In a discussion during discipleship with a man, part of the lesson on eschatology (study of last things), we got onto the topic of “how people will be fooled by the Antichrist during the tribulation period.” Here’s the thing. A huge best-selling series has been written about it, The Left Behind series. Even many unbelievers in the U. S. know about this view of Christ’s return. So if people really do disappear in large numbers, won’t people just automatically know that they were Christians, and that this was the rapture? Especially if all of these people really are Christians, a lot of folks would have recognized that, it would seem, and this would be the explanation: they were raptured. So how is it the general population will be fooled enough to give in to the Antichrist, the False Prophet, the Beast?

We do know that people will be fooled. Matthew 24:24, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, “9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” These texts alone tell us a little how people will be fooled.

People will believe a lie. The lie will be backed up by incredible signs and wonders that will validate the Antichrist. He will look uniquely prepared to take the world through a very difficult time. The Antichrist will talk about what people want to hear: “I’ll help you survive,” “I’m going to make sure you have food and water,” “I’m going to protect you from evil terrorists,” “I want to make sure your family is secure.” The people that make it into this world-wide tribulation period will by a large majority be those who have prioritized physical things, how they feel being really important. They are bound to get sucked into his way. I believe the road for several of the lies about the disappearance of people is already being paved nicely for the Antichrist—X-Files, Roswell, Taken, Abductions, UFOs, People from the Future, Government Cover-ups and Conspiracies. These won’t necessarily fool people by themselves, but in conjunction with other more pragmatic reasons, they will serve as an excuse to hold on to. The theory of evolution has been taught in public schools for 75-100 years now, allowing people to entertain the existence of a more advanced species somewhere else in the galaxy.

Alright. All that is fascinating. I’m sure you and I both could add to it. I believe that one of the reasons the disappearance of Christians will be easy to explain away is that far less people will disappear than most people think. Only a small percentage of professing Christians are actually saved. Satan will have a lot easier time convincing people concerning a smaller group missing. What would be my basis for saying that not many Christians will actually be raptured, meet Christ in the clouds when He returns before the tribulation period?

1) We know from Scripture that those entering the narrow gate are few.
Matthew 7:14, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
2) Jesus told us that many people are just false professors.
Matthew 7:21-23, “21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
3) The Lord said that some who receive the Word will not allow it to take root.
Some because of thorny ground, a heart that divides between Jesus and the world system.
Matthew 13:22, “He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.” Someone who puts Jesus on the shelf with his other gods cannot be saved. Those who love the world do not have the love of the Father in them (1 John 2:15-17). Jesus characteristically is first place in the practice of a truly saved person. This person may understand salvation, but things of the world are really what is important to him by how he uses his time. Some because of rocky ground, a shallow intellectual or emotional reception of Christ. Matthew 13:20, 21, “20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.” Some people just give Jesus a “try,” pray a prayer, have a religious experience, or have no more than an acknowledgement that Jesus lived and died and rose again. At one point, someone may just feel sorry for his sin. None of these is enough. This person won’t sacrifice for God because he really was never committed to Christ, that is, given up his life for Christ.
4. The Lord Jesus said that anyone who does not repent will perish.
Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” 1 Thessalonians 1:9, “Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” If we keep going our own way, we are not and will not be saved. At some point someone must turn from his way to God’s way. This is not living a life of sinless perfection. That isn’t possible. It is however, not serving God and money, or God and the world, or God and our family.
5. God is not the Father of those who will not separate from false worship and they are not His sons and daughters.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18, “14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” God saved us to worship Him (John 4:23, 24). Worship is recognizing Who God is and giving Him what He wants. If we won’t give Him what He has told us He wants in His Word, then we aren’t worshipers of His. His sheep will know Him and His voice, and follow Him (John 10:27). Those who don’t are not His sheep. Then true believers will separate from those who will not worship the Lord. As Joshua said, “Choose you this day whom ye shall serve” (Josh. 24:15).

The professing Christianity that I see around doesn’t look like the Bible. People like to and will say that they are going to heaven when they die. They like thinking that they have their get-out-of-jail-free card and their fire escape plan, so they can go on to do basically what they want to do now. 1 John 2:3, 4 reads, “3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ” These are present tense verbs, so that someone who does know God will keep His commandments as a lifestyle, will live for Him. A whole lot of professing Christians don’t characteristically live for Him.

That will be a sad day when all of them are left behind. And like they’re deceived today, they’ll go right on being deceived by the Antichrist then. It won’t be a big disappearing act after all.

Sometimes evangelicals are called new-evangelicals. Why? At one time, everyone who believed the gospel (the only Scriptural one) were evangelicals. Then liberalism came, a group split and they were called fundamentalists, hence, fundamentalism. Then fundamentalism split over separation issues. The less separated called themselves evangelicals. The fundamentalists called them new-evangelicals. (Incidentally, because of history, everybody gets to claim Spurgeon—we’re Spurgeon, they’re Spurgeon; no, we’re Spurgeon.)

