Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 27)
Search Results for: worship
Keswick’s Quakerism, Rejection of Doctrine and Rejection of Studying Scripture: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 3 of 17
Quaker influence illustrates the failure among its leadership to separate from
even the most serious of errors and a lack of discernment about what is
involved in even being a Christian at all.[1] For example its co-founder Robert Wilson was
a Quaker, and from its inception the Keswick convention allowed those in
soul-damning error, such as the Quaker Hannah Whitall Smith, to mold its
doctrinal position. Holiness, sanctification, and separation
share the same word group in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and the disobedience
of the Keswick Convention to the Biblical commands to practice ecclesiastical
separation cleary hinder its intention of promoting holiness. Compromise on any area of the truth hinders
growth in holiness, for sanctification takes place by means of the truth (John
17:17).[2] What the Keswick Convention boasts of as a
strength, “that no man or woman has ever been known, through the influence or
under its teaching, to leave one communion for another,” so that “those who
accept the Keswick teaching and enter into the [Keswick] experience . . .
incline to remain where they are . . . [even in] moribund or dead churches,”[3]
is no strength at all, but, in fact, a very serious weakness. Keswick unites those professing paedobaptism
and believer’s baptism; those who think that sprinkled infants are Christians
and those who believe that one must be converted to become a Christian; those
who advocate hierarchical denominational structures and those who practice congregational
church government; those who believe in liturgical ritualism and those who
accept the regulative principle of worship; those who preach the inherent
goodness of man inherent in the Quaker “Divine seed” heresy and those who
accept the total depravity of man; and those who embrace corrupt sacramental
gospels with those who profess the true gospel of justification by faith alone
through Christ alone apart from religious ceremonies. When all such, together with sundry sorts of
other doctrinal deviants, get together for a “united communion service,”[4]
one can be happy that the Lord’s Supper is not really being practiced, as only
true Baptist churches can celebrate it, for the gross doctrinal and practical
disharmony might lead to many suffering serious illness or early death (1
Corinthians 11:30) as Divine judgment. In
sum, Keswick ecumenicalism is unscriptural and dangerous.
related error of Keswick, which developed out of the identical position at
Broadlands[5]
and which accorded well with the ecumenicalism of the movement,[6]
is that it “is interested in the practical application of religious truth
rather than in doctrinal or dogmatic theology.”[7] Biblically, no disjunction exists between
doctrine and practice—on the contrary, sound doctrine and practice mutually
reinforce each other (1 Timothy 4:16).
In keeping with its belittling of Biblical doctrine, Keswick has
produced an ocean of non-doctrinal books, “many volumes of devotional
literature.”[8] This non-dogmatic “literature of the
Convention . . . ha[s] circulated far and wide . . . throughout the world.”[9] Likewise, myriads of “addresses [have been]
given at the Convention year after year for over seventy-five years.” Nevertheless, “Keswick furnishes us with no
formal treatise of its doctrine of sin, and no carefully prepared, weighty
discourses of a theological nature”[10]
of any kind. This lack was abetted by
the total lack of formal theological training on the part of many early Keswick
leaders.[11] Keswick’s neglect of carefully prepared
theology is a definite weakness, although natural for those who accepted Robert
P. Smith’s view that for “souls i[n] vital conscious union with Christ . . .
the effects of any errors of judgment are neutralized.”[12]
important at Keswick, as in the teaching and ministry of Hannah and Robert P.
Smith, and at the Broadlands Conferences,[13]
was not the careful study of what Scripture said, but feeling happy—the secret
of a happy life.[14] While Keswick’s neglect of the careful study
of Scripture suited the Quaker exaltation of immediate extra-canonical
revelation, for those who wanted to know what God’s Word said about
sanctification, it was a great hindrance that at “the early Conventions . . .
[a]ll the addresses were extemporaneous,”[15]
so that none of the spiritual guides who were to lead others into the way of
holiness could preach carefully exposited Scripture. All speakers had to teach unprepared:
Harford-Battersby . . . . assigned . . . speaking roles each evening for the
following day, after a time of prayer with the chairman [Robert Wilson] in his
vicarage drawing room . . . informal planning of the speakers for each day,
undertaken only during the week itself, characterized the Convention for more
than fifty years. . . . Some may see in that a more noble leading of the
Spirit, whilst others may call it flying by the seat of your pants[.][16]
absence of planning and organizing of speakers.”[17] It is not surprising that a later Keswick
president thought that “the reason that Convention blessings were short-lived”
was the “lack of solid exposition” at the Conference.[18] Keswick’s oft recognized[19]
lack of carefully prepared and theologically precise views of sin and the
solution for it is evident in its inaccurate presentations and bungling
refutations by Keswick advocates of alternative positions on sanctification,
its failure to deal comprehensively and carefully with the scriptural data
related to the believer’s growth in holiness, its invalid arguments, its allegorical
interpretation of Scripture, and its faulty exegesis of key texts on
sanctification.[20] In all these ways, while unfaithful to the
Bible, Keswick continued faithful to its roots at Broadlands, where the
misinterpretation of Scripture was tightly connected to the Quaker Divine Seed
heresy.[21] From the Divine Seed doctrine many an
allegorization of Scripture came forth—what need was there of careful exegesis
of the Bible for one who has the Divine Seed within, and from his allegedly
sinless spirit receives new revelations?
Keswick does not do well to set against each other “exegetical skill”
and “present illumination and anointing of the Holy Spirit,” claiming to value
the latter despite downplaying the former.
In fact, Keswick’s theological sickness is evident in the affirmation
that the “distinctive vitality” of “Keswick meetings” is “lost” if “exegetical
skill instead of . . . present illumination” is employed in preaching.[22] Indeed, Keswick authors have testified that
the generality of those that accede to their theology do so not as a result of their
having exegeted and searched the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), but because of their pleasant
feelings and experiences at Keswick conferences.[23] It is consequently not surprising that the
key requirement for ascending the Keswick platform during its founding decades
was not doctrinal orthodoxy, but, as at Broadlands, the experience of entering
into the carefree happiness of the Higher Life.[24] Keswick’s inability to support itself
exegetically, and its reliance upon testimonies and pleasant words and deeds to
lead people into its system, is explained by Robert P. Smith:
doctrinal, dogmatic side. It is not so
much a doctrine to be argued as a life
to be lived. Confess Christ—do not profess
to be anything. . . . Your life must be your argument to those who see you constantly. Do not worry them by doctrinal statements,
but love them into the fulness of salvation.
It is usual to hear persons say, “I was wrong. I could meet the arguments, but the life of my friend has convinced me
that she was right.”[25]
Biblical teaching only “worry” the generality of those who accede to the Higher
Life. Although arguments for Keswick doctrine
from the text of Scripture can be easily met, as the Bible does not teach the
theology of the Pearsall Smiths, the appearance of a carefree and happy life
full of rest and quiet leads many to adopt the Higher Life. The theological imprecision that results by
setting the Holy Ghost against painstaking exegesis of the Word He dictated is
also a major explanatory factor for the other Biblical errors in the Keswick
theology. Keswick statements on
theological issues are often better when they are not taken seriously, but only
their general intention is considered; taking Keswick too seriously leads to
serious error.
who have been reckoned ‘Modernists,’ even in the Mission field, are not really
so in heart,” but are really “servants of Christ” that Keswick partisans should
“labour to help . . . all that is in our power” (pg. 280, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir,
Mary N. Garrard). Many theological
modernists are not, Penn-Lewis affirms, unregenerate false teachers who should
be marked, avoided, and rejected.
Rather, they are servants of Christ who should be assisted as much as
possible; they are simply in need of some Higher Life teaching so that all will
be well. If even modernists should be
accepted, it is no surprise that Penn-Lewis preached that “divergent views on
prophecy, on sanctification, on healing, and other matters . . . should be put
aside” to assist in bringing about “the UNITY of the Body of Christ in view of
His soon Return” (pg. 283, Ibid.). Since the Keswick co-founder, Canon
Harford-Battersby, was himself High Church, then Broad Church, and only then an
evangelical Anglican, and all without a conversion experience, Jessie
Penn-Lewis’s statements are not surprising.
view of truth advocated by many Keswick proponents: “Keswick itself has been and is still
criticized; but that is of no serious consequence. The truth of God is bigger than any one view
or school of thought” (pg. 10, So Great
Salvation, Barabas). Contrary to
Barabas, true theology has the objective propositional content that was given
by the Father to His Son as Mediator to reveal to the church by the Spirit
through the Scriptures. Rather than
lightly treating criticism of Keswick because the truth of God is allegedly
bigger than any one view, such criticism should be evaluated Biblically and
acted upon if it is accurate, or rejected if it is unscriptural.
bigger than any one view is itself incoherent.
If the truth of God is bigger than any one view, it is bigger than the
view that it is bigger than any one view, in which case the truth of God is not
bigger than any one view.
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas; cf. pg. 98, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
The open communion service would take place in the meeting place of T.
