed from the true nature of a New Testament church. They know their so-called “seekers” aren’t seeking those biblical, holy qualities. Instead they give them something else more to their liking or better, lusting. Then when they get a crowd of “seekers,” they attribute that to God working, which is a lie. It is nothing like the work of God.
Trivialization of Worship
Trueman continues his rebuke:
Such trivialization of worship rests ultimately upon a trivialization of God Himself. It is a function of the same culture where sports stars refer to the Lord as “the big man upstairs,” as if God was just one of their drinking buddies . . . . one more example of a world that does not take the holiness and transcendence of God seriously.
It raises the fundamental question of whether some pastors even understand what the nature of worship is and why the church exists. When worship is turned into a clown show with a religious patina, Christianity and Christians are infantilized and God is mocked.
Our God, our New Testament God, is a consuming fire and to be approached with awe and reverence, as the book of Hebrews teaches. And those incapable of acting in accordance with that have no place in the pastoral ministry.
Finding a Sweet Spot
Some churches are very good at the “clown show with a religious patina.” Other aren’t, but they still use the same strategy, only a lesser version. Sometimes, they modify the show to avoid the extreme. They attempt to find a sweet spot between reverence and lust. In either case, it’s a show. Sometimes it’s a show led by a natural showman. He just can’t help himself. He offers a show in the name of God. It’s still a show though.
In John 12:25, Jesus said:
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If someone wants life eternal, he hates and loses this life. A true seeker, who hates this life will stop seeking someplace to satisfy his lust. A true church will stop providing a show to attract seekers by lustful allurements.
For All Have Synd
Sin
“Sin” is a word most people rarely say or hear any more. If they admit they’ve done anything wrong, they’ve made mistakes and committed errors. Rightly so, because they’re not thinking so much about whether they offended God in what they’ve done.
A very biblical word, “sin” left common usage as people eliminated it from the general public. Sin describes a crime against God, breaking His law. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:28:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.
Even if people don’t deny the existence of God, they increasingly don’t consider Him related to their lives. It isn’t that they can’t retain Him in their knowledge. They don’t like to do it. People would rather not. They’ve got their reasons. Bad ones, but they’ve got them.
The truth of sin connects people to God. He is the Creator, Sustainer, Lawgiver, Judge, and Redeemer. All of these attributes of God relate to sin in some way.
Denying, Excusing, or Redefining Sin
Part of the rebellion against God means rebellion against the confession of sin. Rather than recognize who God is, acknowledge Him, and admit to the offenses against Him and His nature, people change the way they regard sin. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Instead of conceding on sin, people deny it, excuse it, or redefine it in many various ways.
In the Garden of Eden, after he sinned, Adam said to God (Genesis 3:12), “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” He said, It wasn’t my fault. First, it was your fault, God. You gave her to me. And second, it was the woman’s fault.
Adam did not take responsibility for His sin. Unlike David in Psalm 51:4 after his sins, Adam blamed it on someone or something else. Instead of saying, “All have sinned,” it could be, “All have synd.” Adam had a group of features that existed together. All of those came from God. He had the woman, the garden, the serpent, and his own vulnerability.
Syndrome
A mixture of features coming together and effecting someone like they did Adam, instead of a sin, someone might call a syndrome. Syndrome comes from a Greek word (sundrome) that appears once in the New Testament in Acts 21:30. It is a verb translated there, “running together.” A mob formed and came all at once and together against the Apostle Paul.
Merriam Webster online defines syndrome:
1: a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition
2: a set of concurrent things (such as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern
Hundreds, if not thousands, of syndromes exist. I’m not saying that actual syndromes don’t exist. Surely they do. Of all those listed, I couldn’t say which were legitimate and which were not. However, many use a syndrome as a means of denying, excusing, or redefining sin. Instead of saying, “I sinned,” someone might say, “I synd.” It’s not the only way to deflect from sin or salve a conscience, but it is a very common one today.
Sin Is Sin
Someone named Matthew Stanford wrote the following:
One question I am commonly asked by people of faith is, “Can sin be considered a disorder?” Typically what the person who asks this question wants to know is, “Can behavior associated with psychiatric disorders (for which there may or may not be a treatment) be considered sinful or wrong?”
Many negative behaviors considered “sinful” (e.g., rage, lying/stealing, addiction) are associated with specific psychiatric disorders. But does calling a behavior the Bible considers sinful, a disorder, somehow make that behavior no longer sin? Absolutely not!
