How Could It Happen? The Journey from Truth to the Liberalism of A-millennialism

Recently we discussed the tragedy of young, immature men in the ministry who have been drawn into errant theology by intellectuals who pretend to be loyal to the scripture. (The Emerging Church: How Do You Know When?) I have no obligation to protect those who are responsible for this moral crime and no obligation to protect those who allowed themselves to drawn into theological error.  I have repeatedly demonstrated how the path to liberalism is a gradual process.  Those who have chosen to abandon the one biblical hermeneutic may move along this treacherous route quite slowly, while others hasten to their fall from truth.

With a great deal of grief, I think of a young man who, by the grace of God, sat under the teaching of godly men and was shown the value of biblical text, but who later made the mistake of listening to those who have left the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Those teachers were intellectual and philosophical, and that combination often leads to an arrogance which allows folks to twist the text in such a way as to produce their own desired ends.  It is simply a rewriting of the scripture.  The end result was that the student, in a very short time, moved from a biblical context to a tragic end with the liberalism of amillennialism.

This heartache sent me on a search for an answer to the question, “How could this happen?”

ALMOST EVERY DAY

It dawned on me that almost every day I have contact with people who ought to know better, but who appear to be incapable of recognizing theological error.  Some of these individuals are well educated, with graduate and post-graduate degrees.  Some of them majored in theological disciplines, and others have spent a good part of their lives in some kind of ministry.  So what went wrong?  Why is truth not high on their list of priorities?

My pleasure, as well as my responsibility, is to read.  My computer is filled with emails, messages from blogs, and notes from people commenting on all kinds of things.  These folks talk about people, schools, missions, and ministries, but never seem to ask the question of what they believe.  The latest gossip, idea, or opinion fills the pages; but there is very seldom a question about the theology behind all that.  Don’t they know about a theology that is biblical?  I can’t imagine that they don’t care.  The crisis grows when someone does ask the question about doctrinal error.

Such a sincere discussion is seen as an attack on some person, or a lack of love.

Instead of searching the scripture to discover the truth about a subject, the person who asks a question is attacked personally. We learned a long time ago that a person who attacks the messenger instead of dealing with the message has a hidden motive.

COMING TO AN ANSWER

Jesus taught us that we are not to be respecters of persons.  The Bible is about God. Man is spoken of throughout its pages, but the Bible is a revelation about the Sovereign Creator.  That is how we are to deal with doctrine and theology - it is all about God. When someone teaches error, we should hasten to the Bible and the God of the Bible for answers.

Instead we quickly go to the defense of some contemporary evangelical figure, even if he is speaking against the clear statement of the text.

Others jump on the historical band wagon and defend some theological system or historical writer or teacher.  There is not a human living who is not flawed.  There is no movement, denomination, creed, or theological system that is not tainted with error, so why do they rush to defend everything but the scripture?  Some say the scripture needs no defense, but it is that kind of cute talk that buries professing Christianity in error.

This approach doesn’t mean that we can’t have appreciation for people, organizations, and movements.  On the other hand, though, all of these things call for us to ask questions.

We cannot please God and actively cover error, nor should we ignore error.

What kind of pride would ignore the responsibility given to every believer to compare scripture with statements and printed material?

YOU KNEW THIS WAS COMING

Going back to the journey I described at the beginning, something became very clear.  Every one of the statements that troubled me had one thing in common: those who ignored or covered error hold a flawed hermeneutic.  To the person who is committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture, a correct system of biblical interpretation is imperative.  If there is no single system of hermeneutic, then anyone can make the Bible say what he or she wants it to say; and that is exactly why we have error.  Many have chosen a system that allows them to insert whatever they want into the biblical text.  I remind you that this is exactly what is being done with the constitution of our country.  It is the practice of liberals, a way of thinking, and a mindset. That is the reason why, when someone abandons the one biblical hermeneutic, he can come up with any kind of theology or invention to replace it.  That is how a well-intentioned student can leave the truth behind and rapidly take the journey from truth to the liberalism of a-millennialism.  Not only do I have no obligation to protect those who are following this path, but I have no reason, either, to be silent about the evil - no matter how intellectual it may be - of destroying the futures of young men.

Shepherd's Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.

Site Publisher Addendum:

Dr. Mark Dever, one of the star personalities of the so-called conservative evangelicals, believes, preaches and defends amillennialism. Therefore, be mindful of the danger ahead when men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran work in cooperative ministry with and heap lavish praise on Mark Dever apart from any serious warning about Dever's aberrant amillennial theology.

