Pastor Tod Brainard’s Forward with Change!

New associations and alignments are happening almost on a weekly basis among those who used to be in the camp of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is now fragmented and basically dead.  Those who were once identified with the movement have chosen to align themselves with those they “feel at home with” irregardless of what the Scriptures teach about fellowship with those who are disobedient.

The Trimmers of “Modern Christianity”

“Why trimmest thou thy way to seek love? Therefore hast thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways” (Jeremiah 2:33).  A trimmer is one who will give up precious things in order to have favor with those they want to be with. Compromise is usually a one way street.  A compromiser doesn't mind parting with certain things because he believes the favor he gains from those with whom he is compromising are of greater value.  The Bible says that a “trimmer” through his trimming teaches the wicked ones how to trim.   Imagine, believers teaching unbelievers how to give up what is precious for that which is not. Here is an example from the Old Testament.

King Jehoshaphat was a trimmer. He was one of the good kings of Judah.  There was a temporary awakening under his reign and great victories were won over Judah's enemies. Except for his one striking area of sin, he would be hailed as a leading believer of his day. But God had a real problem with Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat refused to recognize the wickedness of Ahab and withdraw fellowship from him. Instead, King Jehoshaphat “trimmed his way to seek love (favor).”  The Prophet Jehu paid King Jehoshaphat a visit according to II Chronicles 19:2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD?”  A short time later Jehoshaphat trimmed some more by joining himself “with Ahaziah, king of Israel, who did very wickedly: And he joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish” (II Chronicles 20:35-36).  Making ships is not a doctrinal issue. But it is sin when it involves disobedience. This effort at compromise did not succeed, as the ships were broken and unable to go to Tarshish. King Jehoshaphat's amiable compromise (trimming) failed to produce the hoped for unity and benefits that were sought after.

Dr. Matthew Olson and Trimming!

There is a great lesson from history here in II Chronicles 20 but there are few today who will heed its warnings. I am watching with great sorrow of heart the decline of the once Fundamentalist Bible college now known as Northland International University. Its current president, Matthew R. Olson, has been trimming his way to seek favor with groups outside the Fundamentalist remnant for some time now.  He has trimmed his connections to what was known as Fundamentalism and now is seeking alliances with those outside the separatist mindset (Sovereign Grace Movement; [T4G] Rick Holland, etc.). 

Recently, he blogged of his positive visit to Grace Bible Church of Philadelphia, PA. Grace Bible is a Charismatic church affiliated with the S. G. M. which aligns itself with New Evangelical associations and is non-cessationalist (sic) in its view of sign gifts.1   Olson has to-date made no mention in his blog of the conflict between the doctrinal statement of Northland International University of which he is president (which states that it stands against the Charismatic movement) and his statements regarding his fellowship with the Charismatic Grace Bible Church of Philadelphia.  Most honorable men would confess their new found beliefs and their rejection of the old ones. Yet, Olson is somehow seeking to publicly marry the two belief systems in his own mind in order to keep both and justify his new position.

When Christians rationalize change, it always seems to be toward a spiritually-diminished position. Our founding editor, Dr. Dayton Hobbs, always said that, and I have found it to be true.  The trend seems to be always downward, never up.   This is so because the compromiser is the one who is giving up the most. He cannot help himself. The compromiser stumbles over himself to trim his way to seek favor. In addition, the compromiser develops a pattern of living that constantly puts him in a spiral of spiritual decline and eventual ruin. His entire journey downward, however, is declared to be “new-found freedom” in Christ. How incredible!

I want to give you some observations about what leads men to compromise as King Jehoshaphat did.

There is a nagging, persistent desire on the part of the compromiser to have a wider acceptance among peer-groups. Separatist practices stand in the way of that happening. The compromiser believes that his circle of influence and friends is too narrow if Biblical separation is practiced. As did King Jehoshaphat, he moves to be more open and accepting of men of differing viewpoints and labels those viewpoints as non-essentials. Jehoshaphat saw himself as a positive influence in the life of Ahab. His first move was to “join affinity” (II Chronicles 18:1) with Ahab. He liked Ahab on a personal level and was willing to cooperate with him in spite of his wicked and corrupt ways. He later allied himself with Ahaziah perhaps with the same mentality. Yet God sent His prophet Jehu to expose and rebuke that corrupt thinking.