Something called the Kairos Journal recorded this:
When English Puritan Richard Baxter penned his magnum opus of pastoral counseling, A Christian Directory, he appended a noteworthy subtitle: A Sum of Practical Theology, and Cases of Conscience. Directing Christians How to … Overcome Temptations, and to Escape or Mortify Every Sin. Though lengthy by modern conventions, it reflected his opinion that deviations from God’s standards of behavior are moral transgressions meriting judgment and correction.
In contrast, today’s most popular reference work on behavioral deviance operates from a worldview that is decidedly less spiritual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) never speaks of sin and hardly ever references moral categories of any sort. Instead, it often reclassifies as “disease” what humans have known simply as “immorality” for millennia, ignoring the moral aspect of human behavior.
Sin and the Gospel
I hear among many to whom I talk, much more than ever, a naturalness in psychology or psychiatry speak. This occurs very often now. I heard nothing like this from the average person thirty years ago. Much less today people mention sin and this parallels with greater ignorance of the gospel. Ninety-five percent or more to whom I speak call themselves “good people.” This starts with a misunderstanding or deceit about their own nature and the actuality of their sin.
Without someone understanding his own sinfulness, his propensity to sin, and sin’s ruination of him, he will not believe the gospel. For someone to receive the good news, first he must understand and comprehend the bad news. All have sinned, death because of sin, so that death passed upon all men (Romans 5:12). 1 Corinthians 15:3 says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
Are You a Piglet?
Winnie the Pooh
This might surprise you, but I categorize personalities sometimes by Winnie the Pooh characters. Not everyone fits into the Pooh constellation, but many do, I’ve found. For instance, if I say, Eeyore, does that sound like anyone you know? I’ve known several Eeyores in my lifetime.
You’ve got Pooh himself, Owl, Rabbit, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, and Christopher Robin. Then Piglet. No one probably wants to admit being a Piglet, but many still are. You could probably write this paragraph itself, but someone wrote this description:
Piglet is a very timid piglet. He shows characteristics of anxiety and he stutters. He thinks of how any situation can go wrong and he argues with himself about what he should do if a situation does go wrong. For example, while trying to catch a heffalump,
Piglet thinks to himself how he can fake a headache so he will not have to face one of these creatures, in case it is fierce. Then he thinks to himself that if he fakes a headache he will be stuck in bed all morning, so he does not know what to do. These are the types of scenarios that make him anxious. He has thoughts that he creates that jump from one bad scenario to another. Piglet also shakes and blushes. His ears twitch when he is scared or nervous, which is often. He is usually very flustered.
Anxiety
A website used Piglet as an example of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. It says:
The average person reading The World of Pooh by A.A. Milne would be exposed to an accurate portrayal of generalized anxiety disorder in Piglet. Piglet trembles, twitches, and is shaky. Piglet also has exaggerated startle responses to things that scare him. He also shows symptoms of autonomic hyperarousal, like rapid heart rate and shortness of breath.
When Piglet is in stressful conditions his anxiety levels tend to elevate and worsen. This is typical of young people with generalized anxiety disorder. Children with this disorder may also show signs of being unsure of themselves. The book accurately portrays generalized anxiety disorder in Piglet.
You might agree with me that A. A. Milne wasn’t attempting to portray a psychological disorder. Milne just wrote maybe slightly exaggerated, perhaps even realistic, versions of a real person or types of people he knew. He did such a good job that people still use these characters as descriptors, hence Piglets.
Piglet
Certain people tend toward the Piglet disposition or outlook. When they watch Piglet, maybe his vulnerability has an attraction to them. He doesn’t seem like a danger or a threat. Piglet offers “helpful” criticism of ambitious, courageous action, opting for staying put in a safe confine. Many appreciate his suggestion of a very conservative cautiousness. The servant who buried his talents could have been a Piglet (cf. Matthew 25:14-30).
Being a Piglet belies biblical living, because of its sinful fear. Scripture commands many times, “fear not” (63 times) and “be not afraid” (30 times). That disposition disobeys also “be strong and of good courage,” which has many various versions in scripture. The problem is not trusting God for protection. He will not fail nor forsake you (Deut 31:6). God doesn’t want that from His children.
People will prefer a Piglet. A Piglet likely will not push them to take that courageous step of obedience. He’ll be there, maybe hiding, but there for them. They also might mistake this ungodly fear for humility, what scripture calls a type of voluntary humility (cf. Colossians 2:18). Someone thinks so poorly of himself, that he can’t do certain required biblical tasks, that this lowly self consideration is humility. It isn’t.
