W
W W W World Wide Web
Witness Inc. Home Page
Contents
Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER 2
FIXATIONS, FUNDAMENTALS AND FAITH
News 167
The Australian, August 20, 2001
The Advertiser idem
The new Archbishop of Sydney, that (comparatively) evangelically renowned site of Anglicanism, noted for Moore College and near division, or least seriously pondered separation from the parent body some years ago, during the furore on women priests (not the first in the line of oddities to be construed by those desiring the word of God - see A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 10 and 11) , has decidedly done something different.
A mere 1% of Anglicans in the Australian population, or some such low figure, he affirmed, express this mode. It is to be altered, it might appear. The Archbishop, with dark glasses, à la mode, sought the people. As rare as zoo-keepers, Anglicans were in danger of becoming exotic, he asserted. The report states this: "Following a cacophony of trombones, drums and guitar at the State Sports Centre at Homebush", Dr Jensen indicated an emphasis on friendly, welcoming meetings.
This seems some sort of effort to greet the people, meet the people and agreeably, to use the Scottish, to avoid giving them occasion for greeting. That is, being translated, occasion for lamentation.
Now all this perhaps has a touch of bravado, or desperation or at any rate determination to DO something. Noise can signal willingness to suffer, and modern music willingness to try to find a place where a meeting with greeting (sense 1) and without greeting (sense 2) might occur.
However it is in the next point that the real interest lies. The reports, lamentably, has this to record: "Evangelism stressed the authority of the bible and the need to turn to Jesus to be saved, but it was not fair to link it with fundamentalism."
Proceeding now to quotation, the report continues: "There are fundamentalists who certainly look like evangelicals, but we in this diocese are not fundamentalist," he said. "We don't take a literalist approach to the Bible."
The tormented term, fundamentalist, has now raised its head to add to the festivities, and laid in the dust like some saucy serpent, it is stamped and stomped on to the presumably considerable pleasure of the now really welcomed crowd.
NOT one of those! How nice ... We need not fear THAT sort of thing. Free from such a fall, above such a demise, without such an encumbrance, devoid of such reproach, with terminology suitably confused, mixed up and writhing, the charabanc continues.
It is however not as easy as that. The offence of the cross is not to be distilled, and whatever the intention of the speaker, the dabbling into these verbal domains in this way is likely to cause a confusion already TOO welcome in society, one requiring for understanding in the giving of a reason for the faith, and indeed giving the faith at all, some analysis.
Most of this has already been done at some length in The Biblical Workman Appendix III, "Excursion on Fundamentalism - The Plush Halls of Propaganda, or the Peace of Truth.", a 17 page analysis of current confusion, terminological and other. The reader may wish to peruse this, as the topic is vital to understanding, being as much a pawn in the game of confusion, and the smoke of it, as ever democracy was, in the arsenal of Communist propaganda. Cultural substitutes for thought are easily aroused by skilful manipulators, and others need to beware of doing service to these ideational atrocities, skilled in misleading the very elect, if it were possible, which in the grace of the good Lord, it is NOT! (Matthew 24:24 cf. II Peter 2:1ff.). Of this fact, their safekeeping, we saw some of the delightful, smoke filtered, light of dawn in the last chapter.
Without, therefore, repeating the above analysis, but assuming the interested reader will have read it, and the informed one is ready without it, but that at any rate nobody ignores what is available except in the interests of confusion, an arch-enemy of this site and a clever smoke-screen of the evil one: let us consider the above report. At this point, we leave company with the cacophony, as it was deemed to be, and make no effort to consider what the archbishop may or may not have meant, for the cultural input into the terms used, makes this far removed from attainability from this presentation.
We shall simply see what the possibilities are, and whatever the purpose of the cleric may have been, the perils of proceeding with this torturous terminology. It can hide virtually anything and yet on the other hand, conceivably may be guilty of no worse than mere cultural confusion or imprecision.
After all, in a
denomination where the Primate, one above an archbishop, has been reported,
without apparent contradiction, to have declared it is not necessary to believe
in this same Jesus in order to find God, there is little point in considering
too much what this or that one of the TOTAL FELLOWSHIP which includes such
things, may or may not be saying (John 14:65, Christ versus primate). If the
house is on fire, why worry about a thread on the carpet! (See for this
reported denial of the fundamentals of the gospel, Tender Times for
Timely Truths Ch. 7.
Concerning the necessity not to remain where such things are permitted, see The
Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 7. )
EVANGELISM AND EVANGELICISM or Evangelicalism
Evangelism, then, is the presentation of Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour with a view to people finding salvation through the gospel concerning Him, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with fidelity to the Biblical presentation of Him, so that it is not another Jesus, Gospel and Spirit (as slated by Paul in II Cor. 11). The terminology of the address reported above, then, would in this definition seem to be affirming a very good thing.
Some people who might not believe the Bible, and like to substitute their own, or their own church's, or their own pastor's, or their own pet theologian's thoughts for the Bible with an ease with a dash perhaps of bravado and a panache of personal assertion, would want another definition, or not use the term. Another definition would merely be one MORE step into the arena of terminological confusion, trying not only to subdue 'evangelism' but 'the gospel' into pagan hands, or at least eclectic blurring, so that you tame the gospel by mere phrasing, and defile it by simple substitution of content. It is not new.
However, let us assume the best. Let us assume that such a clear distortion of the terminology of the Bible, in order to present what is contrary to the Bible, is not in view. What then ? If we are not putting in Mr Marx's mouth, by way of parallel, a love of capitalism, such as the Chinese authorities seem to show in some of the relatively uncontrolled forms of commerce, but not to know, what is being done ?
In that case, let us suppose that evangelism is what is meant, Biblically defined.
We proceed next to the distinction of this term from evangelicism. This term, or the longer one evangelicalism, which is rather a mouth-full, and not a little ugly to the ear, being dithery and diluted in sound - but let that pass - is different from evangelism. If the latter, evangelism, is seen in the exemplars of Peter at Pentecost and in Acts 3, of Paul at Mars Hill, at Pisidian Antioch, of Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch, Christ with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at the well, in the words of the appeals of the prophets to find God and focussing the Messiah, in the expositions of Paul and in the Biblical necessities outlined by Christ so freely (Matthew 5:17ff., 26:52ff.), in His entreaties and expositions at the personal level as in John 10, in the developments of Paul in Romans where the gospel which is to be preached, is carefully expressed and given with the power of inspiration of God, both in substance and in wording (I Cor. 2:9ff.), in line with the words of the prophets before (as in I Peter 1:11ffl, II Peter 1:19ff. - cf. SMR Appendix D); then what of the former ? What is evangelicism ?