HOLINESS

There is a tendency to make the Gospel alone the central rallying point for fellowship these days among peers, rather than the Gospel and Holiness unto God together.  “Be ye holy, for I am holy” seems to be more of a “non-essential” rather than a command of Scripture for the compromiser.  The “Gospel” on the other hand and “reaching the lost” has a  “community-oriented feel” in the mind of the compromiser and, therefore, becomes the rallying point for fellowship apart from the practice of Biblical Separation. Here is the problem, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is no-where presented in the New Testament as being in tension with the doctrine of Biblical Separation. Bible Doctrines do not conflict, they mesh. Yet, the compromiser creates a false tension and sides with the Gospel against Biblical Separation.

Notice the meshing of the two doctrines in Titus 2:11-15, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”  There is no question here that the Gospel and Biblical Separation (Purity) go together. 

Again the two doctrines are meshed beautifully in II Thessalonians 3:1-7, “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. And we have confidence in the Lord teaching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.”  Now notice what Paul says as his first command to the Thessalonians after he says that he has confidence that they will do the things which he commands, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you....” 

You cannot dismiss the Word of God on this issue. The Gospel and the Biblical Doctrine of Separation are not in conflict, they mesh and blend harmoniously together.

Only compromisers find tension and reject Biblical separation because it goes against their nature and their agenda.

 Another observation, the compromiser has a hard time admitting his compromise. The compromiser seeks to justify his trimming to seek favor of those from whom he should be withdrawing. To date, Dr. Olson has not admitted publicly that he has changed his mind about his view of Charismatics. As a matter of fact, he wrote recently, the following on his blog: “I can visit a church on Sunday morning, fellowship with believers, love what I am seeing, encourage fellow believers in what they are doing – and still choose not to join that particular local assembly.”2 By this he suggests that the theology and practice of a local Charismatic church is no longer a point of debate or departure from the faith. The Northland International University handbook states that they do not cooperate with Charismatics (2011-2013 Handbook available online). Yet clearly there is a conflict. How is this possible? Again, Jehoshaphat comes to mind. When the Prophet Jehu came to see him, he said, according to II Chronicles 19:2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD?”  Jehoshaphat, according to God, (this was not just Jehu's opinion about the situation) was helping the ungodly and loving them that hated God. Yet Jehoshaphat thought in his own mind that he was doing a good thing. There was a conflict!  Who was right and who was wrong?  The compromiser always justifies his position as being good and helpful and tries to back it up with “biblical language” (“unconditional love”, “its all about the Gospel”, “we’re reaching out in love”, “unity and cooperation for the cause of Christ”, among many other catch words and phrases).

World Magazine (August 25, 2012 edition) recently published an article by Marvin Olasky entitled, Soaping the Slippery Slope, in which he culls from two recently released books on the topic of the decline of once-Christian colleges (Beloit College, Dartmouth, Syracuse University, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc.) into bastions of unbelief. The two books, The Soul of the American University, by George Marsden and The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches, by James Burtchaell, chronicle the demise of once Christian colleges when they moved from theologically conservative stances to liberal stances.  Olasky distills the two books into three central messages: (1) Follow the money, (2) Watch the college president, (3) See what the college does with Darwin.  Olasky does an admirable job illustrating from the knowledge he gleaned from the two books how once Christian colleges took deliberate, though seemingly small steps of change because of financial pressures, cultural pressures, compromising college presidents and the acceptance of evolutionary thought. Marvin Olasky’s article is a wake-up call for our Christian college and university presidents who are pushing change. 