Weakness and Strength
For sure, the biblical paradox works. “When I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor 12:10). The end result of depending on God for strength is strength, not weakness. It follows Paul’s command, “Stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). It also follows what God commanded Job: “Gird up now thy loins like a man” (Job 38:3, 40:7).
When you watch the interaction of all the Pooh characters, Piglet just fits in. He provides a good laugh, because of his association with someone you know. Or maybe you’re laughing, because you think he is you. I get that. I’m laughing too. Maybe we’re laughing too much. It’s not good.
If a boy today acts rowdy and rambunctious, society might opt for drugs to control him. The state drugs thousands of American boys to turn them into Piglets. A Piglet in class, he’s considered the model boy student.
Helping and Changing
Almost all obedient Christian living requires being other than a Piglet. Some of the important tasks for God require rejecting Piglet attitude or disposition. Jesus wasn’t a Piglet. Paul wasn’t one.
Just because you are a Piglet, doesn’t mean you must stay a Piglet. Or an Eeyore for that matter. All of us have our own besetting behaviors, whichever poor or bad direction they move. A Tigger could be subject to the same type of analysis.
Scripture requires categorizing people into simple, wise, foolish, weak, feebleminded, and unruly, among others. A goal in ministry is to bring help and bear burdens. Biblical ministry can move someone out of the Piglet category with the right amount of cooperation from a true believer.
Watching a Slow Motion Car Crash: 2023-2024 United States
Preach the Gospel
My wife and I live in a mobile home in small town rural Indiana, evangelizing Decatur County as well as a 25 minute radius of our church building. I preach the gospel almost every day to someone. We do discipleship, Bible studies, and meet for church. Her and I exist in our own little bubble. We walk twice a day by fields of beans, corn, and wheat.
I do think that the work of our church here transcends other contemporary narratives. We keep our eye on the ball, staying focused on the real problem in the world and its actual solution. It glorifies God, gives Him pleasure. Someone might say our little lives here epitomize one of many micronarratives within a larger macro one. I could argue, however, that we represent the macro and the popular larger narrative equals the micro. The gospel overshadows politics or what occurs to a nation in a window of history.
No one in the future kingdom of Christ and then the eternal state will look back and think that the American government was the main theme. Neither will anyone in that kingdom consider the decline of the United States to be the major issue of that day. The way back to Paradise, lost in the Fall, comes through Jesus Christ.
Slow Motion Car Crash
As a backdrop to serving God in a church, I observe now a slow motion car crash. Two cars now careen toward each other and a future wreck. Maybe I could use another metaphor, like the trajectory of an asteroid in the path of earth on schedule to collide in November of 2024. It might not matter what your side of the political spectrum, you see this crash coming too.
I don’t write to say, “You read it here first.” You could have read it somewhere else first. However, I haven’t read yet about the collision of which I explain and describe. When you read it somewhere else, you might say, I read it first at What Is Truth. Who cares, really? As I write about this here, first or last, you might anticipate this inevitable demolition derby.
Trump
Donald Trump leads the polls on the Republican side. He embodies a large faction of the country, bigger than any single cohesive body of people. That car continues rolling forward at a larger than ever fifty plus percent of Republican voters. Even in Iowa and New Hampshire he dominates his opposition right now 16 months before the next presidential election.
As Trump moves along his path, so do four different legal prosecutions against him, all very suspect in nature, especially in comparison to others (I understand this will trigger a portion of the readers). Trump voters saw the Russia hoax impeachment. They also witnessed the Zelensky phone call impeachment. The government spied on his campaign. The Clinton campaign paid for the fabricated Steele dossier used for a FISA warrant. The FBI lied about it and then covered it up. And all that is less than half of everything Trump supporters know.
Still, Trump enemies continue to use the legal system to impede or stop Trump, what people call weaponization of government. Every prosecution looks shady, questionable, like political persecution. The present administration targets its number one political enemy. Nevertheless, the Trump car rumbles down the road, even gaining in momentum the more legal woes he faces.
Biden
Joe Biden comes from the other direction. Even though he couldn’t fill an average sized local gymnasium to see him, he tallied the most votes ever in 2020. Zuckerbucks influenced local election offices all over the country. Courts changed laws to favor ballot harvesting with little to no voter identification. Social media giants censored news unfavorable to the Democrat. In addition, lies, lies, lies, lies, and more lies.