Since then lots of smaller splits have occurred within fundamentalism, partly because of associations and fellowships—GARBC, BBF, Southwide Baptist Fellowship, Sword of the Lord meetings, FBF, etc. Fairly large cleavages have occurred over a general salvation issue which includes soteriology, sanctification, and methodology. One side is more Calvinistic versus the other more Arminian, or in other terms, the Hyles group (revivalist) versus the Bob Jones group with various nuances in between. One side seems to put more into strong academics and the other side seems to emphasize learning new and newer methods. Even though both sides call themselves fundamentalists, they often ignore each other, hoping no one will associate them with the other. Various segments would not want to be identified with the other even based on things that might look minor, like styles or methods of preaching. The version issue in all its forms has strained relations—one side says the other causes division and the other side says their opposites attack God’s Word. Another aspect is cultural, dealing with issues of personal separation—pants on women, “evangelistic” music versus worship music, entertainment, the roles of men and women, and even alcoholic beverages. Fundamentalists are feuding.

Many fundamentalists have apparently wearied over carrying a common name. For this reason among others, a lot of professing fundamentalists are looking for more and more common ground with evangelicals (new-evangelicals). Sometimes they feel like they are more tuned into the evangelicals than they are most fundamentalists. In various forums of communication, I have noticed professing fundamentalists admiring evangelicals. Salivate might not be too strong a word. They are far less harsh about certain Southern Baptists or conservative evangelicals than they are over who they see as counterparts in their own movement. Some have taken the leap and others are considering joining them.

I’m going to tell you exactly where the rub is for the fundamentalists, what is bothering them. It is a root doctrinal issue. They teeter uncomfortably on the edge of fundamentalism because of one important cog in their system.

Let’s say that you believe that the true church, the church, is all believers, everyone who has received Jesus Christ into his life. I don’t believe that. I believe a church is an assembly of immersed believers and only an assembly of immersed believers. I take my position from the 118 times the term ekklesia is found in the NT. But you believe that at the point of justification, you were baptized spiritually into the invisible body of Christ. If the church is the body of Christ, then the members must be working together. Christ is the Head and the body parts, like a physical body, fit and interact, or in other words, have unity.

The [new-]evangelicals are more consistent with their ecclesiology. It’s as simple as that. Many fundamentalists have exactly the same ecclesiology as the evangelicals, but they don’t unify. They separate. How can we separate from people we’re supposed to be unifying with? John MacArthur gets along with Al Mohler who gets along with Billy Graham. They are all together for the gospel. Yes, the gospel. They are all “saved,” so they get along. These fundamentalists want that unity because it is consistent with their ecclesiology, their belief about the body of Christ. They know they aren’t consistent in their practice. They essentially make the Bible contradict itself with their stand on separation and on unity. Conversations and arguments and debate regularly spring up on the conflict between separation and unity.

If I believed the body of Christ was all believers, I would fellowship with the evangelicals. My only grounds for separation would have to be the gospel. You are either saved or your not. If you’re saved, I’m fellowshiping with you. The fundamentalists don’t do that. They break up the body of Christ (their view of it) over issues. Where is the unity? Hard to say. Maybe with other Bob Jones graduates and those who approve of Bob Jones.

Some try to be more consistent with unity and put up with Pensacola, who isn’t in the Bob Jones orbit. They get criticized for it mightily. Letis, video tape, and heresy comes up. Some try to travel in everybody’s fundamental circle. I don’t think anyone has done that successfully. Now among fundamentalists, the worst group to be associated with are those who are King James only. It is open season to shoot at all KJVO’ers. If they’re saved, that’s not consistent, is it?

Evangelicalism feels so good because it snuggles right in with spirit baptism and the universal church. Most evangelicals look at fundamentalists as sort of goofy because of this inconsistency. Of course, the conservative evangelicals are haunted by their lack of separation, but unity beats separation almost every time. If they don’t participate in Promise Keepers, it’s a preference. They’re still together with them. They have to be. They’re just showing discernment. They don’t want to get hurt by being with these fellow believers, yet with no formal separation. On the other hand, I don’t know how fundamentalists could possibly argue against evangelical unity with their ecclesiology. The evangelicals definitely have this one on them.