I pray that Dr. Olson will step back from his compromise and get back to what Northland used to stand for and train students to live godly, separated lives standing firmly on the foundation of the Holy Bible. He is not alone in his compromise though.  We are witnessing several “Fundamental” colleges trimming their way to seek favor with the Federal government, favor with compromising pastors and churches, and favor with the culture. It has been my experience that admissions of change and wrong-headed thinking are hard to come by once the moves and changes are made, and we will probably witness the demise of several more “Fundamental” colleges and universities into the mire of compromise.  God save us!     Ω

1) Grace Bible Church, Our Teaching for an overview of their teachings including the sign gifts.

2) What Matters Most Series and Lou Martuneac’s In Defense of the Gospel for links to Dr. Olson’s comments on Grace Bible Church of Philadelphia. [See below]

Related Reading:

Is NIU Opposed to and Reject[ing of] the Modern Charismatic Movement?

  

Don Johnson’s Getting What Matters Most at his an oxgoad, eh blog

NIU Students Perform“Jesus Loves Me” and It’s Blasphemy

Is NIU “Unchanged?”

Reprinted by permission of the author

Dr. Clay Nuttall: Singular Headship

In [a] previous issue, I took up the challenge of some readers to point out areas where the scholars have gotten it wrong. We dealt with the issue of elders in the church. If you missed that one, consider going to our website where it is posted. Careless scholarship has created two groups who snipe at each other from their towers of human reason. The Bible is in the middle of this war, and because it has the answers, that is where we want to focus.

Let me repeat for you that the problem isn’t about plurality of elders, or elder rule. These are clearly taught in scripture, even if we have ignored them. The point of discussion is “Who is qualified to be an elder?” A careful study of the text firmly establishes that the words “elder, bishop, overseer, shepherd, pastor” are all referring to the same person. He is all of these, or he is none of them. He is a shepherd, and the Bible explains what that entails. The simplest form of the local church is not where two or three are gathered together; it is sheep with a shepherd. Yet there are those who, because they have decided that headship is multiple, use an errant hermeneutic, arguing that some sheep who are not shepherds can be elders.

Against my better judgment, I refer you to an article on “The Plurality Principle” on page 83 of The Practical Aspects of Pastoral Theology. The author of that particular chapter is Christopher Cone. The writings of a number of other authors are included in the book, including some who are the finest in their field, but “The Plurality Principle” article is a hermeneutical disaster.

It is a perfect example of what happens when we try to defend a presupposition and force the scripture to comply.

I know this is a strong evaluation, but it demonstrates the ease with which a theological pretzel can be manufactured. If you think that this amounts to attacking a brother rather than exposing an idea, I beg you to read other articles in the Shepherd’s Staff archives.

THE BACKGROUND OF SINGULAR HEADSHIP

All of creation teaches clearly that headship is singular. It is God’s plan. An animal with two heads is not normal, and a multiple-headed being is viewed as a monster. When God created the home, He created single headship. Every time He stepped into the molding of society, He created single headship. The patriarchs, judges, and kings whom God chose were singular headship leaders. When God chose Moses, He knew what he was doing and He made no mistake. The people may have erred, but God did not. To argue that God was wrong in His singular choices because the people failed is to argue from error, not truth. Even the Godhead reflects this headship concept. Someone once said that “God so loved the world that He didn’t send a committee or a board; He gave us the God-man.”

Anyone who has some years of leadership under his belt knows that there is no vacuum in leadership. Someone always rises to the top. It is as natural as breathing. It is how God made us. You can see this working out in the record of the New Testament local church. It is evident with James in Acts chapter 15 and with Paul in his epistles, as well as with those who traveled with Paul, planting and bringing order to the local churches. The record of local churches in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation are simple if only we will just let the text speak for itself. Nothing speaks more clearly than an honest understanding of the role of the shepherd. Shepherds come one at a time. If the flock was too large, there would be multiple shepherds, just as in a local church. How could there be any question that there is also singular headship where there are multiple pastors? Any other plan would be a disaster. John chapter 10 and I Peter 5 are only a couple of clear examples of this. There may have been hirelings, apprentices, etc., but just because they did some shepherding did not mean they were shepherds. Remember that all of creation teaches what we see in a local flock - singular headship. Multiple shepherds with the flock, perhaps, but there had to be singular headship. At this point, you may wish to read chapter 7, “The Shepherd and His Sheep,” in my book, The Weeping Church.