The Biden car and the Trump car head toward each other. They’re moving fast, but they’re so far away, that it’s like watching from thirty thousand feet. The cars move at an imperceptible pace, yet moving on an identical line.
Criminal prosecution hovers around Joe Biden. Massive corruption on an unprecedented scale looks obvious. It seems like no repercussions for him. Like the Clintons, nothing will happen more than verbiage.
A crash looks inevitable. No one knows what will happen in 2023-24. Will they prosecute Trump and try to put him behind bars? Might the Bidens skate again or face their comeuppance? Could a third party enter the race?
The Great American Divorce
Many more questions remain. What would Trump supporters do if this government convicted him? Would they accept that verdict? With the way the progressives use the system like a banana republic, will people stand by and let this happen? A large percentage of United States citizens see their government as dirty. Those people are waiting and watching right now from that thirty-thousand feet. A big gap separates the two biggest factions in the country. The two sides are irreconcilable. One of them is especially unhappy.
The country doesn’t neatly divide like the north and the south in 1860. Both factions live in the same states. Red citizens are fleeing blue states to red ones. A few years ago some started calling this, the great American divorce (here and here) or American secession (here and here). Historian Victor Davis Hanson says we’re on the verge of our French Revolution. He also called it, “The Impending Thermidor Reaction in Jacobin America.”
The Only Remedy
To go back to the way I began this essay, I call this slow motion car crash just a backdrop to the most important. The belief and practice of an individual true church surpasses the miserable condition of the nation. It seems obvious a future collision is coming. No one knows the outcome of this monumental head-on crash, but scripture says the remedy is still the same, the gospel.
Elevation of the gospel starts with the church. Turn and look to the message of the cross as the prescription. Judgment must begin in the house of God.
Modernism Is Not an Acceptable Alternative to Postmodernism: Jordan Peterson
Early Experience with Modernism
Growing up in small town Indiana, no one exposed me to modernism. Without anyone telling me, I read the Bible as literal. Everything happened in it just like it read. When I was twelve, my dad took us all off to Bible college in Wisconsin when he was thirty-five years old, but he was never some theologian.
I interacted very little with modernism in college or graduate school. When I wrote papers, I provided alternative views to my position, so I read a little modernism then. Faculty did not assign modernist books to read in a fundamentalist college. The modernist books, I must admit, I used to pad my bibliographies, quoting them in selective fashion.
My theological separation divided the saved from the unsaved. People either received or rejected Jesus Christ. I did not categorize someone a modernist. He just rejected the truth, an unbeliever. Modernism held no attraction to me. If someone was a modernist, through my lens he was just an unbeliever.
More Mature Understanding of Modernism
In graduate school, I took a class, History of Fundamentalism, taught by B. Myron Cedarholm, because the normal teacher, Richard Weeks, was ill. In that class, I heard how that fundamentalism began as a movement in response to modernism or liberalism pervading and then controlling religious institutions. Modernism invaded Southern Baptist seminaries and the Presbyterian, Princeton Theological Seminary. None of this still mattered much for me. It registered as something written on paper, because I had no experience with it.
After marriage and a move to the San Francisco Bay Area to evangelize and then start a Baptist church, I came into recognition of modernism in a personal way, listening to a liberal radio talk show. I listened to the Ronn Owens Show and his interview with Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a female liberal theologian from Germany. She wrote, .Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith.
On a regular basis, I then encountered modernists in the San Francisco Bay Area. They went to modernist churches in almost every religious denomination. They often didn’t reject the Bible. Instead, they viewed scripture in a mystical way, not taking it literally. Modernists likely denied the supernatural aspects of scripture. Many times they allegorized the Bible to make it more malleable for their liberal cultural and social causes.
The Arrival of Postmodernism
As years passed, progressivism turned from modernism to postmodernism. Now postmodernists can make modernists seem at least moderate, if not conservative. Postmodernists rejected modernism. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I ask that you consider what I wrote in 2021:
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Dangerous New Acceptance of Modernism
Jordan Peterson
Modernists today very often stand with conservatives on certain principles. When I hear him talk about the Bible, and he does very much, Jordan Peterson sounds like a modernist. In recent days Peterson appeared in a new series on the Book of Exodus and apparently he wrote a book soon published on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He talked about that in a podcast. In his conversation on Exodus, his interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in a talk about the book of Jonah, Peterson in recent days pushes his modernist position on tens of thousands of especially young men.