Someone recently complained on their blog: “The large emphasis fundamentalism puts on authority does much to enforce the list and to squelch any independent questioning/research into the validity of the list.” Interpreted: “Waaaah, I want my own way. Give me my binky!” Over at Sharper Iron, someone wrote this: “We (Type B types) tend to believe and organize ministries around a de-centralized approach – sharing power and decision-making authority to a variety of Godly men. I don’t know that I’ve ever met a Type-A guy who shares authority with anyone – So your decision-making style would be centralized – on steroids!” Interpreted: “I’d like to keep my job as long as I can, and I don’t think I can do that with this group if I act like I’m the boss.” Those both sound very popular in the world in which we live. The typical person loves hearing them. I remember talking to a woman about our church and she asked me if “there were any women in our power triangle.”

We know Satan wants to eradicate Scriptural authority. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1, 2). Apostates “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” (2 Peter 2:10). Jude says they “despise dominion” (1:8). Without authority in Israel during the Judges, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). As we get closer to the end 2 Timothy 3 says (v. 2) “men shall be lovers of their own selves.” People don’t want to be told what to do, which is why you will see the bumper sticker: “Question authority.” Today in many instances coaches can’t coach, teachers can’t teach, and parents can’t parent. Even in the military, some would like to make the drill sergeant their personal therapist. Punky kids on the street vandalize and steal without retribution because they know their rights. Adults helplessly look on with a fear of lawsuit. Children throw public temper tantrums and parents allow it, afraid what people might think if they were to use some discipline.

Some might excuse their disrespect of authority with examples of Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, Richard Nixon, Jim and Tammy Baker, and Jack Hyles. They explain that through years of abusive leadership, their trust in authority has eroded to an all time low. Often Bill Clinton doesn’t get thrown into that list. Instead, they skip straight from Iran-Contra to “no weapons of mass destruction.” Often these attacks on offices of power serve as plays from others seeking to take them. As long as authoritative institutions have existed, corruption has occurred. None of this erases God’s design. He still wants to use men to rule.

Even greater influence toward headlessness has come through institutionalized child care. Without the security of a Scriptural home arrangement, in the first few formative years, the child develops a lack of trust. The break up of home authority through state education and a two-income economy, propaganda-like bombardment of the modern mind with poor examples on television and in movies, and popular music pounds its message of rebellion against the restraint of marriage and acquiescence to rightful leaders. Divorce often undermines beliefs in Scriptural and traditional roles. Women struggle to trust again in male headship. Of course, since God originated the chain of command, Satan wants to do everything possible to cut its links, eliminating the ultimate submission to God. Every day he orchestrates compounding consent to the enticement of sinners, making insubordination a new ethic in society.

Satan ruins worship with the wrong object of worship and corrupt methods. He alleviates authority with spotty submission until finally we have no real authority at all. When every man was doing what he wanted in Judges, there was no king in Israel. The people who do rule have often abdicated the God-designed purpose. Very little is left of their leadership except a figure-head.

Several years ago we had a young lady leave our church because, she said, disagreement over pastoral authority. She professed to believe that pastors had authority only in issues of Biblical command. In other words, if the Bible didn’t command it, the pastor had no say in it. If a pastor wanted to start a new prayer meeting, he would need a church vote. Another church hired her on staff; I told them of her clearly stated view, but they took her anyway. This lack of accountability diminishes the strength of authority in churches. Finally, few to none pay attention to much of what he says should get done, leaving the man of God toothless. A good way to hurt his ability to influence others toward Godliness is to help others have the impression that he is a dictator, an authoritarian.

With churches hunkered down in the middle of all this, the world prods and provokes them to become like the world. Even though Paul told Titus, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15), the new way is to share that authority with those to whom God has not given it. No one should be surprised that many like it better, and as a church becomes more worldly, this becomes the new leadershp paradigm. You’ve seen what has happened to parenting in the last 30 years–unrestrained children abound. Even authoritative dads and moms are parenting dinosaurs. Shift this to the church and the pastor who tells people what to do is a remnant of an earlier, paleozoic era, long ago dismissed for its insensitivity and chauvenism.

I’ve got one bit of counsel in all this: Rule the church exactly how God has shown in His Word. After having done so, defend your leadership style with the verses from which you developed your conviction. Don’t apologize because you choose to rule, to make strong decisions. You’ll hear from the weak and whiny who want things their way. Be sure you have on your spiritual armor and be strong. Stand firm. God expects it and your people need it.

I’m sure that I think that I mean this. I do. Am. Sure that is. About thinking. Meaning it. Well, I feel sorry for confused young fundamentalists. To start, they don’t know who they are. What is a fundamentalist? Most of them can’t figure it out. I have a hard time helping them. The early fundamentalists had a solid thing to stand against. They had to stop liberalism. But what about those who fellowshipped with liberals? But maybe the five fundamentals weren’t enough. But we don’t want it to be too much. And how exactly should we define these terms? What is inerrancy? What is Scripture?

What’s the problem? They know they believe in unity. They also know they believe in separation. But they believe that the church is all believers. If it is all believers, then they have to unify with all believers. They have to be kind, and yet not put up with everything. They can’t get along with everyone. So where do they take their stand?