D. Harford Battersby’s Anglican congregation, where the severe errors of the
Anglican communion liturgy were recited week by week (pgs. xiv-xv, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby,
Harford).
g., at the 1874 Broadlands Conference Robert P. Smith taught that the “purpose
of this gathering together . . . was different from that of other religious
gatherings. It was not for the teaching
of religious truths,” but for the inculcation of the Higher Life in which the
“teaching of the Spirit should be heard” (pg. 120, Memorials [of
William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890),
in accordance with the Quaker doctrines of the Inner Light and the Divine
Seed. The “aim [was] less to enforce a
creed than to inspire a life” for Broadlands preachers such as the universalist
George MacDonald (pg. 59, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). “The Conferences were, as Lord
Mount-Temple said at the opening of the first one, ‘not for the promulgation of
any new system, nor for the combined execution of any organized plan, but a
meeting of grateful, loving hearts, united . . . to lead a higher and deeper
Christian life’” (pgs. 119-120, Ibid.).
writers, whose purpose in writing was generally to defend the Keswick theology
and perfectionism (as taught, in their view, most perfectly by Wesley) against
Higher Life critics:
itself to misconception through its lack of systematic coherence and
completeness. A certain consciousness of
this seems sometimes to disturb the equanimity of the teachers, and tempts them
to speak disparagingly of dogmatic theology[.] . . . It is not to be expected,
of course, that the leaders of the movement . . . should publish to the world
their precise creed . . . [since they] have generally been careful to disavow
any connection with denominations and communions . . . on the principle of
keeping out of view everything that might raise the question of sectarian
differences . . . ignor[ing] . . . the formalities of worship, and ritual, and
sacraments . . . effac[ing] . . . the distinction of pastorship and laity . . .
[and] not always tak[ing] . . . sufficient care . . . to preclude . . . the
imputation of Pelagianism . . . brought by almost all the censors against the
movement. (pgs. 100-101, “The Brighton Convention and Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875)
by Barabas does not mean that nobody associated with the Keswick theology has
ever produced anything with at least a certain amount of scholarly value; it
does mean that no Keswick advocate has ever composed a careful and scholarly
presentation or theological defense of the distinctives of the Keswick
doctrine. Rather, Keswick writings are
“a mass of unsystematic literature, not always absolutely consistent with
itself” (pg. 259, “Means and Measure of Holiness,” Thomas Smith. The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review [April 1876] 251-280). Barabas is by no means the only Keswick
advocate to recognize that no carefully prepared and theologically precise
presentation of its position has even been written—this absence has been
continually recognized from the very origin of the Keswick movement. R. W. Dale noted:
few months ago that it seemed to me that this [Higher Life] movement had
prophets, but had not teachers; and he acknowledged that there was a great deal
of truth in that. I asked where he could
show me a theological book in which this doctrine was so stated as really to
satisfy any theological mind, and he was obliged to acknowledge that it was
very difficult indeed to name any such book. . . . I have been called upon as
one not hostile to this movement, [but] as favorable to it. (pg. 450, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875)
theological training” (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck); neither did Hannah or Robert Pearsall
Smith, Robert Wilson, or many other Higher Life leaders.
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Smith’s doctrine that errors of judgment have no negative consequences
for people who experience the Higher Life as he had done helps explain both his
adoption and continued propagation of the erotic Bridal Baptism doctrine. His judgment might indicate that he was
propagating the vilest of perversions, but such judgment was to be set aside
for the thrills of a “conscious union” where the rational could be set aside.
wonder of the Higher Life resulted in “[t]he intense happiness experienced at
Broadlands,” which was “as the dawn of a fresh springtime in th[e] lives” of
many (pg. 267, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Although the vast body at the
Broadlands Conferences had never been born again but were wretched and
unconverted sinners, they were not led to feel their awful misery, but were
confirmed in carefree happiness and self-delusion. “[A]t Broadlands . . . changed lives and
characters . . . could not be gainsaid . . . one noted a great and marked
increase in gladness and cheerfulness” (pgs. 246-247, Ibid). Indeed, Broadlands
leaders testified that the spiritualism and the presence of demons
impersonating the spirits of dead people contributed to the great happiness of
those present. As the Mount-Temples
believed, “the presence of unseen heavenly ones added to the deep gladness that
was felt” (pg. 262, Ibid.).
we have not got the right message” (pg. 263, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874). For the Oxford Convention, then, it would
seem that the Lord Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, did not have the right
message when He proclaimed: “Blessed are
they that mourn” (Matthew 5:4; cf. Luke 6:25; 7:32; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 2
Corinthians 7:7; James 4:9; Daniel 10:2; Joel 2:12, etc.). Rather than the message of Christ and the
Apostles, Hannah Smith taught at Brighton that the Holy Spirit is not “one to
make us unhappy”—thoughts that make one unhappy “always come from Satan” (pg.
376, Record of the Convention for the
Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June
7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875). The Christian is to enter into the Higher
stage where “he
abides in utter unconcern and perfect rest . . . perfect abandonment of ease
and comfort . . . the Higher Christian Life” (Chapter 3, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith).
Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson. It is
admitted that Keswick addresses were often “rather disjointed” because of this
lack of study (pg. 17), even as at the Brighton Convention Robert P. Smith
noted: “I do not think that there has
been a single address arranged; I know there have been no formal preparations
made in any respect,” as not until late in the evening were speakers for the
next day selected (pgs. 12,
437-438, Record of the Convention for the
Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June
7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875). Likewise at the Oxford Convention it “was not
so much what was said, in the purely extempore remarks or addresses,” for all
that the people heard were “unpremeditated extempore addressess,” concerning
which what mattered was “the preparedness of the heart to listen” (pgs. 180, 200, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). People were profoundly prepared to accept in
their hearts whatever the speakers said or taught in their unprepared and
unpremeditated addresses; this was possible because, as Robert P. Smith
explained, for those in the Higher Life “the effects of any errors of judgment
are neutralized” (pg. 186) so no negative effects would result from the many
misinterpretations and misapplications of the Bible.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 44, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Quotation marks within the reference above have been removed.
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
of theology in this [doctrine of the Higher Life], I beg, as I always do, that
nobody will listen to me with theological ears.
It is very likely that I make plenty of mistakes in that direction, but
if you get hold of the experience, then you can put the matter straight . . .
[I may not give] a very clear or exact statement of Christian truth; but I am
sure . . . that [I present] an exact statement of Christian experience. (pg. 54, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875)
course, it is impossible to have an exact view of Christian experience without
an exact statement of Christian truth, and believers are always to evaluate
what they hear with “theological ears” that are carefully sifting with
Scripture what others affirm (Isaiah 8:20; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 John
4:1-3). If Mrs. Smith admits that she
makes many mistakes with Christian truth, she ought not to be preaching at
all—a certainty in any case (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
examined in more detail below.
example, teachers at the Broadlands Conference proclaimed: “Whenever I meet a man, I know the germ of
the Christ-life is there. . . . Christ is the life of men, the Divine seed in
every one” (pgs. 178-179, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). The Divine Seed led to many
allegorical misinterpretations of Scripture at Broadlands. For example, in Revelation 22:2, “The leaves of the tree are for the healing
of the nations” is not about the leaves of the tree of life in the New
Jerusalem, but really means: “We cannot
live in this world without longing to be healers” (pg. 179, Ibid). After all, the New Jerusalem only
“signif[ies] glorified humanity” (pg. 132).
With similar allegory, “The birds of the air came and lodged in the branches” (Matthew 13:32) means, to the
amazement of the student of Scripture:
“We are to be the support and sustainers of those who are seeking rest”
(pg. 179, Ibid. Italics reproduced
from the original.). Indeed, Broadlands
even made the astonishing discovery that in Luke 16 Lazarus was worse off than
the rich man: “Lazarus was the most
wanting in brotherly kindness, for Dives [the rich man] got no help from Lazarus . . . They were both in Hades. Better to be a sufferer than a helpless
witness of suffering. . . . The only true heaven is a character like God’s”
(pg. 208, Ibid. Italics in original.). Perhaps such an exaltation of the rich man in
hell above Lazarus in paradise was assisted by the Broadlands confusion of the
Antichrist with Christ in texts such as Revelation 6:2 (pg. 207, Ibid), but such is uncertain.
followed the pattern set at the Broadlands Conference and its successors. At Broadlands in 1874 a “very distinct
feature of this Conference, [which] must not be omitted in any attempt to
delineate it . . . [was] the conversations over passages in Scripture [where
people] had not tarried in the letter
of the Word, but had discerned everywhere beneath it the living Word . . . unveiling . . . the inward and spiritual meaning
in the Jewish history and ceremonial” (pgs. 122-123, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890). Consequently, for example, the Oxford
Convention took the fact that “[a]ll priests are Levites, but all Levites are
not priests” and allegorized it to support the division of Christians into
those living the Higher Life and those not.
Furthermore, the number of days it took to cleanse the temple in 2
Chronicles 29:17 was allegorized into Higher Life truth, and an address was
given on “Joseph a type of the risen life.”
Another allegorization included Samuel’s predictions about the
conclusion of Saul’s search for his father’s donkeys, receipt of bread from
people, and encounter with a company of prophets in 1 Samuel 10 as “a picture
of the Christian life” where people are “first chosen, then consecrated.” Likewise, the water coming from Ezekiel’s Millennial
temple (Ezekiel 47) teaches the Higher Life; the Valley of Achor (Joshua 7, 15;
Isaiah 65; Hosea 2) is “the place of entire absolute renunciation of all
discovered evil for a door of heavenly blessing”; “Kadesh Barnea” is
allegorized into a font of Higher Life truth; the fact that Solomon wrote the
Song of Songs teaches that the Higher Life is a “reign of peace,” and so on
(pgs. 58, 60, 124, 128-130, 148, 268-269, 306-7, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). It is difficult to know whether it is better
to laugh at such ridiculous allegorizations or cry because of their dishonor to
God’s holy Word.