What excites many about Peterson’s talks is that he even talks about the Bible at all. He acts enthused about scripture. Peterson thinks the Bible is very important. He puts great effort into communicating his modernist position and interpretations of the Bible. Almost five years ago, I already warned about Peterson, still hoping he might change. He hasn’t and today he’s doubling down on his modernistic approach.
Modernism Versus Divine Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Jordan Peterson does not comment on the Bible like God inspired it. When I say inspired, I mean verbal plenary inspiration. God breathed out every word and all of them in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Perhaps I will put more time into exposing the false interpretations and teachings of Jordan Peterson sometime in the future. In the meantime, please know that Jordan Peterson does not expose what Genesis, Exodus, or almost anything in the scripture actually says. He leads people astray with his false doctrine.
Don’t get me wrong. Peterson says many good things. You and I can rejoice in that. I’m happy he agrees with freedom of speech. He rejects a cancel culture. Peterson accepts a patriarchy. He does not, however, proclaim an orthodox view of God or the Bible, even though he refers to scripture all the time.
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Four)
God Uses Human Intervention
Take a moment with me to participate in a thought experiment. Paul stood against Peter to the face. Why would Paul stand against Peter if God predetermined or just determined everything in life? As a free agent, Peter chose not to eat with Gentiles, with whom before he had eaten. He chose wrong because he could. Paul wanted him to change course on that action. The Apostle Paul expressed limitation, temperance of Peter’s actions. God uses men to do this.
Scripture shows direct human-to-human interaction necessary for particular God-ordained change. God intervenes using human intervention. According to the plan of God, He uses men to change men. Galatians 2 is a tale of God’s authority to intervene. Someone goes his own sweet way and someone else stands against him to stop that path of harm. It’s not a violent interchange. It is peaceful. Paul uses truth in arguments to persuade. Peter changes. Happy ending.
Grace Dominated Obedience
God Gets the Credit
God doesn’t force anyone to do everything just like He wants. Pastors can try, but it won’t work that way. If they imitate God, they don’t force it. Grace dominates the believer’s life. This allows for effective pastoral authority. Regenerate men can obey because of God’s grace and true pastors function within that grace for those men to conform to Christ’s image. God of course then gets the credit for it, like the Apostle Paul mentions at the end of 1 Corinthians 1.
Christ the Master
Go back to Romans 14. Paul makes this point in Romans 14:4:
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.
Paul uses an illustration. Another man has a servant or slave in that day. Would you get away with holding his slave accountable to you? You expect him to obey you, when his Master is his judge. John Gill writes concerning these words:
[O]ne man has nothing to do with another man’s servant; he has no power over him, nor any right to call him to an account for his actions; nor has he any business to censure or condemn him for them, or concern himself about them. . . . [H]e is another’s servant, he is the servant of God: he is chosen by God the Father for his service, as well as unto salvation; he is bought with the price of Christ’s blood, and therefore not his own, nor another’s, but Christ’s.
About the second part of the above quote from Romans 14:4, Gill writes:
[T]he meaning of which is, either if he “stands”, that is, if he serves his Lord and master, of which “standing” is expressive; and continues in the service of him, whose servant he professes to be; this is to his master’s advantage and profit, and not to another’s: and if he “falls”, that is, from his obedience to him, as such who profess to be the servants of God may.
We Live Unto the Lord
Paul expands on this truth in verse 8:
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
We live unto the Lord, not unto any man. Whether we live, a positive outcome, or we die, a negative one, either way, we are the Lord’s, not someone else’s. This also relates to judgment and even the judgment seat, which is after this lifetime.
The Judgment Seat of Christ
Paul writes in verse 10:
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
The slave or servant will stand before His Master, Christ, for judgment by Him. A pastor should want not to impede or prevent a direct rapport of the Lord Jesus Christ with His servants. He can do this though by inserting himself in life matters in a judgmental manner. By judgmental, I mean in condemnatory treatment, which is manipulative.
Servants of Christ Serving Christ
Of course, pastors must step in. They must feed and protect. However, a pastor can make it more difficult for servants of Christ to serve Christ, because they inject themselves into judgment so extensively and vehemently. They don’t stand behind scripture as much as they stand behind force of personality and methodology. I’m not saying they won’t use the Bible, but their authority becomes the indispensable force of change.