I’m finding that it works sort of like this. And I mean sort of. They can’t fellowship with Billy Graham—denial of literal hell, too much. They like Al Mohler, the Calvinistic voice of intelligence in the Southern Baptist Convention. He likes John MacArthur who is cool about exposition, which they like. They don’t like Hyles. Oh no. And anyone like him. But Al Mohler fellowships with Billy Graham, and he is in the same convention as Rick Warren. But he isn’t a Hyles guy, and that’s good. Because the gospel is important. They want to be considered intelligent, intellectuals. That means new versions. All of them are done by people they don’t fellowship with, but that’s OK, because they found out that there are mistakes, not too many, in the text. But that’s good, because it’s reasonable. Anyone who says there isn’t just doesn’t get it. And they do. Multitude of the manuscripts. Perfect preservation. But not any Bible that anyone uses. But no one should worry. And they love evangelism and new converts can’t read Elizabethan English. And Piper preaches with passion and wants unity and uses the ESV, easy to understand, but his music is the pits. They like his passion about worship, but not his worship, but they’ll defend him until you say they really like him. You can’t fellowship with David Cloud. Or anyone who wants to put culottes on every girl they can see. Because that’s what those people want, and they hate legalism except with the ones who are legalistic, and for them they are legalistically unlegalistic. So they will fight against the KJVO and the 1-2-3s, and against anyone who says they fight too much, and their women don’t wear pants, but they love Together for the Gospel, but not really. And Phil Johnson is the man. They love those guys, not enough for fellowship, but enough to show that they aren’t like the old fundamentalists, even though they want to respect them. And they post. They blog. They sharpen. But don’t like fighting. Like discussion. Agree to disagree. Except with certain ones. They don’t drink but are fine with drinking, but not really, and even though you drink that’s fine, but they don’t like it. A fine cigar and a movie. Let’s talk about it. They’ll talk. Not going to commit. Not the theater, but the DVD, so since DVDs are the same, movies are OK. And are very cool with women. Speak up. But all for male authority. They are against the inclusive language version but for including women in the discussion because they’re strong but sensitive or the other way around. Moused up hair good, pants hanging down bad, but daycare is good even though its bad. And they don’t like the tone of the old fundamentalists, except for slacks, versions, and people who disagree with them.

Are you getting all this?

Plastic silverware. Objective opinion. Artificial intelligence. Educated guess. Microsoft Works. Genuine naughahyde. Government worker. Airline food. Postal service. French resistance. Adult male. Oxymorons.

I thought of another one just as I was writing this. Parachurch ministry. But how about “boring worship”? Can we really be worshiping God and have it be boring? The thing isn’t to make it entertaining. The thing is that if it’s worship, then it isn’t boring. The “need” for entertainment says that people are bored. It reminds me of the kid who asked his mom how far she had counted in her lifetime? She said, “I don’t know. What about you?” “25, 657,” he answered. She asked, “So why did you stop at that particular number?” He replied, “Church was over.” Jesus said to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart” (our affections) and “all thy mind” (our attention). You tell me what gets the most affection and attention, and I will tell you what you worship. A key word with worship is “focus.” Does God get your focus? Does He get your attention and your affection? If not, what does?

If God isn’t getting your affection and attention, then your worship probably is boring. You probably aren’t thinking about the songs you sing in church. You are probably not really exalting God. You are just singing words, probably mostly thoughtlessly. You are probably not extending God to the nations. You are probably not talking about Him to the people around you. Why? He isn’t your focus. And when He’s not your focus, then you are bored with Him.

What will change that? You need to find out Who He is. He is a “rewarder of them who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). He is a good God. God can’t seem like a rip-off to you if you are going to focus on Him, give Him affection and attention. You can’t think that He doesn’t know what is best for you. You have to recognize Him for Who He really is, that is, the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). All the good things that you enjoy come from God. Why? He wants you to enjoy them. When you blow it by sinning, guess Who can take care of that sin and its results? God alone, of course. If we confess the sin, He’s faithful and just to forgive us (1 John 1:9), because the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). He sent His dear Son to you when you were ungodly to die for you, and in so doing, He demonstrated His love for you (Romans 5:8). Only believers can worship God. Only believers can sacrifice for Him. And believers will not find Him to be boring, but new every morning and every day.

Let’s stop joyous Christian from being an oxymoron. Let’s start today. Start today. That’s not an oxymoron. Start tomorrow would be.