Dr. Clay Nuttall, Platform Sharing & Identification

SHEPHERD’S STAFF: March, 2011

JOIN ME ON THE PLATFORM
When an evangelical evangelist of the past shared the platform with liberals, modernist and apostates, a conflict erupted. Those who would have identified with neo-evangelicalism argued that being on the same platform with them did not indicate their approval of theological error. In general, separatist fundamentalists condemned the practice as a dangerous direction. At this point in history, we know why it was a disaster.

There was one basic reason for rejection of ecumenical platform identification. The problem was not about denominational affiliation or some superficial category; it was wrong because some of the individuals involved held theological error. Certainly there were other things to be considered, but the heart of the issue was biblical doctrine.

Fast forward to the present debate by a group erroneously named “evangelical conservatives”. Some of our friends of long standing argue that sharing the platform with someone who holds theological error is not wrong. In any case, it has already proven to create a great deal of confusion. What the evangelist of the past did was to give aid and comfort to doctrinal error; he gave credibility and momentum to evangelical ecumenism. The end result is that evangelicalism moved further away from a theology that is biblical.

THE DOWNGRADE CONTROVERSY
It is very clear that the theology of many individuals in the plastic category of “evangelical conservatives” hold a very broad view of theological issues. Many of those views are reformed or covenant and some are liberal. For instance, AMillennialism is a liberal doctrine. You will note that I have not called them liberals, but they do embrace liberal doctrine.

Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Kevin Bauder, Sam Harbin on platform with AMillennialist Mark Dever

This is where the heart of the problem lies. If AMillennialism is not a liberal doctrine, the ecumenical nature of this new category called “evangelical conservatives” would seem to be less of a problem. At this point, our friends would have to reject the fact that AMillennialism is a liberal doctrine; if, however, they continue to insist that this doctrine is acceptable and not liberal, we have a clear illustration of the theological downgrade.

Let me return to an illustration of how clear this downgrade is. When the Evangelical Theological Society was given an opportunity to brand the Open View of God as heterodox, it chose instead to see it as orthodox. The Open View of God is not just liberal; it is, in my view, heresy. It is an attack on the very nature and character of God. The downgrade of theology is continuing, and one can only wonder what the motive for such thinking is. One thing is for sure - those who defend joining with those who hold erroneous theology have missed the point. It may have to do with the fact that debating elusive categories such as evangelical conservative is like trying to pick up mercury. Continuing the debate in the framework of a theology that is biblical will make things clear, because it forces us to take a stand on specific theological issues that have fallen prey to the downgrade controversy.

PLATFORM IDENTIFICATION
This present discussion clearly demonstrates the false claim that sharing ministry platform does not identify us with the error that other people hold. It also shows how far afield the discussion of separation has gone. Trying to accuse or defend any position by debating denominational categories, etc., is like running in circles. Furthermore, it is one thing to discuss the theological positions of those who hold an error; it is another to make it clear that specific views are unacceptable.

Theological corruption has a common thread that has to do with the hermeneutic used to develop one’s theological views. Many people claim to use the one biblical hermeneutic - the normal, plain, consistent, literal use of language - but the problem is that they cannot produce their errors by using that required biblical system. The erroneous hermeneutical system that produces AMillennialism is the same system that produces other errors. There is no such thing as an independent error; as with a lie, you can’t tell just one.

I confess that I do not know why people protect error. Is it that they do not know better? Is it that they do not believe, or are there other possible motives? In academia, the young theologian is taught to have respect for other people’s views. It would be better to say that we should have respect for the right of other people to hold different views. To say that all views are equal is an affront to God. One of my administrators plainly told me that I was not allowed to say that someone else’s theological view was wrong; obviously, that person was not a biblical theologian. Can you imagine the cowardly attitude and disobedient heart that would fail to say that the denial of the virgin birth is error?

There remains one more point of irritation in this discussion. We are told that it is alright to brand error as error if the doctrine is central. On the other hand, we are told not to do that when the doctrine is peripheral, but who is going to make that determination for you? The farther a person is toward the left, the more likely it will be that the central doctrines are fewer. In the end, if someone chooses to say that the imminent rapture is not a central doctrine for the church, he has told me more about himself and his system than I could have discovered on my own. How anyone can believe that joining error on the platform is right continues to puzzle me.


Reprinted with Permisssion.
Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by
Clay Nuttall, D.Min

Photo by Darrell Goemaat/Baptist Bulletin. Used by permission.

Site Publisher’s Recommended Related Reading:
Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran [Joined AMillennialist] Mark Dever on the Platform at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists”

Talks, Writes, Speaks Like a Liberal by Dr. Clay Nuttall