I’ve been under a leader (in this case not a pastor) so severe that it seemed impossible to serve the Lord, because he made it so palpable that I was serving him. Someone doesn’t have to act in an identical way as him to operate in his manner. He blew his top. He threatened. It also meant hearing that he talked to others in a form of divide and conquer. I wasn’t his enemy — I supported him — but my popularity seemed a threat to him, so he tried to undermine it. In doing so, he really was hurting himself. I knew I could never stay under him as a leader because I wanted to serve Jesus Christ, not him.
Be assured, a church member might use some scheming tactic on a pastor too, to rule him from the below or under side. I fully acknowledge that. I’ve had that happen too. Scripture, including from the Apostle Paul, addresses both good and bad treatment of a pastor. Hebrews 13:17 says these members might cause a pastor to fulfill his office with grief, not with joy.
Treating Men with Respect
Especially Men of Good Will
I’ve read others use the terminology “good will” to describe a trait of a man who overall wants to do right. This man showed a long-time pattern of pursuing a right direction. He followed and continues in a favorable trajectory. He maintained good behavior toward God and others with some exceptions.
A basic human need God created in men is respect. Treating a man like a man means respecting him. One man in authority should approach another man with respect if he wants respect in return. This especially acknowledges past good will, not starting without good will in the exercise of authority. For a man of good will in need of course correction, a pastor should demonstrate respect of him while doing so.
Honor Due to All Men
If you are in authority, and you don’t think a man deserves your respect, you can still give it. You have a much better opportunity to restore someone if you go ahead and exhibit it. You can argue for showing respect. The Apostle Paul in Romans 13:7 says, “honour to whom honour.” Gill says about this:
[T]here is an honour due to all men, according to their respective rank and station, and the relation they stand in to each other.
Here is a common scenario. A pastor starts a confrontation of a man in a disrespectful manner. He renders dishonor to him. How do you think that’s going to turn out? The man responds poorly, maybe with some obvious irritation or worse. The reaction yields more disrespect from the leader. Everything goes down from there, because now both men feel disrespected. From there, interactions turn acerbic. It didn’t have to be that way.
Such a sequence of events one might call a cycle. These types of cycles do occur between people all the time. For the cycle to stop, both parties must admit at least the cycle occurred. It can’t be one or both sides assigning all the blame to the other. The cycle includes alternating wrongdoing that increases in intensity, until it comes to an abrupt ending.
When one retraces the steps, where did the decline begin? Someone may say, “When a man did something wrong, that necessitated confrontation from a pastor. If he never did anything wrong, it would have stopped right there.” Maybe. Everyone does things wrong. However, a genuine trial of wrongdoing follows due process. Without it, genuine God-ordained authority did not occur.
Why We’re Here
As a pastor, many times people didn’t and don’t do what I want. These people are not there to facilitate a successful career for me. The things they didn’t do might relate to their submission to Jesus Christ. What do I do? Do I blow a gasket at them, do I insult them, condemn them, say harsh things to them, or do I threaten them? I hope not. I should try to help them. That’s why I’m there. It’s not about me. They are servants of Christ for which He died.
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Three)
Authority of Scripture
To obey God and His Word, one must first believe in His authority and the authority of His Word. I believe in God’s authority and the authority of His Word. True New Testament churches submit to the Bible as their final authority. God and His Word also function through a hierarchy of authority. He uses men. In the first century, God spoke and ruled through apostolic authority. Peter and Paul were uniquely God’s instruments.
The Pharisees and Sadducees opposed the authority of Jesus. Jesus also attacked their faux authority. The Pharisaical view of circumcision and eating with Gentiles arose from their traditions, not from God’s Word. Jesus said, They “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Their teaching was devoid of God’s authority.
In spite of their insubordination to scripture, Jesus did not debunk the office of the Pharisees, just the opposite in Matthew 23:2: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” According to Jesus, the Pharisees still sat in Moses’ seat. They held the office. They lost authority, however, by not obeying the Word of God, including that written by Moses.
In Galatians, the gang of false teachers, who traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem and said they associated with James, borrowed from the Pharisee’s tradition. These men mixed certain rituals and traditions with a true gospel to concoct their false one. The Apostle Paul writes against them in Galatians 2. They had no authority, either scriptural or ecclesiological, to overturn the doctrine and practice of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches. They looked out for themselves, not for God’s will or pleasure.