The Gospel is not hard to
find, then, nor its exposition and proclamation with a view to salvation, in
evangelism. The Gospel is the evangel, the good news, and evangelism is its
presentation as above. What however is this evangelicalism ? It is precisely
what in some ways, the diocese of
The term would represent a cleavage, in its very phrasing. On the one hand, there would be social gospel experts, wanting Christ to act rather than be too much talked about, wanting social results rather than being what, to them, would appear unduly concerned with mere words, phrases or concepts; and with these practitioners come the new wording specialists, the neo-orthodox, who would like a formal conformity to some Biblical phrases, but simply re-define them to fit the philosophic culture, or the theological penchants. These would seem clear distinctions, at least until terminology gets more smoke screens going, and there is an industry that does this, sometimes perhaps unintentionally, as with other smog, and sometimes criminally, as when standards are ignored for personal gain in commerce.
There are all but innumerable other departures from the apostolic faith, the prophetic word of which Peter speaks, the Christ of the Bible; and it is a fine testimony to Christ Jesus the Lord, crucified and risen in body from the dead (that was the thing that died and was laid in the tomb, as in I Cor. 15, Luke 24:39), that so many deplorably confused and incredibly distorted efforts are made to imitate without the original, and use the name without the ground.
These are what is NOT evangelicalism.
What however IS, precisely, evangelicalism ? The term is subjected to torture as most others while the undoubted propaganda and allied effects are obtained, of creating confusion instead of choice, and finding clouds of words instead of clouds of glory. Words are precise instruments, no less than the scalpel of the surgeon, and perhaps rather more, for he can err and it is done, but with words, there is time to clean them from corrosion from culture, and confusion from spiritual strip-tease acts which entice the heart without challenging the morals or changing the life. Cut-price religion is like most other cut-price things, popular and cheap. (Romans 6:1ff. deals with it.)
This term, evangelicalism, then, would tend simply to be the normal, orthodox, gospel loving, apostle following, Christ of the Bible affirming approach to Christianity which is ex-popes, ex-pollutions of philosophy, and simply taking the substance of what is written, the teaching of the Bible and the Gospel which is neither taught nor derived from culture or mankind at all as Paul most emphatically proclaims in Galatians 1, proceeding faithfully to present these things, this Christ, this same Jesus, this everlasting Gospel, without addition or subtraction, with love and zeal, so that people turn to Him, love Him and without inventing Him afresh, akin to crucifying Him afresh as in Hebrews 10, following Him.
This is a simple matter of fidelity; for if God had not carefully and precisely presented the Christ in the written word, as this same Christ proclaimed the prophets before had done to the extent that not a jot of their words would fail till ALL was fulfilled, then there would be a profusion of confusion. Christ would have come in vain, a mere word to be the verbal buttonhole for ANY religion of ANY Christ available for construction by ANY philosophical or cultural construction company which, with due attention to shareholders' interests (as in II Peter 1's prediction) found it worth while so to act. Whatever, however, the motives, this is the sort of procedure avoided historically by what has borne the name, evangelicalism.
However, this a burden for some. They aspire to the term, but do not desire the burden of fidelity. This is always costly, whether in sound studios or in surgery, in business dealings or in friendship. Friends love at all times. They do not leap like a startled rabbit at the first test. They stay put, and if they can bring their friend from error to truth, they sacrifice to do it. That is what love is like.
What then ? Then, just as another Jesus has been an idea, something to create for yourself or from some desired source, to receive, and then follow, like your pet football club (you can choose the one you want, it is all football), so another gospel becomes the idea, and another sort of evangel. Hey wait! All is NOT Gospel that is called so! It is not a game but the gift of God!
But there are many players for the god-games. If there is another sort of evangel (steal that word! go on, few may notice, the evil one may urge), why not ... yes, another sort of evangelism, and yes again, another sort of evangelicalism (the longer word does seem to distance the facts even more, and for that purpose it could be advantageous, but let it be!). The thought grips many, if not with clarity, then with reality. That is the way of deception, including self-deception, it tends always not to keep in contact with the light, but seems to prefer to turn it off, or avoid it, even the dawning light of day.
Hence, with such industry,
people come to follow, or come to be led, to try to re-define evangelicalism to
mean, zeal and concern about someone or something called Jesus, to whom the
term lord may even be applied, and in some sense, saviour, who is to be a code
word and cure for much, in some way, yet to be defined, or defined from time to
time as the pope or the committee or the people may elect, depending on taste:
and indeed, they may ask, are they not all one ? So goes the patter. Yes, as
one Presbyterian Minister with a large Church in
After all, there are FEW
who find the narrow way, as Christ said. HE at least was after NO BROAD CHURCH,
BROAD VOCABULARY, BROAD CULTURAL ACCLIMITISATION OR BROAD THEOLOGY. It was
strict, so strict that unless you were founded on His words, you were building
on sand. How would that go down in a Sports Arena in
Hence you COULD use the term in the new slightly or greatly adjusted sense, the one constantly being re-manufactured like new models of cars, designed to impress the people, who buy: you could use it to mean and include in the end, almost what was formerly the exact thing from which it was once used, to exclude! Hence, this very nice new range of Evangelicalism models becomes available. You can have the address, the term, and yet avoid the tissue.
Terminological confusion is MOST useful where change is desired, without too much ... difficulty. This is of course not to say that all who use the term use it for this purpose or in this way. It IS however to say, quite simply, that it now LENDS itself to such usage change. No longer can we simply know from the term, what is meant.
The BIBLE likewise can be
referred to as something one has, uses and accepts. But this too is a
masterpiece for theological fiction writers. You can hear them: WHEN, they say,
we refer to the Bible, we do not mean that narrow-minded, old-fashioned (good
propaganda words are they not ? yet people even now, when the green tree is
decidedly dry - Luke
One man, a cleric, recently, all but incredibly - and he also was an Anglican as it so happens - was saying this sort of thing: NO we do not have to be bound by these laws and moral controls. Christianity is not about judging. You do not have to do this and that, but merely to believe the thrust, or heart of it all. This was the message unleashed.
Now this is a far cry from Paul's statement in Romans 3:31,
· "Do we make void the law through faith ? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."
· However, worth a try. After all, you could always hope for confusion about the other issue, namely this, that you are not saved by ANY means of obedience, but for it; that you are not saved by ANY kind of works, but only for them. Grace is the name of the gift; works is the name of the fruit of the gift. If you could only get them confused on that, the propagandist might think, then of course we could throw out the whole CONCEPT of morals, instead of merely saying that moral performance is NOT the way you gain salvation, but the way you sincerely show it. Leave out that last clause. No ? But you COULD mislead, if not the elect, then many with consciences in the way, who WANT some kind of ... well, religious protection in life, for it is so vast and dangerous, yet do NOT want to pay the price of purity and truth!