Part of arguing the issue of the preservation of Scripture is figuring out as soon as possible whether the person you’re talking to really cares or not. In recent conversations on this doctrine, I have found what seems like a lack of intellectual honesty. For instance, when approaching Psalm 12:6, 7, tremendous exegesis has been shown on the gender disagreement issue—between them and Words. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar mentions it. Thomas Strouse and I have shown examples (they are numerous) of specific gender disagreement between the feminine noun and the masculine pronoun, to the extent that one should view this as a tendency in the Old Testament. God is making a point. The MVO (multiple versions only) side (Mike Sproul, Doug Kutilek, Keith Gephart) disregards it. They don’t want it to be true, so it can’t be true. They (especially Mike Sproul in his recent book) blatantly misrepresent our stated and published positions to the point of slander. I’ll give some of them in order.

1. His very first quote of me is wrong. He writes on p. 143 in footnote #1: “Brandenburg claims that the TR is a text type (p. 9).” I say nothing about the TR being a text type on p. 9. Under my definition of the TR on p. 13, I don’t call it a text type. On p. 9, I write this in a parenthesis about the Alexandrian Text: “The Egyptian MSS do not form a united text type as the TR MSS do.” My point was about the unity of the Alexandrian Text; that A and B disagree in thousands of places unlike the TR Manuscripts. I never used the term “type” in any kind of technical manner. And I say Manuscripts, not just TR, in order to carefully differentiate this. This kind of stretch by Sproul, right at the beginning, shows a huge problem. He is attempting to discredit me, not deal with the issue at hand.
2. He pulls the same kind of tactic on the second statement of mine. Notice that he doesn’t actually quote me. If you want to deal with people seriously, you should quote them. My quotes would not back up his assertions. He wants people to think that I am attempting to fool people or to twist the definitions of words. On p. 49, he uses a military slide presentation he saw by Lieutenant Colonel Denise Parker (Denise, not Dennis) that said definitions had this function: “3. They help us start; they allow us to talk to each other about the subject, to investigate and research it, to see it.” Well, what he saw Denise make in her slide presentation is what I was doing in TSKT, stating definitions so that readers would know what we believed the terms meant. He says that I am attempting to change the historic definition of inerrancy. I wrote for “inerrancy” in TSKT on p. 11: “The quality of having no errors; usually applied to the original manuscripts of Scripture; however, based on Scriptural promises of preservation, it also characterizes the preserved text of Scripture.” Does that seem like a problem to you? Webster’s Unabridged says, “Lack of error.” But Sproul writes on p. 143: “Brandenburg claims inerrancy means a current text of Scripture (p. 11).” I think if anyone read my whole quote, they would know exactly what I meant. Sproul purposefully misrepresents me for some reason. He knows he is doing it. I don’t know why he does it. In several cases, he makes it difficult, because he makes an accusation without putting a page number. He does this on the fourth and fifth points that he makes against me. I guess people are just to assume that Sproul is correct with no quote and no page number.