MISGUIDED ARGUMENTS

Let me encourage you to review the one biblical hermeneutic. It will assist the reader in seeing how ignorance of, or ignoring this God-given plan of interpretation, will always create error. When we come to such a subject as this, we must pay attention to the language, context, and historical setting of the text if we are to come to a biblical conclusion.

I am stunned at the idea that God had one plan - singular headship - from the beginning of time and used it throughout the life of Israel…and suddenly it is no longer true in the church age? In the chapter by Dr. Cone mentioned above, he argues that singular headship in this age supports the replacement theory, which posits that Israel has been replaced by the church. The fact is that many, if not most of those who reject the replacement theory, hold to singular headship. Creating straw men like this is not helpful. Let me point out, though, that Cone doesn’t use the term “headship,” but instead uses “leadership.” These terms are not the same. Not all leaders have headship, but all who have headship have leadership.

Those who have missed the meaning of the plurality texts would normally argue that Christ is the head of the church. That is true if you are talking about the body of Christ - that is, those who have been saved since Pentecost or will be saved up until the time of the rapture. It may sound spiritual to say that Christ is the head of the local church, but it is error not to recognize that Christ, “the Chief Shepherd,” has appointed under-shepherds/pastors to lead and head the local church. This designated headship is stated clearly in I Corinthians 11:3, which says that “the head of Christ is God, the head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man.” Christ has made the husband/father the head of the home, just as he has designated headship in the church. We have clearly seen that this, and all headship, is singular.

So in the church, where the workload must be shared, Christ would have appointed other shepherds to carry the load; but the Bible teaches that headship is singular. A church with multiple heads is a monster. It might please human reason for us to order our churches like corporations and flawed forms of human government, but does it please God?

I am also astounded by those who claim that the Bible does not provide us with a pattern for polity, or church government.

That fits right in with the thinking of others who would like to be free to rewrite the Bible. It is equal to the nonsense that says the Bible doesn’t speak to music, or alcohol, or adultery. They may want it that way, but God has a plan for anyone who is interested.

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. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

http://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com

Dr. Clay Nuttall, Let the Weeping Begin

The nation I live in is deeply divided, more deeply even than it was prior to the Civil War.  It is not divided by political parties; it is divided between liberal and conservative perspectives.  It is now a matter of record that the majority of U.S. citizens want nothing to do with biblical Christianity.  Those who hate the Sovereign Creator and His children have been emboldened, feeling now that they have a mandate to make everyone think and act like they do.  They despise the authoritative message of God’s Word, and the fermenting hatred that has been boiling under the surface is set free to overrun a once great nation.

I am sure you think all this is very negative, but ignorance or denial is not helpful.  I am fully aware that Jeremiah got into a lot of trouble by saying things like this.  There are some things that we most assuredly know; think about them:

1. No one ever rises to power in this world without the permission of our God.  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.  (Romans 13:1)

2. When the wicked rule, God’s people will suffer.  He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  (Proverbs 29:1, 2)

3. God is a holy and righteous God.  While He is indeed merciful, He is also a God of justice and judgment.  The existence of hell and the lake of fire are evidence of this. (see Revelation 20:15)

Yesterday I posted the following prayer on Facebook: “Dear Heavenly Father, we know this nation deserves judgment for its horrible sin, but we plead for mercy.  If it is Your time for judgment, we pray that believers will have the strength to face the persecution that is sure to follow.  We pray that there will be repentance and a true revival among believers.” 

WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW THE WICKED TO RULE?