No ? Then many will do it, nevertheless.
It is exactly the same with bad children, or those in a naughty mood. There is
almost no limit to the devices, the twistings, the turnings, the substitutes
for being good, in order to indulge some yearning for this or that. It is the
very nature of sin so to do, but it is the very nature of salvation so to
avoid. MANY, said Christ, follow the broad way to hell. FEW enter the narrow
one (Matthew 7:13ff., 21ff.). Narrow ? Yes, that is His word. Everything good
is narrow in one sense: it is not bad, it is not diluted, polluted, dulled or
indifferent. Its quality is untainted.
Thus "evangelism"
and even "evangelicalism" will not help much, just as terms flung
around, except in one respect, that if you STATE you are in favour of one of
these, many who do not want what the Bible actually SAYS, will find in these
changeable pieces of terminological equipment (like instruments for a massive
medical operation, lying in the theatre), liberty for conscience and BUY!
Again, this is not to say that the mere usage of such terms implies misdoings;
but it is to note that their usage in contexts of affirming these while denying
other things closely related historically, MAY be and often is, a confusion
procedure for misleading, if it were possible, the very elect.
FUNDAMENTALISM AND ALL THE BIBLE
Plenary Inspiration
What however is the meaning of that other term, the one disparaged by the Archbishop, "fundamentalism" ? As the presentation in The Biblical WorkmanAppendix III indicates, there is a history here, a compilation, a conflation and a confusion which befits the evil one himself. It is not necessary to repeat all that was said there, since at the flick of a hyperlink, it may be read.
The original popular sense of this term was historically derived, and indicated the desire and procedure of having certain fundamentals which could not be negotiated, such as the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, His bodily resurrection, salvation by grace apart from works and so on. People who insisted that none of these might be permitted to be denied in their churches and fellowships of Christ, were thus able to fundamentalists. Many were Baptists, but it was by no means limited to them. It was often associated with denominations where the Bible being openly attacked, in complete defiance of its own quality provisions (see The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 7, Romans 16:17, II Timothy 3ff., Ephesians 5 and the whole array of prohibitions on this point). Thus, for some, there was a joint desire NOT TO LEAVE, and sometimes, NOT EVEN TO CONFRONT in the courts of the church, this wolf pack, but merely to save SOMETHING! IF, some thought, these things could be kept, or at least held vital, we would not be too badly off.
Others of course, adding the infallibility of the Bible as ONE of the fundamentals, the common procedure and base, insisted on the whole of the written word of God; but in general, in large denominations, they did not require it in the seminaries, those learned sites of foxes as alas so many came to be, many men stating one thing in their ordination and giving another in their teaching.
Thus some became separate churches with some or all of this requirement, and many stayed in older churches, with this personal requirement, to be grieved over because it was not met.
With radio and TV preachers, many unscripturally stayed in their unbelieving denominations and found solace elsewhere, instead of following the whole counsel of God, relative to churches, as to other things. Some fought it out, as did the Lutheran Missouri Synod in the USA, and even in relatively rare cases, won the property from those who wanted to change the basis from the Bible, and from the church's constitution, and do something else with it, so breaking not only THE faith, but faith with those who had given for a godly purpose, in terms of the written word of God and the smitten Son of God, resurrected and abiding till He comes, in the hearts of the congregation.
Disregarding the text, the word at will, they would or could reconstruct a Christ after their own hearts, and willingly follow Him, interpreting and abounding in impudence, as if God were their own work. It is common and long has been; and the name is of course idolatry.
Meanwhile, many lingering where Biblically now prohibited, either losing such battles in the courts of the church, or not even making them, became like an offensive odour to the nostrils of those whose exotic tastes led them to indulgence, in the name of Christ, in virtually anything, coming more recently to have male co-habiters becoming preachers, although expressly (short of repentance), such pastors themselves were EXCLUDED from the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:9, Timothy 1:10). The detailed usage of Paul in itemising the varieties of polluted passions (biblically defined as such) bears witness to the very precise character of the words of the God who made precision as something we could either know or think, by CREATING US!
Hence the term ‘fundamentalist’, contrary to the renegade rebellions taking possession of many churches, gained an offensive odour to the MAJORITY who were hell-bent on a form of holiness which did not need to be MORAL, Biblically-defined! Words can be so useful to the artist in them!
War on fundamentalism did not stop there.
With the Bible variety of
‘fundamentalist’ in high malodour with those who separated both from the gospel
and the Lord who gave it (the one implies the other, as Paul indicates in
Galatians 1), but not from the church, and who often conveniently and
comfortably took over the church, what
then ? The church, once dedicated to the gospel of God, and to the Lord
of the Gospel, who generated its power by performing what none other ever did,
the works of redemption as a vicarious sacrifice, both sinless and sin-bearing,
now had other leaders, wolves more or less in sheep’s clothing (Matthew
7:15ff., II Peter 2:1ff.)
Wolves are rarely inactive, it seems.
The next step is a triumph for propaganda. The Moslems have a book without any evidential attestation, drawing not a little on Christian and Jewish heresy (as each body in its original nature would define from its Old Testament and Bible). When these false religionists therefore, as is beginning to happen now in Zimbabwe, want to have, or are incited to have a jihad, a war to get something from someone else, whether land or liberty, removing either or both, so that that false prophet as predicted by Christ, could operate in his teachings there, what could they be called ?
Magnificent. The devil himself may have smiled at the thought. Call THEM fundamentalists. The loathing for those who believed the Bible, could thus be pronounced on those of another religion, on those who killed! They could have the very same name. Since the jihad performers are cruel in procedure, rash in death, ravishing in blood spilling and altogether bring horror to the hearts of those who at least realise that the kingdom of heaven is not a matter of fighting (having read John 18:36), not a question of victories by blood, for ONE BLOOD, that of Christ, is the only one that now saves, what a triumph of verbal art to use the detested term 'fundamentalist' for those! Then some could re-use it artlessly for the Christian believers in the churches. Tar would stick.
It is useless to try to exonerate the human mind: it is deceitful, when steeped in its unsaved state, above all things (Jeremiah 9:6, 17:9). Whether it directly generated such thoughts, or merely employed them, duped by the deceptiveness of the arch-fiend, it is not known. The result nevertheless for man is much the same!
As however to the actual Jesus Christ who did the works, gave His own blood in the interests of religion, an eternal redemption resulting for those whom He has covered with His own blood, other blood to the point is a virtual blasphemy, adding to the gospel what is far below it, as well as violating the express command of Christ. Still, the use of the term 'fundamentalist' both for Moslem marauders and Christian people of peace was a coup of a type.