So there is just the first two. I can keep going and going. Let me give a list of very bad ones before at some point in the future, I get all of them.
1. On p. 144, he says that I refer to the TR as the “inerrant autograph” (sic). Well, in my definitions, I say that the autographa are the original manuscripts. I’ve never said that the TR is the original autographs. We never said that anywhere in the book. He regularly smears us with double inspiration and this is one way he does that.
2. On p. 149, footnote #14, he writes: “This is an amazing slander. Without one piece of documentation he asserts that men who study this issue and cite other godly heroes willfully distort their citations.” He says I am slandering people. If he did not jump to conclusions, he could have understood me to be saying that men do this on both sides. I was thinking about examples of men doing this pro and con. The quote he refers to in the Introduction of TSKT (which he misquotes by the way, making me say something different than what I said it on p. 22 of TSKT—changing “Even as that” to “Even at that”) was differentiating TSKT from all of the books that had been written on the subject—ours exegesis and theirs based on historical quotes. On top of that, I never said a thing about men citing “godly heroes.” Sproul goes ballistic about this—calling it “amazing slander”—and then he says that this is exactly what “‘KJV-only’ advocates” do when they “cite Scrivener, Spurgeon, and Burgon” (p. 149). So he says I make an amazing slander and then he goes on to give examples of exactly what I was talking about. He proves for me that I was slandering no one. I said on p. 22 of TSKT that men “craftily pull a quotation from its context.” This is done by both sides of the issue. How the CT/Eclectic do it is by giving the impression that the quote has to do with varying the text, when it has to do only with the altering of a translation. The preservation issue does not relate to the exact words of a translation, but the exact words of the text behind it. Most quotes of these “godly heroes” relate to changes in translation, not to changes in the text. One cannot use a quote about translation to present someone’s view of the preservation of the text. Sproul is willing to call me “slanderous” (sinning) when I did nothing even remotely close to that.
3. I said in my introduction on p. 22 that the “praise of men” is “worthless,” and Sproul twists that on p. 151 into “Brandenburg and Cloud attack Fundamental Fathers by calling any citation of them “worthless” and “man worship.” I never ever called citing men as “worthless” or “man worship.” I said that “praise of men” is worthless. Sproul puts words in my mouth in order to make me look bad. Do you see what he is doing?
4. That isn’t as bad as his next statement on p. 151, “They (Cloud and me) insist that everyone must worship their interpretation of Scripture.” So Sproul says that I encourage false worship. Do you see that? Do you see how evil that is?
5. Then later in the paragraph he says, “It seems, according to Brandenburg and Cloud, that if you cite someone who disagrees with them you are ‘worthless’ and guilty of ‘man worship.'” Again, I never said anything remotely like that. That, folks, is slanderous.
6. On p. 149 in footnote #16 Sproul states: “Ironically, the e-mail that advertised this book (sent uninvited to multiple members of this author’s church) to promote it among the Maranatha Baptist Bible College alumni purports this book as representing the theology of a man, Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm, the late founder of that college.” Fortunately for Dr. Cedarholm, he gets to be a Dr. like Sproul in the book. Perhaps one has to die in order to get conferred with a doctorate. The first lie here is that I sent the e-mail “uninvited.” I am an alumnus of Maranatha three times (BA, MA, M.Div) as is my dad, my brother, and my sister. I was on their public email list (there was a private one for people who did not want their email to be known). I am one of the very few Maranatha alumni even to write a book. I sent that to announce to the alumni from their voluntarily provided email list, to let them know that I wrote a book and that it was available. Sproul purposefully and slanderously makes it sound like I targeted members of his church. That is so wrong! I sent it to every MBBC grad on their voluntary, public email list (his church obviously has MBBC grads). Maranatha sends me an uninvited email every month, and I don’t complain. I got an email, uninvited, several years back from Mike Sproul and I still get them periodically. So I don’t get this total slander. What is the email list for if it isn’t for alumni to write other alumni? That is all I did. And I didn’t say that the book represented the theology of Dr. Cedarholm. The book was not at all a presentation of the position of Dr. Cedarholm, but a presentation of Scripture. Sproul again purposefully misrepresents me in a slanderous way! I said that the book took the same position as the founder, so that alumni of Maranatha would know where the book was coming from. I could have said, that takes the same position as Bud Weniger (CT/Eclectic position), and really doubt that anyone would have complained. Or if I said, that takes the same position as Dave Jaspers (majority text position), no one would have given me a hard time. So this paranoid delusion on the part of Sproul is incorrect.

I have many more, but I’m going to let you decide. Tell me what you think.

I got home from preaching in Utah and was welcomed by my copy of God’s Word Preserved by Dr. Michael D. Sproul. It is sort of ironic that I was coming from Utah, because in his book, Dr. Sproul compares me to a Mormon. Here’s how he does it: “In the last chapter of the Book of Mormon a reader finds the testimony of all true Mormons and their “burning breast” experience. If a Mormon cannot explain his beliefs (sic) he is instructed to tell his opponent that he experienced a “burning in his breast” that transcends all argumentation and this is how he knows Mormonism is correct. This is exactly what Brandenburg does with fideistic faith in his recent ‘KJV only’ book” (p. 318, he does this Mormon thing first on p. 144, and then goes on to do it 5-10 times in the book). Hmmmm. This is exactly what I do? I (1) instruct people to use a “burning breast” experience, (2) use this sort of experience to tell if what I believe is correct, and (3) can’t explain my beliefs from Scripture? When I was evangelizing Mormons, six or seven at once with Pastor Dave Mallinak, we were quoting verse upon verse of Scripture, and they used one passage before they fled to their experience. I never flee to experience for a position. Interestingly enough, fleeing to his own version of history pieced together like a Picasso painting is the manner in which Dr. Sproul operates in his book. That Mormons take up a big chunk of time in Dr. Sproul’s book as a means of extrapolating this smear on me and others should tell you about the quality of what he has written. In a footnote (p. 321), Dr. Sproul explains that his big section connecting us with Mormons was very difficult to write, but after praying “much,” he went ahead. I wonder if he got a burning in the bosom to tell him that he should publish the blatant slander (Sproul says several slanderous untruths about me personally which I will reveal in this blog in days to come), which he says that he did “from a heart of love.” What is very sad is that he totally misrepresents TSKT, doesn’t answer its exegesis, and spends pages just smearing us instead.