The Old Testament is replete with examples of how God used wicked rulers to punish a nation. This is even true of Israel.  It is hard to understand how any believer could miss the reason why our nation deserves judgment.  I understand that some moderate evangelicals oppose this idea, and that obviously rises from their bad habit of “dumbing down” sin.  America has sanctioned the murder of untold numbers of unborn babies; that fact alone would call for the wrath of God.  The open approval of sodomy is another sure sign that judgment must come.  The headline on my computer right now states that Maine and Maryland have voted to approve sodomite unions. The move for America to turn against Israel has been on a fast track, and no nation in history has ever raised its hand against God’s chosen people without guaranteeing its own destruction in due time.  The favored status of Islam in our nation does not bode well for us.  Our Sovereign Creator God is no longer welcome in our schools, commerce, courts, society, or even in some churches.  God has obviously chosen to judge this nation, and His judgment has already begun.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO TRUE BELIEVERS?

Paul told Timothy that in the last days the Word of God would be the believer’s strength.  There never was a time in our lives when the Book was more important.  It is the source of our authority, comfort, and direction.  The church has followed the world into the pit of sin and has made believers numb to the things that offend God.  Repentance and revival need to be sounded from the pulpit, and the earnest prayer of confession and intercession needs to ring through the hearts of believers.  We cannot depend on professing believers, because they can be more of a hindrance than a help.  We cannot look to the wicked, the children of the devil, as they are at enmity with God.  They are dead in trespasses and sin with no ability to do good as God sees it.

We should not be at all surprised at the words and actions of the lost.  They have done the bidding of their father, the devil.  We have not yet seen the worst they can do; but we see them for what they are, and they have not disappointed us in this.  What has been a disappointment is the lack of action on the part of those who call themselves believers.  Why would the strong words in this article offend the believer?  Why would we spend time defending evil?  Why would we want to use soft words about sins that God says He hates?

The judgment that stands at our door is at least in part the responsibility of evangelicals and fundamentalists. Those who have learned their lessons - words from the liberal mindset, with form over content and meaning - have aided the coming of judgment.  Believers cannot expect help from them.  They will continue to compromise and even question the judgment of God.

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?

Those who love God and His Word can expect difficult times and persecution.  This is not a guess; it is based on what we know has already happened.  There was a time when sodomy was disdained as a capital crime, but then a permissive attitude gradually began to prevail.  Now there is a big drive to make it legal, and with that comes a requirement for everyone to accept it.  Some are already being legally penalized for not accepting this abomination. Believers can expect to be incarcerated for open opposition.  Those in charge have again today openly pledged a massive raise in taxes.  The church will not escape this taxation, and it would be well for every church to have its leaders sit down and decide how they will handle this when it comes.  Because the liberal model cannot and will not accept successful competition, any education outside of the state model – including Christian schools – can expect impossible intrusion.

Yes, there will be tears, but our tears will be for the lost greatness of a nation, the loss of our liberty, the setting aside of the constitution, the rewarding of lawbreakers - a nation of fools.  The coming judgment should not be a surprise to any of us. (See I Timothy 3:1 and I Peter 4:13-19)    

In June of 2011, my book entitled The Coming Conflict was republished with the idea that the truth in it would soon be needed.  The book is about “the separation of church and state,” but it outlines much of what there is no room for here.  It is available at: The Coming Conflict; by Clay Nuttall, Faithful Life Publishers, (888)720-0950, or e-mail us at info@flpublishers.com

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – November, 2012

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.  Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

http://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com

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

Incompatible Gospels: The Misfit of Lordship Salvation and Gospel-Centric Fellowship

There may not be any problem more common among men, even good men, than their being inconsistent.  All men say one thing and then fail to always live by what they have professed.  It is a problem of a different kind when men try for whatever reason to join together two things that are not compatible.  While in this life inconsistency in itself is unavoidable, attempts to force a conjoining of incompatible properties or principles is not necessary.