Inapplicable ? of course. Grievously misleading ? Without doubt. What however was its one point of contact ? That both parties believed that there is a God who has spoken, and committed the matter to writing. With one, murder mounts and evidence lacks, no prince appears, has appeared or is operative; with the other the way in physical violence, is annulled, the Prince has come and acted openly, as predicted. For these therefore, such violence cannot be. For this which they hold, the word of God, the evidence mounts. This word is constantly experimentally confirmed in history and heart, is demonstrably from God (SMR), and focussing the Prince of peace who died, without inflicting violence on the lives of others, it acts in the name of One who presenting Himself a sacrifice sufficient for all, crucially covering those who received Him in truth and by faith, through grace. THAT is His way. There is no way around it; there is nothing parallel to it; there is not and never has been any other to accomplish such things.
Well, if such a movement among Muslims, in their inveterate use of FORCE in the area of faith, if this could be called ... hmmm! fundamentalist, why what a score! What ODIUM could be poured on the Bible believing, Gospel retaining, Christ immutable people who so irk and gall the minds of ravished unbelievers who want to think of themselves as above what is written, but not below the term 'Christians'! Call Bible believing Christians 'fundamentalists' and then use the same term of blood spilling zealots, and you have tarred and feathered your opponent, faithful to Christ, to the point of perfection. You could ... yes, you could even try to imply in some rather vague but literally leering way, that ... they were fond of force, unlike your own selves, who do not use it at all, except when it seems necessary. Wonderful! what a score.
Truth score however ? Zero.
Slander score. In the high nineties.
Admission score that only
evil can bring the desired result: a remarkably high figure. But then, the
devil's traps, always sprinkled at least with lie, are found out by the truth
(cf. John
It is thus that people must beware of being drawn into
verbal culture traps.
MIXING IT UP
Thus when an Archbishop declares for 'evangelism' and being saved by 'Jesus', many types of the latter having been constructed by newly anointed reconstructionists, it is felt by many to be becoming to DETEST fundamentalism.
This is not to say that this particular archbishop is proceeding like this with the game, and one hopes he is about no such thing. It is merely, as we noted at the outset, that we are examining the terminology, which to say no more, is exceedingly susceptible to confusion, and finding what it CAN and often DOES mean! In knowing what we are talking about, it is often necessary to examine what we say. If we do NOT mean this and that, then this can be said, and we can make it clear what we DO mean. So be it. In the meantime, the defence of the faith requires us to be careful about misunderstanding, whatever the source, so that what is the truth, can be provided with a reason for it, according to the specialty of this site (cf. I Peter 3:15, II Cor. 10:5ff.).
It is next necessary to deal with the term 'fundamentalist' just a little more, for those who like to make known clearly, when they speak, what they are about, rather than using them to cover up differences or for oral impact.
SINCE the term is associated historically with people who wanted to talk about certain main doctrines, often including the inspiration of the Bible in such a way that it is true to God, and hence to life, for God is competent in life and word, having made both for man; and since He so claims whose word we are pondering: what then ? Since it is not necessarily the case that the inspiration of ALL the Bible is affirmed in such a party as 'fundamentalists', although it frequently is, and since certain MAIN doctrines are affirmed, as though ALL the Biblical teaching is not necessary, one does not incline to it. Its use, its value originally is not denied. That all such doctrines ARE necessary is most positively affirmed. But the concept of selected a few doctrines as pivots, while not in vain, has dangers.
ALL scripture being inspired by God, is profitable, not only some (see Pall of Smoke, Diamond of Joy Ch. 8, pp. 90ff.). Believing in the Bible as originally given is merely one facet of believing in the God who, in His revelation in it and in Christ, is worthy of acceptance. Not only does HE claim such fidelity IN the Bible (SMR Appendix D), but Christ claimed such fidelity both in it and in His own words (John 12;48-50), which indeed are to be a CRITERION in the JUDGMENT OF MAN! If you want another judge, that is your affair; we who follow Christ are more than satisfied with this One, who had borne our judgment for us already (Galatians 3:1-13), just as those who disbelieve in THIS Jesus the ONLY Saviour, are CONDEMNED ALREADY (John 3:18).
It is this verse which
follows so closely, does it not, on the famous gospel verse, of John 3:16. They
are twins, a pair, correlates. Of interest, and systematically appropriate, a
fact common to the Bible as rain to the tropics, is the fact that just next to
John 3:18, is John 3:19 which notes that this IS the CONDEMNATION, that light
has come into the world, and men have PREFERRED darkness. Even light has a wave
length: Christ is what He is and not another. God is what He is, and says so, I
AM (Exodus
When it comes to talking: whatever gave many among mankind the logically insolvent idea that the one who created the mouth has less power to communicate precisely, than this neat little instrument which He forged, possesses! God indeed says so,
(Psalm 94:9).
Do not you who write a novel, know more than your characters into whose hearts and minds you poured your distilled understanding! Imagine one of them seeking to instruct you, or to tell you about your ignorance or ineptitude, with those very powers, the entire crafting of which depended on your own most superior knowledge: one which could not merely MAKE them but understand HOW to do so!
Indeed, it is the more necessary since as Romans 1:17ff. tells us, man is not in any remotely neutral situation, but holds down the truth of God in unrighteousness, something quite kin to the tormented rebelliousness of much of the nation in the Old Testament, so abundantly attested in Hosea as in this:
Toward turning
to their God,
For the spirit
of harlotry is in their midst,
And they do not
know the LORD:
The pride of
Or again, we find:
This applies of course to those who try to cover RELIGIONS, such as the South Australian government in their ludicrous incursions into this field, under the guise of education, as attested in That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8, in great detail.
In tennis, if a player does not desire a coach, on the circuit, he is no pariah, but merely individual. With God, however, if a person, made for the stage of this life, does not seek and find the truth of God in Christ Jesus, the Messiah, and in the word which He endorsed (Matthew 5:17ff.),the word which in detail not only predicted Him (John 5:39-40), but proclaimed the one God with decisive and incisive protestation of uniqueness (Isaiah 41,48, 45), then there is a sure result. Then that person is as one who imbibes wrong food, addressed wrong questions and used right ones wrongly.
As what does the Bible depict such people as these ? Such a person is uninstructed, and internally misconstructed, bound in the sin which is inherent since the Fall of man at the first. Now in this advanced stage of spiritual ruin, unchanged man becomes now expository in darkness, illuminated with dark light, which in the presence of light of truth, distorts, cavorts, cavils or aborts. If this is not in all things, yet it occurs quite systematically, whether consciously or not, where it is deemed fitting, lest at any time the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus should be actually received, and the dimness of spiritual anguish, dismemberment, should be replaced by the truth. This is precisely what Paul says in II Cor. 4:3-6:
3 "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those
who are perishing,
4 whose minds
the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the
gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
5 "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the
Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For it is the
God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ."