Harford-Battersby adopted the Higher Life theology after hearing an allegorical
misinterpretation of John 4:46-53 by Evan Hopkins (cf. pgs. 157-158, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby; pg.
52, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men,
Harford; pgs. 113ff., 174, Account of the Union
Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago:
Revell, 1874). Compare also the
numerous examples of severe eisegesis in the elenctic examination of
controverted passages on sanctification and the several vignettes of central Keswick
leaders in the various chapters of this book.
The Higher Life was found in countless texts when allegorized, although
it was not in any when principles of grammatical-historical hermeneutics were
applied.
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
Harford, on pgs. 188-191 describes how a typical “cleric of devout mind who for
the first time has come to Keswick, prepared to find fault, but for the moment
is withholding his judgment” is brought to adopt the Higher Life doctrine. He goes to a prayer meeting, sees a lot of
people who are fervent (pgs. 188-189), hears “the flood of melody as the hymn
is taken up by the great assembly,” is impressed by the “sudden hush and
expectant quietness that falls” in the “Bible Readings,” concludes that his own
“best sermons” arouse “languid” interest in comparison with those at the
Convention, and that people at the Convention are more “keen” than those in his
congregation, and he therefore adopts the Keswick theology, even while
averring: “It was not the address,
certainly not . . . and I should have treated that last point quite differently
myself” (pg. 190). By such impressions
and feelings, rather than by careful study of the Bible, hundreds of ministers
receive the Keswick message (pg. 191).
“Such a testimony is not unfrequent, and it carries its own imprimatur” (pg. 190).
to respond to Warfield’s crushing critique of the Keswick theology by testimonial,
rather than exegesis, in this work’s chapter on whether Keswick critics
misrepresent Keswick; cf. also pgs. 66, 85-86, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
only qualification required from the speakers [at Broadlands] was that they
should have personal experience of the truths they uttered” (pg. 120, cf. pg.
265, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Of course, Christian preachers should know
experientially the truths that they proclaim, but testimony to having received
a certain experience is by no means a sufficient standard for allowing a person
behind a pulpit (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3, 13; 2 John 7-11).
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Italics in original. Cf. pg.
263. Note that the generic “friend” who
leads another to adopt the Higher Life is a “she.”
Extra-Scriptural Divine Talk: A Common Ground for Almost All False Religion
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Last week out evangelizing door-to-door in the Carson River Valley in Nevada, I talked to a professing pagan, who confirmed her faith with inner divine messages from Mother Earth. She referred to her god as “she.” This might surprise you, but I’m open to the potential truthfulness of such people, which means that I’m open minded. What I tried to do was understand whether such thinking could be validated as true. I couldn’t. There was no reason to believe it, because it was so entirely subjective. The only way to believe it was to presuppose it and then invent it, afterward referring to its teachings like Mother Earth delivered them. I believe that the teachings of Mother Earth are nothing but doctrines of demons, even as the Bible, which is confirmed as truth, tells us.
I also talked to a man, who one could characterize as a late fifty-something hippie, who has spun his own religion, which is a combination of what is called NLP, neuro-linguistic programming, and some form of Buddhism. In this hybrid personal belief, no one can judge anything, because absolutely everything is only a perception. No one can move outside of this perception, as NLP is the way by which everyone interprets what he encounters or doesn’t encounter, depending upon whether it is real. In common with me, this man accepted supernaturalism. However, his “god” leaves everyone in a similar condition — assigning meaning based only upon his perception of reality.
As is fairly normal, I talked to a few Charismatics. Charismatics hear God speaking to them, which is confirmed by their experiences. I talked to a woman who was directed by a feeling in her intestines, which sent her messages she interpreted as divine. That reminded me of the LDS “burning in the bosom.” Both the signs and the voices Charismatics hear are lies. Even if what someone “hears” is a true message, that does not authenticate it as God Himself. We know it is a lie because the signs contradict scriptural signs, sign gifts have ceased, and God has concluded His special revelation with the last book of the New Testament.
Although I reject Mormonism, the Mormons attempt to impersonate witnesses by including them at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. They say that Joseph Smith got that book from God and that they were there to validate it. The inner voice of many, including independent Baptists, has no validation except for the person hearing the voice. When I have questioned Charismatics, they almost unanimously accuse me of lacking in love. The only acceptable manifestation of love to them is acceptance of their experience as true. That also contradicts scripture in a number of ways, but that is not different than independent Baptists, who think I deny their personal relationship with God, when I question the voice in their heads.
Independent Baptists, fundamentalists, and evangelicals will say that their experiences and the voices they hear line up with scripture, which validates them as true. I have often found this not to be the case. I hear messages preached that are unscriptural given to the Baptist by God through the inner voice. It sometimes has the imprimatur of the “leading of the Spirit.” I’ve heard it called “Holy Spirit preaching.” If you doubt it, you are questioning the authority of the man of God or in my case intruding in the autonomy of a church.
The fraudulent signs of Charismaticism are lies. They are not true. God is the God of truth, Who does not lie. True worship is characterized by truth, not lies. It cannot be of God if it is a lie. Saying that you hear the voice of God or are called by God in some type of inner voice is not true. It is a lie. There is no basis for believing it. Even if the teaching were to line up with scripture, the experience itself is a lie.
Normally, if someone has an experience, I tell that person to judge it based upon scripture. He will believe right and do right if he does what God’s completed Word says. However, there is still the matter of the experience itself. A person perceives God speaking to him. I recognize that some might be semantics here. When someone says “God spoke to his heart,” he means that the Holy Spirit convicted him through the Word of God. That’s fine. However, there is such an overlap between these acceptable descriptions of God’s work and the untrue ones, that the untrue ones are given credence by the true ones.
Even if someone agrees with what I’ve been writing in this series, the theological and exegetical sloppiness harms discernment in many. They do not confine themselves to scripture as divine, authoritative, and sufficient. They open the door for people to add or take away from scripture, take more authority upon themselves than what God has given, and to validate false doctrine as being true. Even if you deny specific instances, you should admit that this happens on a regular basis in churches and in the world. This is how Satan and his demons start false religions.
I was talking to a Roman Catholic lady this week, who said she wouldn’t leave the Catholic church, but she wished to continue in a parachurch Bible study led by one of her children’s mother-in-law. She feels comfortable in this study, she said, but she didn’t want to leave the Roman Catholic Church, even though she disagrees with a lot in and with it. I asked her if she would reject Roman Catholicism where it contradicted the Bible. She said that’s what she was trying to learn, that is, what the Bible taught and how it differed than her religion. I also told her that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t say that the Bible is its authority. It says that tradition is its authority. Tradition alone, of course, if it is not scriptural, has no authority, so tradition itself has no authority. There is a danger looking to something as an authority that is not authority. The Roman Catholic Church became a false religion by depending on tradition instead of the Bible.
There is danger too for any Baptist, fundamentalist, evangelical, or where the former three will overlap to look to something as an authority that is not an authority. A voice in the head is not an authority. I know in fact that allowing for that as the possibility of God speaking has led to an abundance of false teaching and practice. It is itself a false teaching and practice.
I surmise that many do not want to repudiate what I am exposing. They might even characterize what I’m writing as false, perhaps with the designation of it as cold, intellectual, logical, or unspiritual. They do not want to lose their doctrine of the voice in the head being God speaking to them. If they say what I’m writing is true, they will have to admit that they have been at least less than precise in their speaking. Often church leaders, who fear admission of at least their imprecision, think that admission will result in a diminishing of their authority and/or an exodus of a family or more that enjoy hearing from God directly in their heads. They don’t know if either will happen, but they will continue embracing these “revelations” to avoid these two threats.
Part of church growth includes closer alignment to scripture. Church leaders should lead their people to anticipate changes in light of biblical teaching. If the Bible really is the sole authority for faith and practice, greater understanding of the Bible will bring changes that please God. This is living by faith. Living by faith is not a threat to the church.
The voice in the head takes less work than studying the Bible according to the ordinary means. The voice in the head bypasses the labor and the accountability. When someone depends on the voice in the head, at that moment he and those who agree have canonized the message of the voice. They have agreed it is God talking, saying something not found in scripture. Someone might say no new scripture has been written. However, something given the authority of scripture has been practiced. This rejects the sole authority and the sufficiency of scripture. That itself is a false doctrine. It also rejects a biblical and historical doctrine of canonicity. No one is allowed to continue to canonize new words from God on the spot and in this age since the completion of God’s Word.
A professing evangelist or missionary could go to Mexico or Brazil or Belize. He goes to Brazil and he says that he went because God told him. How did God tell him and how did he know it was God? What is the basis for knowing? I contend there is no basis for knowing, except that the doctrine of God talking to a person individually is true. He says God told him or called him. That has become an acceptable means for discerning God’s will. It should be repudiated. God talks only through scripture. He is free to go to Mexico or Brazil or Belize according to the liberty he receives from Christ and the ordinary scriptural means that God uses to direct people in a church.
A World of Lies Starting with a Church of Lies
Satan is the Father of lies (John 8:44) and as the prince of this world, he rules a world of lies. The lies fool most of the people almost all of the time. It’s worse than ever.