His major means of arguing against the exegesis of our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, is by attempting to smear the authors with Ruckman, Augustine, political liberals, Jim Jones (p. 316), Letis, Wilkenson, intellectual morons (p. 322), post-moderns, existentialists, Roman Catholicism, Michael Moore (p. 290), and Mormonism. I haven’t seen us compared to Hitler yet, but I will be looking closely. Does this seem like a right way to argue? Some people think this is good stuff. And why do we get this kind of treatment from Dr. Sproul? Because we defend the biblical teaching of the perfect preservation of Scripture. That doesn’t sound like a dangerous doctrine, but Dr. Sproul says that we are on track to become a cult if not send people to one. This all comes from a man who in a footnote on p. 187 writes, “A man filled with the Spirit of the living God does not write with acid on his pen, regardless of the situation.” In a personal email exchange, Dr. Sproul told me that when he and his people read the review of his book by Thomas Strouse, that they all “laughed.” I think Dr. Sproul needs to take a good, hard look at himself when he considers who should be laughing. I just wonder if the Spirit controlled his laughing. Could that be a laughing revival?

I call him Dr. because he calls himself Dr. No one else in the book gets the benefit of a doctorate except him. Smack dab on the front in about 50 point font is Dr. Michael D. Sproul. Look to see if you can find any theological or Christian book on any shelf that puts a Dr. in front of the author’s name. In his book, for instance, Benjamin Warfield isn’t Dr. Benjamin Warfield. He’s just Warfield. Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener is just Scrivener. Sproul, however, is Dr. Sproul. Even in the addenda chapter written by Gephart, his seminary professor consistently calls him Dr. Sproul, while he calls Dr. Strouse just “Strouse.” Well, Gephart calls him “Strauss.” What does this mean? I don’t know. Sproul does say this about me on p. 151, “[He] now insist[s] that everyone must worship [his] interpretation of Scripture.” Raise your hand if you think that I insist that people worship my interpretation of Scripture. What I do know is that Dr. Sproul never talked to me personally about any of his conclusions in the book. “Love believeth all things, love hopeth all things.” I don’t think I was getting much believing or hoping. Sproul could have given me the benefit of the doubt by talking to me first, but he chose not to do that. If he had, he wouldn’t have had to involve himself in very silly but also serious misrepresentations of me and our book Thou Shalt Keep Them.

I will bring you more of them in weeks to come.

What constitutes “faithful to church?” What says Scripture? Hebrews 10:25 clearly states: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” This verse says that we should never miss. Never? Never. Let’s look at the verse carefully to understand even better how airtight this teaching is in the Bible.

First, the context. Hebrews 10 continues arguing before Jews (Hebrews) the superiority of the new covenant to the old, that is, the system of Christ since His death, burial, and resurrection versus the Old Testament priesthood and sacrificial system. Of course, for anyone who cared, Christ is not only far better, but He also fulfilled the old. Old Testament Israel had a very involved, prescribed manner of worship. That regular practice had engrained itself in the Jewish culture. That was tough for any Jew to give up. What would a Hebrew do with that all gone? With Jesus as our high priest, we replace the old worship with the new worship, the assembling of our selves together. This makes the New Testament worship at least equal, but even greater than the Old Testament system of rituals, sacrifices, ceremonies, festivals, sabbaths, and sabbaticals. Would the Old Testament Jew ever be excused from any prescribed worship of the Old Testament? No. Was there any room for a Jew under the old covenant missing a congregation of the nation Israel? Of course not. So the context itself is a powerful argument for faithfulness to every meeting of God’s institution in which we live, the church.

Second, the verse itself. The verse itself has several arguments internally that are devastating to someone who thinks it’s OK to miss church. Let me enumerate them.
1) Not forsaking. Some might argue that “forsake” means abandonment. I remember a guy that once attended our church who was unfaithful to services. I encouraged his faithfulness by teaching him what this verse meant. He had never even heard the abandonment argument, but once I told him people had used that point, it became his as well. That is a perfect example of fitting the interpretation to the lifestyle instead of vice versa. In Matthew 27:46, the Lord uses this exact term on the cross, when He cried out: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Had the Father abandoned the Son? No way. Certainly in other usages of the “word,” the understanding of abandonment could be made, but we also see that the word can be used as a practice of missing something as well. The context helps us see that “abandonment” is not the meaning here.
2) The assembling. The nature of this noun, “assembling,” guides our interpretation of this verse. It is the assembling itself that we are not to forsake, that is, the actual act of gathering with the rest of the congregation.
3) As the manner of some is. “Manner” is a habit or practice. Abandonment cannot be characterized as a habit or practice, but a one-time act. This speaks of a regular performance of a particular deed. Some were in the habit of missing the assembling of the church.
4) Exhorting one another. In order to exhort one another, one must be in attendance. To participate in exhortation of another brother or sister, one must see the person, know what the problem or crisis or deficiency is, so that one might say the appropriate words of strength, admonishment, warning, or support.
5) So much the more, as ye see the day approaching. The “day” is the day of the return of Christ, which was imminent, any moment. The NT teaching on the timing of Christ’s return was imminence. 2 Peter 3:12, “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?” Titus 2:13, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Luke 12:37, “Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching.” If the Lord could return at any moment, then He could return while you were not assembling with God’s congregation. The person who thought Christ could come at any moment would want to be in the place that he knew Christ wanted him to be if the Lord were to return. Any time we aren’t assembling could be the time when Christ returns.