Again we read:
"These things you have done and I kept silent:
And set them in
order before your eyes.
"Now consider this, you who forget God,
lest I tear you
in pieces,
And there be
none to deliver.
Whoever offers
praise glorifies Me,
And to him who
orders his way aright,
I will show the
salvation of God"
- Psalm 21-23.
Christ is the way as well as
the truth, and those who love Him and keeps His words find Him manifest within
(John 14:21-23). Those who do not find in His words things to keep, these do
not love Him (cf. I Cor.
Without Him, accordingly, there is not only unmet need for the truth which finds its place in the absolute God alone (John 14:6), but wry force, perspective or both, alien and alienating from the Lord, whose way effectually finds enmity in the flesh of man, the unconverted flesh, the autonomous flesh, the aspiring flesh, the uninformed and uninstructed flesh, the warped and warping flesh of man.
Of such flesh, to such an untoward imbroglio of human pride and passion, resistance and distortion, which turns like a crooked bow aside from the target, we read (Hosea 7:15-16) - "they are like a treacherous bow" - why ? "They return, but not to the Most High". To and for all this, there is but one answer. It is the word of God, pure to the tittle, distinctive to the jot, serene in its sovereign amplitude, penetrating in its compassionate care, impenetrable to assault, impervious to piracy, perfect and pure (Psalm 12, 11, 119).Man through it may be born again (I Peter 1:22-23, as the Spirit of God acts), and its Gospel alone is the power of God to salvation, its wisdom the way of life, lived in the Lord, forever alive, whose word it is.
"My
people," said the
Lord, "are
destroyed for lack of knowledge" and indeed, "Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I
also will forget your children" (Hosea 6). This is true even of those who by mere form have
imagined they know the Lord, or have the Lord, but do not KNOW the Lord, being
still foreign to surrender to His will, adoption of His word, the highway of
holiness (Isaiah 35, cf. Romans 8, Titus 3).
If
then the Jew fell for disregard, let Gentile not imagine his (other) race
saves; the tenor is the same here (Romans
So does the apostle address the Gentile nations, who may imagine that their knowledge or wisdom or pure Gentileness, or some other myth or fable of self-serving self-interest, special pleading or ignorant disdain, will help them. ONLY Christ will help any of this fallen race; for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN BY WHICH THEY MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:11ff.).
The word of God is so given, hear it or disregard. Here wriggling is in vain and ignorance meets instruction. Here the words AND the matter alike are fluent from inspiration, not given by man (Galatians 1, I Corinthians 2), but by God. It is against its enemies like a sword, the sword of the Spirit (Hebrews 4:12); and it not sheathed while the lambs or massacred, or the devious act to distort (cf. Luke 11:52-54, II Cor. 10:5, I Cor. 4:2-5, II Cor. 4:2, II Peter 2:1ff.).
The Biblical absolutes, and the absolute Author of the Bible, using inspiration for revelation in exact accord with His mind, this, then is neither optional nor removable from Christianity without the demolition of the structure. Thus for one's own part, one prefers the term 'plenary inspirationist'. It stresses not some merely selected basics, but the nature of the whole presentation called the Bible. We have most of us heard the title, Plenary Session of this or that: this is the Plenary Concession of God, to speak His mind to man.
This means that the inspiration of God in what Christ adopted in the very terms which the prophets of old had declared, as what God said, and this with words He Himself would fulfil, and cause to be uttered and fulfilled, is integral. The death penalty was not for nothing judicially required of those who presumed to speak in the name of the Lord, while failing to have the word spoken fulfilled by His power, which always performs what He declares (Deuteronomy 18, Jeremiah 23, Isaiah 41, 48, 44:, Joel 2:11). Further, He statedly takes care to be FRUSTRATING the words of those who, falsely elevating themselves, dare to compete in their puny ignorance, for the place of wisdom (cf. I Corinthians 1, Isaiah 28-29, Isaiah 44:25). Nothing else stands. History and the Bible alike attest it, the one in fulfilment, the other in claim.
This term, then, plenary
inspiration, is not only true to the Bible, the truth of which one
affirms and demonstrates, but it transcends any thought of SOME PARTS being
necessary: the latter, no doubt, a good intention but one capable of
misrepresentation and development into a sort of cream only dairy produce. ALL the
word of God is important, and it is often treated in such detail within itself
(Romans 15, Mark
Again, the pollution with propaganda makes the historically developed term fundamentalist to be ambiguous and worse, a mere conduit for contempt for whatever is added to it. Of this, we have said enough. It forms a barrier to the intelligence of many, and a focus for the alienation of others, being a code word polluted by alien concepts, as well as giving an emphasis where there is one better available. WHOM it is all about is Jesus Christ, ALONE appointed to man the sole Redeemer and Saviour, author of salvation and covenant messenger, the covenant in Himself: through Him only comes the knowledge of God, for He is His living Word. WHAT it is all about is found in the what is written, which He has endorsed, enforced and brought by His Spirit to consummation. Next stop, heaven for those who are His; and the outcast for those who find this way for themselves, and keep it.
What, therefore, one holds as a Christian, it is what is claimed in the Bible for the Bible, both of its words as originally given and in precision maintained in all meaning and intent, and of this same Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, of Him and not another. We are most adequately warned of this lurk of the shadowy prince of non-dawn, this insidious spirit of darkness, by Paul in II Corinthians 11 and by Christ in Matthew 24:24. Indeed, Christ has indicated that MANY false christs will come, and thus it is consistent, harmonious and systematically rigorous, that the One who did come, who being God is WHOLLY inimitable and unique, should be preserved in portrait and in truth, without pollution to change like some face lift, or worse, spy-type visual transformation, and should be so presented that nothing is left to man to make. He came; His words and will are as transcribed.
On the contrary side, making gods by gut feeling, subjective or merely unattested by evidence, reason and reality as truth, this becomes in worship, mere idolatry as in deed, inanity; for who can know what is not given, of the Lord! And who could know what is given who merely states what is found in his mind, free of all attestation by the soul of subjectivity!
Thus, in perfect logical
consistency, in the Bible NOTHING is precisely what is left to man to make, to
change. Anything is what is left to test; and TESTING is highly recommended,
for we must serve the Lord with all our hears and MINDS! (cf. I Thessalonians
The trend in man is already
appalling, in god-making. Thus, to cater to it and tempt man to it, this
is not divine but demonic! This thing, God has done NOT AT ALL! He has
expressly precluded it in method and majesty, in revelation and in coming. It
is condemned in the most authoritative and total fashion, it relates to false
apostles, messengers of the evil one (II Cor. 11, I Tim. 6), idle and
meaningless controversy, mere jumbled jamborees of vain words.