Pastoral Authority
God gives pastoral authority. Pastors need it for fulfilling the important God-ordained task of overseeing a church. God instructs members to obey pastors, assuming in scriptural and even non-scriptural matters. Pastors shouldn’t expect obedience to something unscriptural. Someone in a church may view a practice of the church to be unscriptural.
Our church did fundraising for our school. A church member challenged a method we used. He thought it was unscriptural. Our principal didn’t think so. I wasn’t sure. We dropped the method and lost money. It was the right thing to do.
When a pastor says, “I want everyone there at 9am,” that is a non-scriptural matter, but he has authority in it. 9am then means 9am. A member should take that seriously. If he wants everyone there at 9am, everyone should put their selves under that authority, the idea of “submit.” This unifies a body, all the body parts working together. Defying the authority as a pattern fits the definition of factious, even for not showing up on time.
Some of what I’m addressing relates to a pastor dealing with a pattern of disobedience. He wants to help someone. To do so, he comforts, exhorts, instructs, intreats, warns, and admonishes, the approach depending on the person and his response.
To deal with a matter well, a pastor must listen. He must hear a matter before he answers it (Proverbs 18:13). And even then, he wants to edify, correct, strengthen, and restore. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth,” praying to God the Father. The goal is to rely on God’s Word.
Forum for Challenge
Proving Everything
Depending on the Word of God does not mean depending on an opinion about the Word of God. “A pastor thinks this, so it is true.” It might be. I hope it is. However, scripture also says (1 Thess 5:21-22):
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:31-32:
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. A forum for challenge exists in a church. The Bible is the final authority.
Helping People Change
Room to Grow
Certain times I led toward a change of position in our church. Just because I took a new position, I knew that didn’t mean that everyone would believe it. It might take time for everyone to come along. Unity also matters in those occasions. Our church had taken a different position for awhile. I wanted everyone to change, but I didn’t require everyone to change. The bottom line during those times was not causing “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” (Romans 16:17).
Opinions and what Paul calls doubtful disputations (Rom 14:1) necessitate sorting. Not everyone applies scripture exactly the same. Sanctification occurs and tweaks viewpoints. Every disagreement is not a threat to or defiance of authority. It’s not rebellion. When it takes even pastors years to change on something, they can’t turn around and expect someone else to change in days or hours.
Harmful Approaches
Through many years, I have listened to numbers of various positions of pastors. We almost never agree on everything. Nevertheless, pastors will talk with great confidence and authority when they state their positions. Pastors might treat an issue like they’re Teddy Roosevelt after just climbing San Juan Hill. They’re raising the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. Bluster and bravado or a stern countenance don’t equate with authority.
I may hear a man mock my position in his preaching, sometimes setting up straw man arguments. I might smile at the audaciousness of it, but mockery is not especially convincing. Calling people a liar definitely doesn’t persuade. Neither does characterizing the difference in an extreme or insulting manner.
Sometimes someone says God gave him peace. He may add, “I prayed about it.” Or, “I fasted over it.” If you disagree, somehow you oppose answers to prayer and the practice of fasting. A man expresses a feeling of peace. Scripture nowhere uses a feeling as a harbinger of truth.
Pastors can find many various means to provoke change. Someone might notice a modulation in the tone of voice. Cheeriness is missing. It isn’t friendly now. The eyelids are half mast. A pastor can send a message in the spirit of mean girl syndrome. Someone in is now out. If a person was a fish, he can’t swim in the small pond anymore. He’s relegated to the smaller adjacent puddle until he apprehends the message sent.
Longsuffering and Patience
“God is longsuffering toward usward” (2 Peter 3:9). “Charity suffereth long” (1 Corinthians 13:4). I think of the fellowservant in Jesus’ story in Matthew 18:29, who cried, “Have patience with me!” I don’t see a biblical pattern of cutting off people with a different position, cancelling them with little to no due process.
A kind of political cancellation and making phone calls, applying social and economic pressure, is not the method of pastoral authority. People will have difficulty seeing Jesus in an environment of possible expectation of punishment. Scriptural conviction can motivate loving service that will please the Lord.
God gives and uses authority. Romans 13:1 says, “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” At the same time, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). Especially church leaders should know that the final judgment of Jesus Christ, that’s what matters. “Ye masters,” forbear “threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven” (Eph 6:9).
Everyone of us will give an account to God (Romans 14:10). And God says, “destroy not him for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ didn’t give authority to take His place as Lord or destroy the people He died for.
More to Come
Recent Comments