Someone hacked the emails of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), gave them to Wikileaks, who dropped them on the first day of the Democrat National Convention. The emails revealed at least a DNC conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, rigging the primary against him, and then collusion of the mainstream media with the Democrat Party. Anyone who cared already knew the reality of both the conspiracy and the collusion — facts however denied by the type of people who wrote the emails. To start, Democrats already lie about the conspiracy and collusion like much of everything else they lie about, so they got caught, right?
As soon as Wikileaks published the emails, the spin from Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, was that the Russians hacked and then leaked the emails because they want Trump to win, another lie. When asked how he knew this, Mook said “experts” were saying that. He was just repeating the experts. When asked who those experts were, he gave no answer. More lies. The media colluded with the Clintons by continuing the story of a Russian conspiracy. This is has been the talking point in the media since then, turning the story from a DNC conspiracy and collusion to the Russians messing with a U.S. election [the latest: Trump jokes about Russia finding Hillary’s 30,000 emails, and CNN reports that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton — speaking of a clown car].
Julian Assange laughed at the Russian conspiracy theory. He said that the DNC has admitted they’ve been hacked many times. No one needed the Russians for that. As an aside, why would anyone think now that Hillary Clinton’s personal server wasn’t hacked if the DNC had been hacked? Wikileaks published the emails, not Russia. The leaker himself, Julian Assange, professes the leak. Everyone know he’s the leak. Nothing is more patently obvious than Wikileaks leaking. Professional leakers at Wikileaks leaked. The DNC says it’s the Russians and they keep repeating this lie. They know their audience — extremely gullible.
I had never ever listened to one Bernie Sanders speech, not even a small percentage of one. On Monday night, I listened to about half of Elizabeth Warren’s speech and then half of Bernie’s. Warren wrote a speech that anticipated a supportive crowd and without that, it was painful. She herself is painful to watch. I had never heard a speech from her, and I really don’t get her popularity. I do know she herself lied at least half a dozen times in the short time I watched her. She lies with tremendous ease. Incidentally, she looks nothing like an American Indian, one of her claims, another lie. I started watching Bernie’s speech because after watching part of Warren’s, I was wondering how or if he could bring the convention back from a dangerous precipice.
As rigged as the election has been against Bernie Sanders, his entire worldview is an elaborate lie. What he spews forth could never work. Like Margaret Thatcher famously said, ‘he would soon run out of other people’s money.’ Sanders is a liar of the Henry Hill variety, who is selling everyone on a boys band, yet he doesn’t know a lick of music. He offers everyone about everything they would ever want with no possible way of accomplishing it. He did it again in his speech and said that Hillary is the best possibility left to redistribute all the free handouts.
In the midst of his speech, Sanders said that Hillary Clinton believes the scientists on climate change. No one needs a scientist to observe climate change. Climate changes. However, the scientists she believes, as is so often the case, start with a false presupposition and then rig the “evidence” to bolster that presupposition, actually sounding very much like the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Most of what every speaker says to promote her is lying.
Most churches in the world play the same type of charade that the DNC is doing at its convention. Bernie Sanders in his speech touted Clinton as a champion of diversity. The DNC divides Americans with identity politics and calls it diversity. Most churches pander to members and constituents by accepting diversity in belief and practice. Come how you are. Worship how you feel. Almost everything is tolerated.
What’s wrong with the United States? The gospel must be freely offered, attempted to be preached, to everyone. The gospel is the solution. It must be the gospel though. The gospel isn’t being preached much. Believers are often ashamed of the gospel, the actual gospel. I’m not saying they aren’t ashamed of their successful church growth methods. They love those.
After the obvious first explanation, the gospel, the problem, as I see it, is the inability to point out what’s wrong. There is so much toleration of error, because men are uncertain about absolute truth. You can’t tell anyone they’re wrong today. They don’t want to hear it. They don’t think you should be saying it, because no one can really know for sure. This is diversity, by the way. You accept it. It’s diverse. We need diversity. No, it’s wrong. It’s sin. It’s ungodly. If people aren’t sure about the Bible, which they’re not, not sure they can know it or apply it, then no one can or should be judged.
The only acceptable truth is that everyone is accepted, everyone except the intolerant. I think the North Carolina bathroom law is insufficient. However, look how serious professional basketball is about it. They removed the NBA all star game from Charlotte because of the intolerance of transgender bathrooms in the state of North Carolina.
The message to police today is that you must tolerate certain behavior. If you live in an urban area, like I do, and you get out every day, which I do, then you see bad behavior every day. I could write a very thick book on it. Anyone who lives in a place like I do, knows this. If you say anything, you’re in trouble. You’re the one in the wrong. People are afraid to say or do anything, except for people with bad behavior. The people with the bad behavior are more and more bold, because they feel less threatened than ever for behaving like they do. This started with churches who won’t tell people that they’re wrong. It’s antithetical to church growth. If the churches won’t stand, then no one should expect anyone to stand, especially the Democrat National Committee.
Reports of Revival in America
In the 2000 years of Christianity, American churches seem unique at having blended big special calendar events with the assembling and worship of a church. If America were ever to end, churches won’t keep trying to integrate church with July 4th. It wouldn’t work any more.
Whitefield didn’t need a song man, building the atmosphere with his stirring music. Whitefield exposed scripture with dense salvation theology. He gave strong biblical explanation of the gospel.
You might hear, “They prayed fifteen years for this and now it has come.” The parallel in the theology of revivalism is that saints prayed in Jerusalem for a period and then got the answer in Acts 2, attempting to make that event normative as a revival. You hear the same language: the Holy Spirit has come down, has visited, has been poured out. Part of the scenario is also a meeting. It has to be people traveling in to meet. Some sort of daring, bold, abnormal consciousness is reached, alive in an atypical fashion.
Can we stop looking for revival across America, like this is part of our national heritage, and start looking for believing the Bible and obeying it? Revivals will come when they come. If they don’t, all you’re left with is believing the Bible and obeying it. That’s enough.
************
As an addendum to this post, I have experienced “revival.” My senior year in high school, I attended a large Christian school that began a fad at the time (it might still be happening) called “school camp.” The entire school would pack up and go to camp the first week of school and hear revivalist preaching morning and evening. The camp schedule left very little time for sleep, so everyone would be very weary. Besides “preaching” with a main emphasis on emotional manipulation, there was the use of the invitation.
As I look back at my high school years, a majority of 150 or so students were unconverted. Out of the 45 graduates in my class, I’m the only either pastor or missionary. My experience was that many of the students in our school were worldly and ungodly.
During the week of school camp, by the estimations of many, we experienced revival. Seventeen students made professions of faith. At the end of the week, there were many very emotional testimonies to how God had changed their lives. As I lived through the rest of that senior year, I guarantee you that very little changed, including in almost all of the lives of those who made professions of faith. However, we had “revival.”
What I’m saying is that I know what “revival” looks like. I mean “revival,” and not actual revival. What people call revival and seek in the way of revival, I experienced that.
Does the Holy Spirit Lead Believers by Talking to Them Directly?
Speaking of the Lord as one’s Shepherd, Psalm 23:2 says, “He leadeth me beside still waters.” When we follow Jesus Christ through His Word in the Bible, He is leading us. Then in Romans 8:14, the Apostle Paul writes, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” He also writes in Galatians 5:18, “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” The idea of being led by God, by Jesus, and by the Spirit is true. Believers are led by God, by Jesus, and by the Spirit.
Last week I was sitting with another pastor and he told me the story of how he came to his church. Someone asked him to come to pastor where he was, and this man said he would pray about it. When the one asking called back later, this pastor said that he had silence from the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit had not told him anything. When the Holy Spirit did begin to talk to him, He told him to go someplace else. I never asked him follow-up questions, but is this an experience we should expect, and if the Holy Spirit is talking to people, how is this occurring today?
From conversations I have had with other independent Baptists, it isn’t unusual that some, perhaps many, believe that the Holy Spirit talks to them directly and in a very specific way. Very often, if you question one of them, he will react like a Charismatic does when challenged about his experience. On many various occasions, a young lady has said to me that a young man had informed her that the Holy Spirit had told him to marry her. A young lady doesn’t agree, but how could she question God? He apparently told the young man to marry the girl.
Parallel to the “leading of the Spirit” is also “the Spirit teaching.” 1 John 2:27 says, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,” and 1 Corinthians 2:13, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” What I’ve heard here is that when someone looks at a passage in sermon preparation, he prays and the Holy Spirit “gives him a message” or “tells him what to say.” A never before heard teaching very often emerges from this tack. Ordinary means of word usage, grammar, and syntax give way to what the Holy Spirit reveals someone.
What is the basis for believing a voice in your head is the Holy Spirit talking to you, telling you something, or teaching you? As you look at the above few passages, that’s not what they are saying. That goes beyond what they are saying. We have a scriptural basis for not believing that is how God works. That teaching from those verses contradicts other scripture, so that can’t be what they are saying.
The Holy Spirit is a Person, so He can speak, but He is not continuing to reveal a message directly to anyone since the completion of the canon of scripture (Jude 1:3, Heb 2:3-4). The man in the office of the prophet and then the apostle was given direct revelation on par with scripture. Scripture itself is that to which 1 Corinthians 2:13 refers. That did occur at one time, but only before AD96 — not since then. 1 John 2:27 says that you can understand the Bible on your own and in a technical, doctrinal way, this has been called illumination. Illumination does not function apart from the ordinary means of study. However, believers filled with the Holy Spirit are not closed off from comprehending what the Bible teaches.