THE APPALLINGLY OBVIOUS EXAMPLE
Do YOU make a cheque which others can alter, when it is ONLY your money ? Do YOU make a title deed acceptable for your home (which is only for a few years at best), which can be altered at the will of culture ? Of course not. Therefore, when it comes to eternity would you expect God to bother to speak and engage to die in human form, so that people could follow any of the PREDICTED follies and blights of man in society, in academia, in politics, in culture, in theology, by mere lack of the certainty of what it really and actually is! Would YOU allow a few little phrases to be ... twiddled in your house insurance ? NO! you would thunder, of lisp or sibilantly hiss, or whatever other mode you employ when roused, NO!
Don't you realise, you might expostulate and expound, that the purpose of these words is to SAFEGUARD MY INTEREST! You just start changing this or that or redefining and a pretty pickle I would be in. Did anyone ever educate you ? you might ask, if given to the rambunctious, and nettled. Don't you know anything! you might add (if given to profound abuse with the apparently unduly stolid).
Do you imagine that an important thing like my house is to be subject to whatever new ideas and thoughts and understandings someone who DOES NOT own it, and may have a
vested interest in disappropriating it from ME, might happen to substitute for the actual TITLE DEED ?
A trifle blustery, perhaps:
but the point is well taken.
So it is best simply to avoid changing or doubting these words, appealing as such a deviation and innovation may be (as predicted, incidentally, in II Timothy 4:3 with delightful imagery of unquestionable meaning!), if you want clarity, to avoid confusion, and desire what the the Bible provides and the Lord who gave it, and the Christ who has died. He is alive, and it is not wise to be provocative, when He has already provided the ransom (Psalm 2:10ff.).
Generosity is not
gullibility. Guile is not approved by God (John
God is not fond of being
mesmerically created by fanciful artists who paint the invisible with the
colours of carnality (Isaiah 44:9-22, Ezekiel 14:3, II Cor. 11:4,13-14). When
God therefore elects to speak: listen, do not interrupt. When He
divulges: ascertain, do not create. When He characterises the speech as kept to
jot and tittle: rejoice, do not dabble. Plenary inspiration is merely a
beginning; the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It is however a
good one. It is not something which is replaced (I Peter
What then follows ? Then,
ACCORDING TO HIS WORD, as Christ required and depicted it, we are to FIND Him
(John 5:39-40), walk with Him and altogether believe in Him, not as a mouthless
Being, abdicating communication to human paragons, the unmitigated
vileness of whose sin is so profound that they even crucified His Son. If they
did that to the man, what do they do to the word! What ? They distort,
relinquish, replace and assert, failing to do; they deride, mock, formalise,
ceremonialise, fail to do. They alter and command. They ape and adjust. They
invent His words, crying them though He did not send them (Jeremiah
The Bible is divinely
provided communication, and in terms and at its direction, the Spirit attesting
what the heart receives, we worship God, not as if to "set up idols in
their heart" (Ez.
14:3), as is the way of many, creating what they worship, and worshipping
what they create. The LAST thing many such worship, it is their Creator, and
many of them would like to truncate this capacity as well, making a wholly
socially adjusted worshipful object, and a contemporary idol, their own
construction. The ludicrous
character of such a procedure has not changed since the days of Isaiah (43-44).
In heart or on shelf, it is one.
It is to be noticed that Jeremiah in this notable Ch. 23, to which reference has been made, attests that this whole uproarious folly of creating what you worship, reporting false messages, inventing gods and the like, indeed, taking the name of PROPHET in the process, and hence becoming a false one is to have a special place in the end of the Age. What is that place ? It is this:
Such is to be the issuance of this spiritual pathology, past the time of the New Covenant, now our own (Jeremiah 31:31ff., quoted in Hebrews), as the King comes near and His rule approaches (Jeremiah 23:5-6, cf. Psalm 72, 110, 67).
Thus as we approach that time (Answers to Questions Ch. 5) indisputably, so this phenomena of spiritual pathology flares predictedly. It is all correlated, corroborated, confirmed and apparent.
The fits and starts of
umpteen courses of theological nightmares masquerading as brilliance,
then, in word, in interpretation, in construction, reconstruction, they are but
the modern time idols, predicted in all their multiplicity (Matthew 24:24).
Naturally their devotees do not find the modern-day Elijahs any better than did
King Ahab. They are a nuisance, and noxious because their authority is from
God. Indeed, even the young can expose this prodigalities of folly (Psalm 8:2,
Luke
THE LITERAL LITERARY LICENCE FOR THE WORDS OF
GOD
This however is not the end of the matter. It is HIS WORDS which judge. You see, as to His words written in His book (Isaiah 34:16), what do we in fact find ?
it is the document of
another, about another, who paid in full for the cost of sin for all who come
to Him by faith; and its reference is not to another. He did not send a
substitute, or equip with salary an entourage. It was HE who came, and not
someone else; it was HE who died, and not a substitute envoy such as they used
to pay at times, to go to war for themselves. It was HE who rose in body from
the dead, as God said that HE HIMSELF would do (Hosea
It is not good to second guess God, or fiddle His document. Let us then indeed have the EVANGEL, the Gospel, as in the Bible, and practise EVANGELISM, as denoted in the Bible, and practice the evangelism of God as HE defines it, and hold to ALL that He says, as Christ declares is the way a man must live (Matthew 4:4), by EVERY WORD which proceeds out of the mouth of God! Let us likewise preach and also teach, EVERY COMMAND that He has given. The twins are there, from His own mouth (Matthew 28:18-19).
If you do not like it, then find your own salvation, rise from the dead, do the miracles, be prophesied, predict world history, leave heaven, and oh! in the first place, be sure you were there for ever, the uncreated living word of the everlasting God (Hebrews 1, John 1, Micah 5). Attest it from dates millenia in age, and have no competition for your speech, in testable terms, just as you present world events as the way you achieve attention.
Impossible ? True. Then
simply follow Christ as in the Bible, the Bible as from Christ's own words and
promises (SMR Appendix D), and ... ah one last
thing!
CONFUSION HERE HAS ITS MASTERPIECE
This confusion of the demonised term 'fundamentalist'*1 , with evil, this allows someone to slip in another bad thing, and make it look perhaps all but good, in the process. We are NOT fundamentalists, they say, we do not believe the Bible is to be taken LITERALLY! Now in the name of all confusion, what has this to do with its authority and truth! In the name of confusion ? Why that is precisely WHERE it has something to do with it.
Let us however, instead, look at the facts. ANY document has to be taken, ideally, so that you gain the understanding of what it is intended you should understand, except in the case of a spy of some other country, bent on your destruction, in which case, however, you still may need to know what is meant, in order to avoid precisely that trap! However, in this our present case, when truth is the origin, and the mode as well, what is MEANT! If I were to say, The outrigging clouds kept the boat of the aspiring vapours nearer to earth, though they strained heavenward ... what would I mean ?