In Fundamental circles there are two growing trends.  The first trend is for a man to begin to espouse a Gospel message that curiously has the same tints and shadows cast from one of Dr. John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to . . . books.  The second trend is for a man to publically reveal that he has been awakened to a Gospel-centric orientation concerning his Christian fellowship.  Rather than just re-examine whether the Biblical focus concerning fellowship is a pure Gospel or a pure church I would like to draw attention to these questions: How can someone claim a belief in a narrow Lordship-defined Gospel and also claim that they fellowship around a broad non-Lordship defined Gospel?  Likewise, how can someone claim that it is all about the Gospel and not care enough about the definition of the Gospel that would publically place them in agreement with or against Lordship salvation?

How a Lordship Gospel and a Gospel-centric Fellowship are Incompatible

Lordship Salvation Defined

According to the proponents of the Gospel of Lordship Salvation there is more than just grace and faith to being saved.  In their pontifications of this Gospel, these proponents over and over again advance the notion that obedience and surrender are just as important as or even more important than grace and faith for genuine personal salvation.  Read their words for yourself.

Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . .  It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is.  And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ.  Nothing less can qualify as saving faith. (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.) 

That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment.  A desire for Him at any cost.  Unconditional surrender.  A full exchange of self for the Savior.  It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom. (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised and Expanded Edition], p. 148.) 

There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation. (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160)

The Gospel according to them is that a person must make a commitment of absolute surrender and obedience to Christ in order to be really saved.  Any Gospel that does not make that requirement is not the true Gospel, but a false one.

Gospel-centric Fellowship Defined

The doctrine of Gospel-centric fellowship is fairly simple to understand.  Its adherents generally believe that since the Gospel is the main thing and everything else is secondary to it in importance that they can fellowship with anyone and everyone who is a believer in the Gospel.  Here is their reasoning: since the Gospel is the foundation of what it is to be a true Christian, it should also be accepted to be the only true touchstone for Christian fellowship.  Doctrinal questions about baptism (whether its immersion or sprinkling; for believers or babes), spiritual gifts (whether there is a continuing revelation or a completed one), or miracles (whether they ceased or continue today) and doubtful practical applications (whether one shouldn’t drink at all or just not get drunk; whether music is amoral or has spiritual implications; or whether Christ is or is not against, in, for, above, or otherwise prepositioned to culture) do not and should not have any bearing on Christian fellowship.  In the end these things will not matter as much so they must not matter as much now.  All believers should unite and center their lives around the simple Gospel because of its central importance.

So then how can a man hold to both of these positions?  If a man believes that the Gospel message necessitates absolute obedience to Christ for there to be saving faith, but then that same man fellowships with someone regardless of his fidelity to Biblical truth that man compromises that Gospel.  This is not just an unavoidable inconsistency but an attempt to force together two incompatible Gospels to the disregarding of one or both.  If someone holds to a Gospel of obedience to Christ then it should follow that their fellowship should also be around a Gospel of obedience to Christ.  As it stands now, too many men are trying to preach two different Gospels.  They preach a Gospel of obedience for salvation, but then fellowship around another one that is accepting of disobedience in doctrine and practice.  How, on the one hand, can obedience to Christ be of such importance that without it no one can be saved but, on the other hand, be of such little importance that it plays no role with whom a Christian should fellowship?

If It Only Were About the Gospel of Christ
If it were all about the importance of the Gospel then variations of the Biblical Gospel would matter.  No man could truly believe in the utmost importance of the Gospel, but then walk in the shadows when it comes to matters of a Crossless or Lordship Gospel.  His voice would be clear and distinct defining with great clarity where he stood.

The truth is that the Gospel does matter, and it matters much.  But its place of importance rather than diminishing other Scriptural teachings elevates them all in importance.  Because the Gospel matters, everything else matters.  Because Christ is my Savior, everything He taught should be important to me.

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  Matthew 4:4

Then from the Great Commission itself, we read these words,

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . . Matthew 20:28

It seems inconceivable that someone who understands the message of the cross would use that message as their justification to ignore wrong.  No man should believe that the same God, who will so richly reward us for the smallest deed done for Him, will ignore and pass over our variations from sound doctrine and practice.  If in this truth men were willing to live all about the Gospel, all would be well.