To what should one attribute a voice in one’s head? No one should assume that the voice given credit as the Holy Spirit speaking is in fact the Holy Spirit speaking. We don’t have any basis for either knowing or not knowing whether the voice we hear is the Holy Spirit. We do know that the “sword of the Spirit is the Word of God” (Eph 6:17). We know that in verbal gifts, that it is the Holy Spirit when someone speaks as the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:10-11). If it is what the passage from scripture says, then we know it is the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not going to tell you who to marry. He isn’t going to inform you of the brand of toilet paper you should buy. He won’t tell you whether you should build a new auditorium or not. He won’t counsel you on when to buy a new car.
The voices in your head are either your conscience or your talking to yourself. If it is your conscience, the message will still be whatever is your highest perceived standard, which might be teaching you’ve heard in the past, whether scriptural or unscriptural. The voice can tell you that you’re doing something wrong when you aren’t doing something wrong. The conscience functions as a warning device that operates according to a regulation already plugged into your brain. It won’t feed you something that isn’t already there.
If the voice is your talking to yourself, then it can be a lie. It is especially lying if it is telling you that it is the Holy Spirit talking. That is yourself believing something that isn’t true. The voice might be telling you the truth, but it isn’t the truth that the Holy Spirit is saying this directly to you. If you are controlled by the Holy Spirit, you are controlled by the Word of God, which is content that has already been written for two thousand years (Eph 5:18, Col 3:16).
When someone decides to build an auditorium, he wanted to build the auditorium. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit telling him to build it. He wants to build it, but he’s telling people that the Holy Spirit told him. The Holy Spirit will not tell you who to marry. You marry who you want to marry. Can you know if the marriage is scriptural? If it is scriptural, then it is scriptural. You have to look at scripture to see if something is scriptural.
Someone might ask, “What about the conviction of sin?” Again, the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to do that. He does not skirt around scripture to convict anyone. It all comes right from the Bible. There is no basis for your knowing whether it is your conscience, you talking to yourself, or the Holy Spirit helping you remember and then apply scripture. What matters in the end is if it was biblical.
What if someone wants to go to Thailand and he really shouldn’t go? We have many different checks and balances against doing something that God doesn’t want us to do. Pastoral leadership might have scriptural reasons for not going. We don’t have the right to disobey church authority. The rest of the church may know of character deficiencies. Someone may not fulfill the qualifications. Others may have good reason to say that it is an unwise decision, using biblical principles. Perhaps someone else preaching the gospel lives just down the street in Thailand, to where we think we should go. God isn’t telling anyone to go to Thailand today.
What about the Apostle Paul? Didn’t God send him places? Didn’t God send Jonah to Nineveh? I’ve said this before, but God doesn’t function in an identical way through all history. God is the same, but He does things differently depending on the era in which we live. God spoke directly to prophets and apostles. Now we base what we do on the completed Word of God. God has told us that He is finished revealing new things, so when we say that we are getting something new like Paul did, then we are not trusting what Paul wrote.
Some of what people say the Holy Spirit told them is actually good. What it is that “God told them to do” is actually the right thing to do. They say God told them to pastor. God already said that the desire to pastor is a good desire. Someone might desire that, but God didn’t tell the person to do it. We read the Bible and it talks about the necessity of pastors. People can read that and desire it. They know that there is a reward for faithful pastors. They still might not be one, because other people have to see that they could be one, that they fulfill the qualifications.
This claim that God speaks to you directly is wrong and it is dangerous. It adds or takes away from scripture and from the sufficiency of the Bible. It is a lie, not necessarily on purpose, but we won’t really know what the motive is. God either causes or allows everything, but that doesn’t mean that He approves of what we want to do, the thing that we are saying He told us to do.
If you need a new building, don’t pray that God will direct you to a new building. Make a good decision based upon what God already said. Getting a new building might just be what you want to do. The feeling you get, that you are saying is Him, might just be your own feeling.
Many unscriptural ideas revolve around these revelations people say they get from God. You can get a new building, for instance, but it might be a waste of money. It might make things more convenient for people, but Christianity itself isn’t convenient. If someone won’t come, because he needs his church to be more comfortable or a larger choice of seating, that’s not a good reason. He should be dealt with for his disobedience or wrong attitude.
While talking to a man from a new-evangelical church, he testified that God gave them new property for a huge new auditorium right next to the highway. He was convinced of it. Shortly thereafter the city built a highway exit right by their property to make it more convenient than ever. Was this God sending everyone a message about their legitimacy? This man testified that it did.
It is my opinion that many professing Christians trust this mystical voice more than they do the Bible. They would rather consider what they think Jesus would do than what the Bible says He did do. They like the concept that God is telling them things. They feel more important from that and, of course, more spiritual too.
From listening to many pastors through the years, I know they don’t know how to prepare a sermon. They don’t know how to study the Bible. They are flawed in many different ways, but they still keep preaching unscriptural ideas, because they think they got them from the Holy Spirit. A lot of false worship is justified because of how it makes them feel, a feeling they attribute to the Holy Spirit. What I’m contending is that this doctrine of continued direct revelations from the Spirit has led to many false beliefs and either damaging or destructive practices in churches.
The Earliest Portions of the Hebrew Bible: the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls
Ketef Hinnom on the western side of Jerusalem, and “dated to the mid-seventh century B. C.,”[1]
contain parts of Deuteronomy 7:9[2]
and Numbers 6:22-27 on two small silver sheets. (When unrolled the larger is
about 1 inch wide by 4 inches long and the smaller is about 1/2 inch wide by
1–1/2 inches long).
covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a
thousand generations;
PRl¶RaVl wDtOwVxIm yñérVmOvVl…w wy¢DbShOaVl dRs#RjAh◊w tyâîrV;bAh rªEmOv
N$DmTa‰…n`Ah ‹ lEaDh My¡IhølTaèDh a…wâh ÔKy™RhølTa h¶DOwh◊y_y`I;k
$D;tVoåd∞Dy◊w
gracious unto thee:
thee peace.
—hOªDwh◊y r°EaÎy
—h§ODwh◊y a°DÚcˆy
discovered with other items in the burial cave of a wealthy and prominent
family. Pottery in the cave dates as far
back as the seventh century,[3]
confirming the 7th century date for the scrolls. Furthermore, scroll one’s outer edges were
worn and split, implying it had been used for a long time before being buried.[4] Paleography likewise indicates a date between
the 9th-7th centuries, and “before the sixth century
B.C., hence somewhere in the eighth and seventh.”[5] In conclusion, “the convergence of
archaeological, paleographic, and orthographic data favors a date around the
seventh century B.C. for the composition of this document.”[6]
part) of these silver scrolls can be illustrated in the following way. Let us imagine that someone claimed that the
Greek historian Herodotus did not write his Histories
c. 440 B. C., but that his histories were compiled 1,000 years later by an
anonymous person who used sources we will call J, E, D, and P. Advocates of this (imaginary) view would
point out that the earliest actual substantial manuscripts of Herodotus date to
the 10th-14th centuries A. D. Therefore, they might argue, Herodotus’s Histories were not really written by him
c. 440 B. C., but were compiled c. A. D. 560 from the J, E, D, and P sources
for Herodotus. However, we have a number
of fragments of Herodotus, each of which are papyri that are “fragments of a
page,”[9]
dating to the 1st-3rd centuries A. D. What is the natural conclusion from the
existence of fragmentary papyri of Herodotus that date to the 1st-3rd
centuries A. D.? The natural conclusion
is that it is impossible to date the composition of Herodotus’s Histories any later than the 1st
century A. D., and that perhaps advocates of the JEDP theory of Herodotus ought
to consider that the work might just have been written by “Herodotus of
Halicarnassus”[10]
as it claims.
Bible argue that the Pentateuch was compiled largely from four alleged source
documents—J, E, D, and P—and that these four documents were patched together by
an unknown editor or editors “to produce JEDP by about 400 B.C.; and the
Pentateuch in its extant form emerged about 200 B.C.”[11] There are huge numbers of fatal problems to
the JEDP theory—such as, for example, that it is utterly contrary to the
internal evidence of the books of Moses,[12] that
no fragment of J, E, D, or P has ever been found, and that no extant work of
history, or any other extant document of any kind, breaths the slightest hint
of the existence of these mythical documents until modern times when it was
developed by rationalists with a bias against Biblical inspiration.
constitute another extremely difficult problem for opponents of Mosaic
authorship and advocates of JEDP. Why
are fragments of the Pentateuch extant centuries before it was supposedly
created? An advocate of JEDP might reply
that Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 1:7 existed in some hypothetical source,
but the Pentateuch as a whole did not exist.
This reply is fraught with the same sort of extremely serious problems
plaguing the JEDP theory as a whole.
First, Deuteronomy 1:7 was allegedly part of a D document forged in 621
B. C. and falsely ascribed to Moses.[13] But how could the scrolls quote Deuteronomy
1:7 before the alleged D document was created?
Second, Numbers 6:21-27 allegedly “formed part of P,”[14] but
P was allegedly composed centuries after the date of the silver scrolls.[15] How could the scrolls quote from P if P did
not come into existence until centuries later?