You would not waste time wondering whether I meant that there was a boat formation in the clouds, something of wood, and whether there were some extending equipment which kept it in place. You know and I know that you know, and you know that I know more than that. We also both know that people write poetry. In this case, if it is good poetry it has meaning. What that meaning is depends on your discernment of the mood as well as the mode of the writer. He, if a good writer, will know how far he can go, and if only with some, then with that some. He is not writing for obscurity, unless he is seeking money for those who love to look at the meaningless as a kind of philosophical expression of their own inner torment (cf. SMR Ch. 3).
The realm of imagery, it is meant to challenge, sometimes merely to stir the imagination, sometimes to create an aura for thought and so on: it is the art of a harnessed imagination; and if it be deemed free, then perhaps it could bear to achieve some object, even if merely an exhibition of baseless freedom, a sort of challenge to distinguish it from mere gibberish.
We have imaginations, and may use imagery. If however a child's mother wanted butter fast for a cake, she would not be likely to say: My offspring of joy, scud like a cloud from its moorings, wind-swept, and with wings outstretched, flow smoothly in the direction of merchandise, such as my heart desires, and behold my thoughts are with you.
You see, she even forgot the butter, in her poetic exercise!
Some forms of imagery or adornment, of indirect or augmented communication, relate to some situations better than others; and some people incline to this or that milieu if writers, and sometimes personally. Some indeed are even found making verbal garbage, called swearing, a major component, so that people interpret, either - he means that he is annoyed, or that he is bored, or that he is disillusioned, or that he hates himself, or others, or all or is frustrated or whatever else. In such cases, the mood is often a substitute for the head, and there is little chance to find what if any of the above, is meant.
However with rational people doing purposeful things, poetic or other, there is normally a desire to impart something of knowledge consequence in the hearer. Some may love the sound of their own voices, and alas not being opera singers, merely irritate. Again, this is not the main feature, but in effective living outside asylums, is likely to be merely peripheral.
We tend to speak in order to convey something. If it is fancy, then there would normally, amongst those who have ability and integrity of heart, be some effort to make it clear what was and what was not fancy. Thus, Johnny, go and get me some butter, and let the notes fly from your purse as you get it quickly - would be decidedly unproductive if the child in the slightest degree were to interpret you LITERALLY! Ah yes, literally. IF you wanted to keep the money, you would occupy your verbal forces in some more obvious way, when wanting butter.
Situations then and moods,
modes and objectives, matters of fact transfer and desire notation: all figure
in speech. If we want to lift spirits with poetry, or the poetical, we would
not try to do so in such a style that our purpose is thwarted, the consequence
mistaken or the objective annulled.
We choose with some little
care. We speak with some hints deemed adequate, for people to know when we use,
and when we do not use, imagery.
This is scarcely a
revelation; we speak but the obvious.
Why then, if truth is the quest, or the delight, is there any thought that someone may take someone else literally, in some sort of malapropos blatancy, and not understand ? It could occur if someone were exceedingly dull, either the speaker or more likely the listener, and one might add, Oh, don't take me literally! Or such an addition might occur if one wanted some fun, and said some outrageously figurative thing, and added the rest as a sort of spice! It would be obvious that one was not taken literally, but one might add this, in order to accentuate the obvious and increase the sense of mirth.
With two reasonably competent people, however, bent on important issues, there is little chance of misconstruction in this way. If it MATTERS, one is inclined to TAKE CARE not to be confusing, or ambiguous, let alone fanciful; unless fancy is an implement, to the point and pointed, in the exercise itself. In that case, one would feel reasonably sure that the listener would be able to discern this, and would tend, if it mattered, to keep within what one felt that listener could handle!
Why then is there this strange fuss about the LITERAL with the Bible ? Ah! it is not so inane. It is obvious that many things are indeed meant to be images, but equally to CONVEY what the images COVER in type, kind or degree. We do this sort of thing continually. It is not a grave danger that someone will think that the water Christ offered to the woman at the well (reported in John 4) had a chemical composition, since He was CONTRASTING the available MEANS of chemical water, with the available MESSAGE of His own provision spiritually, and the conversation aptly turned to the SPIRITUAL, the Samaritan woman herself moving there effortlessly, having seen with EASE what Christ was talking about.
It was not that it was mere fancy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was that HE was using a CURRENT action of a simple type to indicate a PARALLEL with spiritual things made obvious by the most simple thought. HE has no water. HE is offering water. What does this imply ? What thoughts might run, if any thought of conscious character at all, were found necessary ? Perhaps it would proceed somewhat as follows:
I am being asked for water by Him : therefore in talking of the supply of the same to myself, He means something else. WHAT does water DO ? It quenches thirst. What then would non-chemical and AVAILABLE water for this person, which He says He will give ... what would then be ? It would have to be NON-material, that is spiritual.
When we are three, this would
be difficult. By adulthood, it is simplicity itself. We do not live 20 years
for being polluted with the meaningless, unless perhaps we have gone to the
confusion courses which abound in universities and other such places,
themselves in some courses, becoming the mortuaries of understanding.
Alas! the literal fuss about the Bible, while it could arise with the simple, the deluded, the emotionally tormented or the gullible, perhaps, in some instances, and DOES arise with cunning foxes at times, it is not really a question. Christ readily explained His parables. Einstein was not needed.
Misuse is a distortion most normally, as when a piece of bread is supposedly the very same Christ who offered Himself on the Cross, and said, It is finished, and was received into heaven, and said He would be, and that His words were Spirit and life in that very context (John 6). However, there is no rational ground for such things, since IF He did not MEAN what He said about His words being spirit and life in that context, still, in BREAKING bread, if the latter REALLY were His body, He would have committed suicide. We are told that He was a real man (Hebrews 2) yet without sin.
He needs no grease for
hinges, being a door, or crook for His staff, being a Shepherd. These things
have no real problems for those who simply follow what is stated, without
'help' which some seminaries can provide to outdo the very worst of the
universities of the day.
A SCENE (figurative, but
with meaning) IN HELL
I move, says a demon, that we use 'literalism' as a means of discrediting the Bible.
HOW do you propose to make it serve the grand purpose and glorious design of hell ? asks an interested enquirer at the table of talk.Why ... smiling states the demon, it is simple. USE the fact that sometimes an airy speaker is so fanciful that people begin to wonder what in the world he is talking about.
Or SHE! interjected a female (former) devil.
Or she! he said, being tactful in the light of the triumph he was about to unfold.