Many other reasons could serve in addition to these from this one verse: not being a stumbling block, in order to be a good testimony to unbelievers, because we love God, because we love the Word of God, because we love God’s people, because the church is a body and the body doesn’t function as well with a missing body part, and many, many more. With all of these reasons combined, don’t you think that you should never miss church?

Our church practices a non-age-segregated Sunday School. We start at 9:45am with a song. By the way, I recommend The Trinity Hymnal, Baptist Edition, as the closest hymnal to Scriptural worship as there is. I’ll blog separately again on that sometime. We sing out of that. Then we meet for fifteen minutes in small groups and go over a lesson the spiritual head of household was to go over with his or her family during the week. Included with that is an accompanying personal devotion sheet in line with the family lesson. We come back together from 10:05-10:45am for teaching with Pastor Sutton. He just started Romans. Before that we had about two years on the family. A book will be coming out of that series from Pastor Sutton.

OK, this blog title, what say I? For many, many weeks we have read through Puritan Thomas Watsons book/series through the ten commandments. We did skip the fourth commandment. Then we went two weeks on The Law in general. This week we end it all with his sermon, The Wrath of God. The whole series is very, very good. You will have to pick out a very small portion to edit out some baptism and Calvinism, but very, very little. Normally, I gave out four pages every week. I read one page a night to my family on Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Fri nights. I have interaction, asking age appropriate questions as I read to encourage comprehension. They do the seven day daily digging on the sermon, reading passages on it and commenting. The goal, by the way, with this stratergy (Bushism) is to encourage leadership spiritually in the home instead of creating a caste of dependents on the church leadership. In our Sunday School members reports, we have accountability with the heads of household on their family study during the week. Do you see that we are perfecting the saints for the work of the ministry? Interesting, but I haven’t really commented on the topic much yet. All context so far. Well here goes.

Watson exposes the wrath of God magnificently. Just some points without having the sermon in front of me. He justifies God’s wrath by making an observation about sinning against gratitude. God has been loving and benevolent, so that when we sin, we do sin against His goodness. I remembered a family years back we had to discipline out of the church who we had given incredible care, highlighting their rebellion. Part of this exposition by Watson is warning about the wrath of God. How could a just God punish someone eternally for a momentary sin? The recipient has sinned against an infinite God, bringing infinite punishment. How long is infinite? I wondered if it was Watson who originated the whole illustration of an angel swooping down to pick up one grain of sand every year, so that by the end of his having collected all of it, eternity will have only begun. Have you thought about the kind of love and grace that will absorb that wrath? I can’t help but think of eternal security at this juncture. Yes, our sin abounds, but His grace much more abounds!

The secular make fun of those who tithe like they are just throwing away their money. Of course, if you look at the way people spend money, you could probably find clear ways that people waste dollars. Statistics show that churches on the whole save society loads of cash. But I digress before I ever begin. I mean to give the best argument for tithing. Does God expect us to tithe? Tithing for certain is Old Testament: Abraham tithed pre-Mosaic law (Gen. 14:20), the Mosaic law required it (Lev. 27:32; Num. 18:24; Dt. 12:6; etc.), and God said the one who did not tithe was robbing Him (Malachi 3:8-10). Some argue it is only Old Testament. Not so. First, Christ said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Grace is not antinomian (lawless). The law is good (Rom. 7:12). It has its purpose of pointing out transgression. As such, it is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ by faith (Gal. 3:24, 25).

Anways, the argument. I’m not going to make you turn to 1 Corinthians 9, but that’s where it is. Consider these verses there (that means read them):

6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? 7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Paul argues that he has the right to be materially compensated for his ministry. He gives a number of different arguments for this, including going back into the OT law to make it (vv. 8-10). Obviously Paul thought that the law still applied. In v. 13 he contends that the Levites (“they which minister about holy things”) lived “of the things of the temple.” The “things of the temple” were the tithes of the congregation of Israel. Now look at v. 14 to get the brunt of this in the words “even so.” You should understand “even so” as “just like.” The Lord has ordained that the people that preach the gospel should live of the gospel, just like the Levites lived of their particular ministry. The Levites were supported by tithes and so today churches should support their ministers with their tithes.

Many more verses tie into, accentuate, and support this argument. However, this is the best explanation for why tithing is New Testament and ought to be done today. To not do so is essentially then to violate all the New Testament principles and commands on giving. The priority of worship will show up in the pocket book, for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.