Third, the presence of both passages in a single scroll indicates that
they were viewed as part of a single document—the Pentateuch. Rather than being the product of hypothetical
source documents that have not a scintilla of extant archaeological evidence
for them, the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls are very strong evidence in favor of
the claim that the Pentateuch is exactly what it repeatedly and regularly
claims—the product of Moses, writing under the inspiration of the one true God,
Jehovah, after the exodus of Israel from Egypt.
received its classical formulation from Wellhausen in the 1800s when the many
archaeological proofs against it did not yet exist. Those who wish to maintain JEDP against the
ever-growing tide of archaeological evidence to the contrary might argue that
Deuteronomy 1:7 existed, and Numbers 6:24-26 existed, but the book in which
they are found—the Pentateuch—did not exist.
Such a contrived answer, however, manifests extremely inconsistent
historiography. Would the JEDP advocate
make the same claim for Herodotus? Would
they make it for any other ancient writer for whom we possess small early
fragments and much later larger manuscripts?
Why are fragments from Herodotus proof that his Histories existed, but fragments from the Pentateuch are not proof that
the Pentateuch existed?
scrolls validate the existence of predictive prophecy in the Bible. The Pentateuch very plainly predicts the
Babylonian exile (e. g., Deuteronomy 28), an event that took place many years
after these silver scrolls were made.
The scrolls evidence that the Pentateuch existed in the seventh century
B. C., and, therefore, that predictive prophecy exists in the Bible, validating
Scripture as the Word of God.
silver scrolls validate once again the words of Hebrew Union College President
Nelson Glueck:
that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.
Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline
or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of
Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae
[tiles] in the vast mosaic of the Bible’s incredibly correct historical memory.[16]
confirmed by archaeology over and over again because it is the very Word of
God, the revelation of the holy Creator of the Universe who is truth and who
cannot lie.
D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual
Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 140–141.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 27.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 27.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East Archaeological
Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 28.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 30.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 34.
Brasil de Souza, “The Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls: A Suggestive Reading of Text
and Artifact,” The Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 49 (2004): 28–30.
#2, with drawing and transliteration of ll. 5–12 according to G. Barkay, “The
Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques,” Cathedra 52 (1989)
37–76 (Heb.), cited from Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012) 383.
Herodotus, with an English Translation by
A. D. Godley, ed. A. D. Godley (Medford, MA: Harvard University Press,
1920), 1:1:0.
Harrison, Introduction to the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969),
501.
example, Dr. K. A. Kitchen (Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary
Research Fellow of the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies at
the Univesrity of Liverpool, England) notes:
genuinely ancient, firsthand documentation from the third to late first
millennia b.c. we must [note that]
. . . the literary profile of Gen. 1–11 basically identical with the profiles
of comparable Mesopotamian literature relating to creation, flood-catastrophe,
and long “linkup” human successions—and, as a search of the ancient literatures
shows, as a topos in vogue creatively only
in the early second millennium b.c.
(and earlie[r]), not later[.] . . . [M]ain features in the much-maligned
patriarchal narratives fit so well (and often, exclusively) into the framework supplied by the independent,
objective data of the early second millennium[.] (E.g., details in Gen. 14;
Elamite activity in the west, uniquely then; basic slave price of twenty
shekels for Joseph; etc.) This . . . comes straight from a huge matrix of
field-produced data. . . [T]he human and other phenomena at the exodus show clearly
Egyptian traits (not Palestinian, not Neo-Babylonian . . . of the thirteenth
century . . . AND NOT LATER. . . . Tabernacle-type worship structures are known
in the Semitic world (Mari, Ugarit, Timna) specifically for the nineteenth to
twelfth centuries; the Sinai tabernacle is based directly on Egyptian
technology of the thirtieth to thirteenth centuries (with the concept extending
into the eleventh). The Sinai/plains of Moab covenant (much of
Exodus-Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Josh. 24) is squarely tied in format and content
exclusively to the massively
documented format of the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries . . . after which the
formats were wholly different; we have over ninety original exemplars that
settle the matter decisively[.] . . .
to explain what exists in our Hebrew documents we need a Hebrew leader who had
had experience of life at the Egyptian court, mainly in the East Delta . . .
including knowledge of treaty-type documents and their format, as well as of
traditional Semitic legal/social usage more familiar to his own folk. In other
words, somebody distressingly like that old “hero” of biblical tradition,
Moses, is badly needed at this point, to make any sense of the situation as we
have it. Or somebody in his position of the same or another name. On the basis
of the series of features in Exodus to Deuteronomy that belong to the late
second millennium and not later,
there is, again, no other viable option. (K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge,
U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006], 459–460, 295)
Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 97.
Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Numbers, International Critical Commentary (New York: C.
Scribner’s Sons, 1903), 71.
Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 98.
Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History
of the Negev. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1959), 31.
Keswick’s Biblical Strengths: where Keswick is Scriptural, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 1 of 4
proponents of the Keswick theology[1]
rightly exalt the Lord Jesus Christ, His power to sanctify sinners, and the
necessity of faith in the Christian life.
A high regard for these tremendous truths will indubitably strengthen
the believer’s spiritual walk, and Keswick’s proclamation of these Biblical
doctrines has unquestionably been a means of Divine blessing upon many. Furthermore, Keswick’s preaching that
believers must immediately surrender to the Lord and confess all known sin is
eminently Biblical. If, because of
Keswick’s calls to the surrender of the will, “no man can attend a Keswick
Convention and be the same afterwords:
he is either a better or a worse man for it,”[2]
such a fact is highly commendable, for strong Biblical preaching does not leave
hearers unmoved.[3] Likewise, a call to the “renunciation of all
known sin . . . and . . . surrender to Christ for the infilling of the Holy
Spirit”[4]
is an excellent and commendable message, at least if its terms are defined
properly. When Keswick emphasizes “the
exceeding sinfulness of sin”[5]
and seeks to have “laid bare . . . the cancer of sin eating at the vitals of
the Christian . . . [so that] the Christian is urged to cut it out at once”[6]
and come to “an unreserved surrender to Christ . . . in . . . heart and life,”[7]
it does very well.
Keswick deserves commendation when it seeks to have the “Holy Spirit exalted .
. . [and] looked to as the divine Guide and Governor . . . [and] prayer is
emphasized as the condition of all success and blessing.”[8]
When some[9]
modern Keswick writers teach that the Holy Spirit “dwells in every child of God
. . . [but] not every Christian is filled with the Spirit . . . [and] to be
filled with the Spirit is not presented in Scripture as an optional matter, but
as a holy obligation that rests upon all Christians,”[10]
they do well. The Holy Spirit is God,
equal in essence to the Father and the Son, and worthy of all reverence, trust,
and worship. Keswick is correct that the
“Christian is expected to live in communion with the Spirit[.]”[11] What
is more, prayer is indisputably vital to Biblical Christianity, to the extent
that believers are characterized as those who call on the Lord (1 Corinthians
1:2). Keswick emphasis upon the
impossibility of “mere moral processes to overcome sin”[12]
and upon the error of self-dependence in sanctification (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:9)
is important and correct, as is its affirmation that the believer’s “union with
Christ in His death and resurrection . . . secures moral renovation as well as
justifying grace.”[13] John Murray notes, “Anyone who is sensitive
to the high demands of the Christian vocation . . . must find himself in deep
agreement with the earnest contrition which has characterized so many of the
Keswick leaders and with their insistent plea for the appropriation and
application of the resources of God’s cleansing and sanctifying grace.”[14]
Furthermore, Keswick is correct in its
affirmation “that in Scripture sanctification comes by faith.”[15] Modern Keswick emphasis upon evangelism and
missions is clearly Scriptural (Acts 1:8) and is a tremendous blessing. While the earliest Keswick Conventions, in
keeping with the universalism of Hannah W. Smith and the denial of an eternal
hell by many others, had no particular missions emphasis and rejected calls to
have a missions meeting, this opposition to missions was eventually reformed. When asked, the initial Keswick attitude was
that appeals for missions were “quite out of the question; you surely
misunderstand; these meetings are for
edification!”[16] Believers who reject early Keswick weakness
on evangelism and missions and adopt the later view in favor of these
activities, or gain a greater understanding and practice of Biblical truths
such as the other ones mentioned above through hearing Keswick preaching or
reading Keswick literature, will be able to grow closer to God and be more
effective in serving Him as a result. Such Keswick teachings explain why many
have received definite spiritual blessings at Keswick Conventions.
while these aspects of the Keswick theology are Biblical, refreshing, and key
to an increase in spiritual life, they are not unique to Keswick or to Higher
Life doctrine. The historic Baptist
doctrine of sanctification has taught all of these truths,[17]
and many old-line evangelical Protestants have done so likewise. One can learn all of these great truths from
the Bible alone or from Christian writings without any connection with the
Keswick movement. For example, J. C.