Well, he continued, you see it is so simple. You speak of being too literal, meaning that some clod cannot tell the difference between your vaporous imagery and the facts intended. Ah yes! they say, feeling wise. Now they LIKE to feel that, so this is the lurk. Then you move to the Bible. Some people take it too literally! you say. Ah yes! they say, feeling wiser still.
Wait a minute! she interpolated. What does it matter whether or not they feel wiser ?
It is pleasant to the vexed remnants of the ego-centric life.
Why should they be ego-centric, I mean, our targets ? she asked.
They may not be, but in the case of failed lives, it is an eminent possibility. Though I hate to concede it, there is something in our manipulable conscripts - ah! volunteers, which does lack a little rotundity, I suppose because of the control prod input point.
In any case, he continued, I am merely explaining this case as an illustration.
Ah yes, I see, she contentedly murmured, though feeling a grudge for what she felt was his rather patronising tone, a fact he realised, so in proceeding, trying to sound more modest.
Yes, he said, you can see it clearly. Now the targets do not WANT to believe what is actually written in much of this book, the Bible,, since it is a bore, a blight or a duty in their eyes. So they are champing at the bit for a release; but at this stage, their consciences and prudences are too prominent simply to accept the idea of throwing the book away. Some do but most don't.
Very well, he proceeded, his lecturing style augmenting with his sense of success: let us get them to throw away some part of it! This they will do in the understanding that this will help them with the rest, or even better, that it is an uncluttering (you know the Readers' Digest cut-down Bible, filled with assumptions - it was a real glee to see). Then they are both motivated and activated. We progress.
And then ? said a pompous, smouldering sort of personality, from a dark corner in the dismal obscurities, half-hidden, and seemingly content so to be. You know what ? They nurse their wounds.
Then, continued the laughing devil, we talk about the REAL meaning behind such little things as the resurrection, or the miracles or the words of Christ, as though what He said and did were a sort of poem, and the practical point was grace, or kindness or something like that. They all love to think they are filled with this sort of thing, or very often, so that when you pamper them into thinking that by dying on the cross He really meant, being kind, and that by the virgin birth, it meant that God was gracious (like them), and that by the Bible being true, He meant that it was a good stimulus to the intelligent man of affairs to brush up on his own inherent wisdom: it is then that you can throw it out the window (I mean figuratively, he smilingly added, quite delighted at his own wit - but then, you see, it WAS in hell), while keeping the cover inside. They love the cover. It seems to cover so much.
I know, I know, spoke the older, dark devil, smirking just a little, it saves them the trouble of having to even read it (split infinitives may be popular in hell, as on earth); or if they read it, it enables them to pass quickly over anything unpleasant, murmuring contentedly to themselves, saying, 'just imagery,' or 'just poetry,' or 'not the important part'.
Quite, and quite indeed, declaimed the young devil, now growing absurdly confident in his lecture. I KNOW MY FIELD! You have no idea how gullible they are when you strike two points: ONE, their own desires, and TWO their laziness and love of irresponsibility, always done AS IF it were goodness of heart. You know, we have it made, we've got it.
Neo-orthodoxy
did just that sort of thing, and the old fashioned and highly academically
discredited old liberalism, it also did much the same: only they threw out
different things. People then began to collate, and throw out
a) the actual words, so making 'translations'
which did not include the actual CONCEPTS of the original, very often.
b)
the actual deeds, in their minds, just keeping the emotional flavour of the
same.
c)
the actual expositions, as by Paul, inventing for accelerator action, ideas of
some imaginatively conceived 'conflict' between Paul and someone else, so
taking sides and all that. Besides, people like sport, in general, and this
became a sort of grave sport.
In this way, you got so far that some people became a little uneasy under the anaesthetic administered from hell, from its 'gates' if you want to be literal, but really, as you see, it makes no difference; for it MEANS the consultative, construing, outgoing, war-making subtleties and initiatives of the arrogant opponent of God. This is he who would like to take His place, seeking to remove men from the simplicity of the Gospel, its authenticity and the like, while keeping them asleep, after the manner of the five foolish virgins, in the parable of Jesus about final rejection, seen in Matthew 25.
What then ? Then there came along neo-evangelicalism. The 'neo' means that it is a development, and if one were inclined to congratulate the devil, this would be it. One is not, however, going to do so, since it is merely a variation on spiritual potassium cyanide. (You could argue that the 'spiritual' was unnecessary, urging that anyone would know that it here meant the spiritual, since quite obviously the author would not be dabbling in anything so dangerous: correct. See how easy it is! This was just for emphasis.)
Here you DO keep the words (at last! say the disconcerted church-goers, still in some elaborate substitute for a Christian church, despite its departure from the AUTHORITY of the Bible, and the EXPLICIT rejection of this and that statement in it, by such churches). All you do is change your RESPONSE. Thus, take the case where it says take up your cross. The idea is this, that you do not do actually this. It hurts. So instead, you take up the IDEA of taking up your cross. Thus, it is not a question of self-denial, or self-control, or overcoming evil with good. It is just the IDEA of it. It is the FORM which you keep, and cling to heavily, like a clutching child, but the MEANING you ignore. This is the sort of confusion which is predicted in II Timothy 3:5; but it is not really a form of mental confusion, being merely a lack of desire to do what is appallingly clearly described (Paul giving examples in Galatians 2, 5, with I and II Corinthians 4.
Is
it really as bad as that ? THAT is its trend. Thus the separation requirements
are NOT kept, and the Graham approach proceeds in close kinship with the
blatant and much condemned idle idolatries of Romanism. That is how far the
relaxation of meaning leaven can go, while still keeping the FORM of sound
words (cf. SMR pp. 1032-1088H).
Where necessary, in this kind of thing, words can be rejected, but this is
still done sparingly. However you can always talk about interpretation, such as
making it appear that the days of Genesis, when God did this and that by
speaking, were REALLY days of thought, in which He really did quite different
things by quite different means, and REALLY they did it largely by themselves,
anyway, and so on. People take that almost without limit, if they have itchy
ears (II Timothy 4).
BUT REALLY, WHERE DOES IT END ?
It ends wherever Christ
said that departure from His word would end: in the sea. Literally ? Ah, but
you do see, don't you ? Figures do not alter the gravity of it. It is not of
course in a literal sea, but the actual meaning of the actual thing, as we have
been seeing repeatedly above, is quite obviously the substance CONVEYED by the
figure, when it IS a figure. Thus the sea here (forgive me, don't be bored, it
is just to make the point - you know already, of course! and it is this
very fact which one is here illustrating) means what is the fate of the house.
It crumbles into the waiting waters. It departs into obscurity, with pain,
suffering and sorrow, is engulfed, swallowed up, destroyed, ruined, parted
timber from timber. Is the sea, really, so very much better, than that!
COMING TO THE END OF IT, THE NICE WAY
But, someone may say,