Ryle, the classic nineteenth century devotional writer and opponent of the
Keswick theology, wrote:
“self-consecration” . . . of which so much is said in the new [Keswick]
theology . . . I never in my life heard of any thorough evangelical minister
who did not hold the doctrine and press it upon others. When a man brings it forward as a novelty I
cannot help thinking that he can never have truly known what true conversion
was. . . . [T]hat the duty and privilege of entire self-consecration is
systematically ignored by Evangelicals, and has only been discovered, or
brought into fresh light by the new [Keswick] theologians, I do not for a
moment believe.[18]
self-dependence was similarly a major theme of pre-Keswick Christian
piety. Thomas Manton (1620-1677) the
famous preacher and member of the Westminster Aseembly, was hardly a pioneer
exploring untouched ground when he devoted the first and largest section in his
Treatise on Self-Denial to the
necessity “to deny . . . self-dependence.”[19] Nor is the doctrine that sanctification is
through faith by any means a Keswick distinctive. The body of non-Keswick, Bible-believing
Christians hold to this truth:
is by faith . . . Whatever believers get from Christ, they must of necessity
get by faith . . . faith is the one receptive grace, the sole apprehensive
grace, that hand of the soul that lays hold upon Christ, and puts the believer
in possession of the fulness that is in him[.] . . . [A]ll gifts of God come
from grace, and all come to faith. Grace
is the only fountain, faith the only channel. . . . That sanctification is by
faith, then, is essentially a principle of Protestant theology, and is no
distinctive feature of the new [Keswick] teaching. . . . [T]he doctrine of
sanctification by Christ, through faith . . . had quite as prominent a place as
is now assigned to it [in the Keswick theology] in the theology and preaching
of the Reformers, of the Puritans, of the divines and preachers of the Second
Reformation in Scotland . . . of the sturdy old Evangelicals of the English
Church . . . and of the equally sturdy Evangelicals of the Nonconformists . . .
[a]nd an equally prominent place does it hold in the dogmatic and homiletic and
catechetic teaching of our evangelical contemporaries [in the late 19th
century] in all sections of the Christian Church. It is not, then, in respect of these
fundamental principles that we differ from the new [Keswick] school. On the contrary, we deny that they have any
exclusive propriety in these principles[.] . . . [Rather, what is truly
distinctive about Keswick is the idea] that there is a special act of faith . .
. subsequent to . . . conversion . . . [which] Mr. Boardman calls “second
conversion,” [and] Mrs. Smith calls
“entire consecration.”[20]
Biblical teaching that is by no means a Keswick distinctive—only the
unscriptural doctrine of the “second blessing,”[21]
which is connected with a quietistic idea of sanctification by faith alone, is
a Keswick distinctive.
See here for this entire study.
largely from the writings and preaching of unregenerate individuals and
self-acclaimed heretics such as Hannah W. Smith certainly does not mean that
all advocates of Keswick theology or those sympathetic to the Higher Life
system either endorse or hold to the gross errors of those associated with the
development of Keswick. Indeed, the
generality of modern advocates of Keswick are ignorant of the corrupt fountain
from which their system flows.
Salvation, Barabas. While it is very
hard to prove that “no man” has ever been the same after attending a Keswick
Convention, such a goal is unquestionably commendable.
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
classic Keswick and Higher Life founders and leaders, from William Boardman to
Hannah and Robert P. Smith to Andrew Murray, denied that all believers have the
Holy Spirit, affirming instead that only those who entered into the Higher Life
possess the Spirit. Stephen Barabas does
well to reject this false teaching of many early Keswick leaders, although he
does not do well when he ignores the facts and revises history to make
universal indwelling an undisputed Keswick teaching.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas. The
quotation comes from R. W. Dale, who is supposed to support the contention that
“only since Keswick first called attention to the vital significance of [Romans
6] to the whole question of sin and sanctification have theologians even begun
to give it its proper place.” Barabas
also quotes from “John Laidlaw,” whom he alleges “bec[ame] one of Keswick’s
enthusiastic supporters.” However, the “biography
. . . by his son . . . [of the] great Birmingham Congregationalist, R. W. Dale
. . . expressly states . . . that his father did not associate himself with
Keswick. It is also highly doubtful that John Laidlaw of New College,
Edinburgh, had any significant involvement” (pg. 341, Review by Ian S. Rennie
of Keswick: A Bibliographic Introduction
to the Higher Life Movements. by D. D. Bundy. Wilmore, Kentucky: Asbury
Theological Seminary, 1975, in the Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:4 (Fall 1976) 340-343. Barabas’s employment of source material is
too often hagiographal, revisionist, and historically inaccurate.
Writings of John Murray, Vol. 4, a review by Murray of So Great Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
Movements, Pierson. Italics in
original.
among Baptists far before the advent of the Keswick movement, as documented
in the chapter in this book on Ephesians 5:18 and the doctrine of being filled
with the Spirit. It is not a
little presumptuous to assert: “One has
to go back to the book of Acts for a parallel to the exaltation of the Holy
Spirit found in the meetings at Keswick” (pg. 38, So Great Salvation, Barabas).
provides no evidence that he read this critique of the Higher Life movement.
section on the evil of self-dependence is the first sin he discusses when he
surveys the kinds and subjective parts of self-denial. It follows an initial study of self-denial in
general. He spends more time on denying
self-dependence than he does on denying self-will, self-love, self-seeking, and
selfishness in respect one’s neighbors. See A
Treatise of Self Denial, pgs. 175-295, The
Complete Works of Thomas Manton, Vol. 15, Thomas Manton. London:
James Nisbet & Co., 1873.
Smith. The British and Foreign Evangelical Review (April 1876) 251-280. Similarly, Jacob Abbott, critiquing William
Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life,
notes:
of faith: that the victory which overcomes the world is
our faith. They all hold that the renewal
and purification of our sinful nature is, from first to last, the work of God;
and that faith connects us with the
source of life and power in God; that the ife which we now live in the flesh,
we live by the faith of the Son of God.
So that it may be as truly affirmed of sanctification, as of
justification, that it is all of faith—by grace—and glorying is excluded . . .
[for] self-righteousness . . . is
such a foe to grace. (pg. 511, Review of William E. Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life, Jacob Abbott. Bibliotheca
Sacra [July 1860] 508-535)
e. g., The Two Covenants and the Second
Blessing, Andrew Murray. Chicago,
IL: Fleming H. Revell, 1898.
What Continues Today from Eras of Miracles? Thoughts on the Non-Charismatic Continuationism
When someone uses the word “continues” like I have in the title of today’s post, he does refer to a theological ideology called “continuationism.” It brings the question, should we expect the same occurrences today that we read during eras of miracles? When I say “eras of miracles,” I’m saying the times when God intervened with miracles to confirm His Word to Israel. They were signs and wonders performed by either prophets or apostles for the purpose of authentication of His message to the Jewish nation. These eras include Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Jesus, and then the Apostles. One more era remains, the time of the Tribulation on earth. Again then it will be Jews and again as confirmation of the Word of God.
God’s Word is sufficient, but so is God’s providence. God’s providence is hardly mentioned in my experience among independent Baptists or even unaffiliated Baptists, again, that I have heard. If you are reading this, and you regularly mention providence, this isn’t you, but consider whether it is you. God works through His providence and it is supernatural, but He works those supernatural works through ordinary means. God is good. He heals. He doesn’t heal. He does what He does and we need to trust Him. God is doing so many good things at any given time, thousands, that should be good enough. While we still sin, God keeps saving us. During this non-era of miracles, we should trust His providence. He’s working.
The Charismatics have their variety of miracles, often very strange. Some of them have to do with money in the realm of prosperity theology. God gives incredible amounts of money for extravagant purchases. The non-Charismatic continuationists have those too. They very often have stories that might start with God telling someone to do something, he doesn’t have money for it, God says He’s going to give the money, and the person follows through without the money. The money comes in, and it’s all credited as supernatural.
The Charismatics have something they call power evangelism. The non-Charismatic continuationists have their sort of power evangelism. They either pray for evangelistic power or unction or just straight out pray that person or a crowd of people are saved. This is akin to the Day of Pentecost. Very often a crowd is gathered not through mysterious power, but the very understandable power of marketing and promotion, combined with a big event. People pray for the big event that a large number of salvations might occur. An emotional message is delivered and great numbers of professions are made through easy prayers. It is chalked up to Holy Spirit power that is Pentecostal in nature.
One will not see the same sort of continuationism of the previous paragraph in every branch of continuationism, but it is common in many places to various degrees. People have called the event or events described, revival. These events might occur to varied degrees with some of the same qualities, again of assorted amount and intensity. Just because someone is doing it less doesn’t mean he’s not doing it. It’s still there.
Just because someone doesn’t participate in the Charismatic movement doesn’t mean he’s not a continuationist. Both the Charismatic and the non-Charismatic continuationists are continuationists. Both are perverting biblical sanctification and Christian growth and the will of God. Someone might say the Charismatic is worse, so the non-Charismatic is acceptable. No. Both are unacceptable. Both are a lie. If this is going to change, we have to see and then admit that these are in essence the same. We can’t accept either.
Unaffiliated Baptist Churches: Analysis of the Emphasis, pt. 4
The emphasis of unaffiliated Baptist churches relates to history. These churches, like true churches all the way back to the first church in Jerusalem, have believed in the autonomy of each church with Jesus as the Head of each. Each church was sufficient. Each independent, Bible believing and practicing church saw the error infiltrating the church through extra-scriptural associations, boards, colleges, and camps, all augmentations to the biblical and historical practice. To ensure no leaven was leavening their lump (1 Cor 5), they pared back to just each church in fellowship with other churches of the same faith and practice alone. The doctrine of the church took prominence in light of this history.Other doctrines besides church related doctrines are important. The church is God’s institution for preserving all of the truth, not just church doctrine. For instance, the gospel is important. Unaffiliated Baptist churches should not affiliate with churches indifferent to a false gospel. The gospel should get more attention than whether someone is closed communion. Baptist churches are built on true conversions, not on whether they practice closed or close communion. By saying that, I don’t mean at all to disrespect the truth about the Lord’s Table.
Baptist churches, including unaffiliated ones, have been greatly affected by two related false doctrines, which have spread a false gospel and a faulty doctrine of sanctification: Keswick theology and revivalism. Thomas Ross has written much about the former, and it’s worth reading everything (it’s free). At some point, if you want to understand revivalism, read Ian Murray’s Revival and Revivalism. You can learn at Thomas Ross’s site about revivalism (here again), but also in what I’ve written (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) much on it. Another good book to understand is Jonathan Edward’s criticism of the first Great Awakening, Treatise on the Religious Affections (free all over online). I left revivalism when I left fundamentalism, but I’ve come back to it again in a sense with unaffiliated Baptist churches. It’s intolerable to me. I left it. I’m not going back. Unaffiliateds do not have to affiliate but with any church of the same belief and practice, but I want to affiliate, and these posts are about affiliation, not unaffiliation.
Keswick theology is second-blessing theology, the two blessings being salvation, when someone accepts Jesus as Savior, and then later, when he gets serious and makes Jesus to be Lord of his life. Almost always the latter comes through a crisis situation, perhaps a “revival,” which is where revivalism dovetails. Because there are so many “carnal Christians,” they need revival, and churches are constantly looking and preaching and praying for this experience. This is not biblical or historical Christianity. Even though both are related to perversions seen in scripture, especially in 1 and 2 Corinthians, they began in the nineteenth century in Great Britain and then America.
Not necessarily in any order, the following is an enumeration of how I see Keswick theology and revivalism among unaffiliated Baptist churches. Churches have been affected to varying degrees, but I can’t say to what degree any one unaffiliated Baptist church has been affected. I hear it, read it, and see it.
- Evangelism Methodology
- Content and Style of Preaching
- Admission of God Still Speaking or Showing a Message
- Music or Worship Philosophy and Practice
- Church Growth Innovation
- Pattern of Prayer
- Pastoral or Missionary Call
- Tolerance of Keswick and Revivalism
- Tolerance of Churches Not Preaching a True Gospel
- Keswick Presentation or Language of Sanctification
Unaffiliated Baptist Churches: Analysis of the Emphasis, pt. 3
Without being unaffiliated, a church will disobey something in the Bible. The history of unaffiliated Baptist churches is essentially seeing a disobedience to scripture that can’t be avoided without ceasing the affiliation. Those churches recognized the necessity to be pure for the Lord and turned unaffiliated for that purpose. Unaffiliated doesn’t mean not fellowshiping. Unaffiliated Baptist churches do fellowship, but they separate from those associations that result in disobedience.
You don’t see conventions or associations or boards in scripture. Those are added to scripture. They smack of something akin to Roman Catholicism or even originate from Roman Catholicism. These extra-biblical entities are often justified with a faulty view of the church. The unaffiliated churches see this and know this.
I’m promoting unaffiliated Baptist churches. Out of loving consideration and correction I write this about where I see weakness. The comment section of part one digressed to thoughts about Baptist successionism and authority. I would like to dovetail some criticism of unaffiliated churches with those topics in the comment section. Where I went with my analysis was with the dubious emphasis that causes problems for these churches. I parked on the influence of Keswick theology.
Unaffiliated Baptist churches much concern themselves with individual church authority. They are criticized for this, as if authority doesn’t matter. At the same time, for their concern with authority, unaffiliated churches often get their authority wrong according to an influence of Keswick theology or just because of keswick theology, which I’ll address later in this post.
It would take a series of posts to represent a biblical view of authority. Unaffiliated Baptist churches (of which ours is) don’t believe a baptism is valid without proper authority — a proper, authoritative administrator of the baptism. Only a church can baptize. They also define a church that possesses authority, a historical basis for which the concern of unaffiliated Baptist churches exists. Roman Catholicism doesn’t have authority and, therefore, the churches that proceeded from them, Protestant churches, don’t have it either. They would baptize someone even who had been baptized in a Protestant church, saying this was “alien immersion.”
The above has led some to think that an unaffiliated type of Baptist church believes in only visible, chain-link authority back to the first church in Jerusalem. It would be to say that if you don’t accept non-authoritative baptism, then you must by necessity believe in traceable, visible authority. Any break in the chain would mean the absence of authority. That’s an argument against “proper administrator.” If there is no horizontal authority, people can pretty much operate as free agents out there.
The goal here is to obey the Bible. The Bible can be obeyed. God didn’t write a book that suffers from such contradictions that you can’t trust what it says to do. The key here is to do what it says and not to extrapolate new teachings from human assumptions. Flaws will arise from conclusions that don’t follow scriptural premises. The contradictions people find then often excuse them for doing what they want and how they want to do it. The “Lord leads men” to start parachurch organizations and they’re justified. The “Lord leads men” to go somewhere to start a church with no sending church or appointment. The “Lord leads a man” to pastor and that should just be accepted.
Let’s assume someone is baptized by a true church. His employer says to move, so he does, and when he doesn’t find a good church at his new location, he feels the Lord has led him to start one. He believes the Lord is leading him to pastor there. He sees being a part of a church in the Bible, part of obedience to scripture. It starts with his family. He and his family members evangelize and he baptizes. The group grows. He decides to call it, “New City Church,” after the name of the town. He trains someone else to pastor before he dies, and after he dies, that man pastors. This process occurs a few generations. Is that a true church? Evaluating based upon scriptural belief and practice, let’s say that it is very good, and even way better than any other church around — exemplary — seeming the place to be. It’s now into several generations of faithful belief and practice of scripture. Shouldn’t that count for something? Why would that church need any other authority than what scripture says?
I arrive after the four generations. I’m unaffiliated. I say it’s not a true church. My first hint is that it is not called Baptist. I’m suspect of a church called, “New City Church.” I don’t think it probably has proper authority or else it would be called a Baptist church. I ask some questions. I find the answers insufficient. Based on what they say, I tell them they are not a church, the pastor isn’t a pastor, and none of them are baptized. The New City Church people call me crazy. No church can trace its authority back to Jerusalem anyway. Since no church can find a chain-link visible line of authority, no one really needs authority. I’m told that God has shown His approval of New City Church by how great they’ve done for several generations. That’s their authority.
Church authority, if it exists, could affect a lot. Are you baptized without it? Can you pastor without it? Are you a church without it? According to an even bigger picture, do we have a perfect Bible without it?
Let’s start with the following. Did Jesus appoint Himself as Head of the church? Did Jesus say, “I think I’ll start a church on my own on my own authority with my own prerogative as the Son of God”? Did Jesus even self-appoint Himself to be King, the Messiah? The answer is “no” to all of those. Nobody promoted Himself into the rightful office of King. You were not King by self-promotion. That is a big deal in the Bible. The whole line of authority in scripture is very, very important.
Look at Israel. How important was being anointed as King? It was huge. Even the issue of the birthright, the appointed heir, that was important. Scripture is replete with this. It is a very, very common teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible. I could give you multiple examples. The Apostles themselves weren’t self-promoted nor launched out on their own. It’s actually the consistent teaching all the way through the Bible, found everywhere. Jesus traveled to John the Baptist for baptism, because John had authoritative baptism. Jesus did only what He did because that was what the Father had him to do. When men did something other than what God authorized in scripture, they were in trouble, sometimes even killed.
If someone really is scriptural, then he will see that this authority issue is a biblical teaching, not some extraneous sidebar. The lack of historical evidence, the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence. A believer will act in faith regarding authority. If he sees he doesn’t have it, he will want it. Jesus gave the “keys of the kingdom.” He said, “all power (authority) has been given me.” Paul writes, “How will they hear unless they be sent?” Becoming a pastor requires the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Those with authority provide authority. It’s very serious to challenge authority, a very serious aberration. Those who move outside of authority are the actual heretics of Titus 3.
If you say “Bible sole authority,” you are not more biblical if you deny or avoid human authority. The Bible has taught it. The Bible has put its belief and practice under the authority of the church. Canonicity involves the church. Scripture is what the church says it is. It is because scripture says that it is because the church says it is. The church authority is scriptural. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
We live in a rebellious age, where people like the idea of God moving unilaterally, and this is another where I witness another iteration of Keswick. I see unaffiliated men usurp authority, how God works, an objective authority of the church, through the “Lord led me.” How does God lead? He leads through authority. “God gave me this new method, and God is really using it.” “God is using it;” that’s the authority for it. It can’t be questioned, because God gave it. God doesn’t work that way.
I see contemporary Christian music in unaffiliated churches and it is acceptable in those churches. Because God has “worked” through that music and God is “working” through that music, it must be fine. Is there authority for this new measure? Why is something churches didn’t approve now approved? Where is the authority for this? There isn’t scriptural authority, but this is something new, authority by means of the outcome of experience.
Unaffiliated churches emphasize, it’s true, the authority for baptism. What about the authority for contemporary and/or southern gospel music? Is this the historic worship of Baptist churches? The Bible was passed down, but why not, for instance, psalm singing?
I told you I was going to dovetail authority and Keswick. A man is a pastor not because of a subjective experience, but because of the agreement of men who see that he fulfills the qualifications. He has a desire, not a feeling, a desire that emerges from preaching. The desire is good. If he wants it, then objective standards can be ascertained, not some mystical call immeasurable except by a feeling, perhaps the same one the same churches experience from carnal music. They feel something they call the Holy Spirit, but the feeling arises from the flesh.
Recent Comments