Evangelist Gordon Phillips

Site Publisher's Addendum:

This is an article written by Gordon Phillips.  It is jointly reproduced here by permission. I encourage you to post any comments and interact with Greg at his Faith, Theology & Ministry blog.

Dr. Clay Nuttall: Once Upon An Election

He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  (Proverbs 29:1-2)

My students know that I seldom deal with suppositions.  The Bible is full of factual information that calls for obedience, and that should occupy the center of our attention.  I admit that the question of “what if” may be entertaining, but it often leads to the invention of non-truths - the kind of things that can be found in the “theological error of the month.”  The same is true of prognostication.  I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.  While God knows every detail of the future, we don’t know much about it at all.  What we do know is what has been given to us in the divine revelation of the word of God; going any further than that can be dangerous.  The Bible also gives us adequate information about a holy God, and our understanding of what may be in the future rests on who He is and what He has said.

This article is not a guess about who is going to win an election; it is about what we already know.  It seems astounding that people could know, and give support to, the very things that will destroy their way of life.  Giving consent to deconstruction would cause anyone to ask, why?  Cheering moral depravation, mocking the work ethic, and creating a society of dependent slaves chills the bones of any thinking, moral person.  A culture that is exceedingly proud of its intellectualism, but that has abandoned common sense, is headed for disaster.  Why would people deliberately surrender freedoms that are so dear, freedoms that were won by the blood of our forefathers? 

It is true that some of these people live in denial because they are so practiced at accepting a lie. Others think their elite liberal perspective can triumph and destroy all conservative perspective and practice.  Like all false religions that their belief cannot conquer with truth, they must force their beliefs on others and imprison them in a humanistic mold.  The leaders of the elite are deliberate in their creation of a slave culture; everyone must be equal except them.  Examples of this include dictators, socialists, and communist societies as well as those controlled by a single intolerant religion.

WHAT IF THEY WIN?

We have no idea what will actually happen, but some things we do know.  History teaches many lessons about nations that take such drastic turns.  That is another story.   Some things we do know for sure: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  (Romans 13:13)  No one rises to power without the knowledge and permission of the sovereign eternal creator of the universe.

The next question is, why would God allow such a person with a wicked, anti-god agenda to come to power?  This answer is also in the Bible.  God has often directed or allowed the wicked to rule in order to judge a nation for its sins.  The scripture describes how God has allowed destruction of a country when its wickedness overwhelmed the land.  The wholesale murder of the unborn and the acceptance of sodomy in our own nation are sufficient evils to warrant the judgment of God.  Then there is the rejection of, and opposition to, Israel; that alone is sufficient to bring the judgment of God.  When a people turn their backs on a holy God, we can be sure that He will send judgment, which often is done through allowing wicked men to be in authority.

We also know from the Bible text that God uses such terrible times for the benefit of his own people - in this age, the church.  It is true that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.”  It is also true that persecution tends to bring more spiritual awareness on the part of believers.  In an affluent economy, even believers tend to expect help from the things of this world, with less dependence on God.  Where a government provides everything from the cradle to the grave, it becomes a matter of “who needs God, anyway?”  This attitude seems to be especially prevalent among the younger generation of today.  In the main, they have little interest in heaven and the things to come; rather, their lives are focused on the here and now, the things of this world.  Even the church has failed in this area.  Music, message, and ministry tend to be more about earthly things than heavenly goals.  When we collect prayer requests, very few of them anymore are about the lost.  Heaven has faded behind the fog of things, people, and stuff.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

Before we list the failures of liberalism, socialism, and humanism, we should observe our own weaknesses. The church in our nation has failed to obey the clear teaching of scripture.  We have not shared the good news with those who are implementing the deconstruction.  The church has become apologetic about the truth in the whole counsel of God.  Believers have not only fallen in love with the things of this world; they have downgraded the meaning and effect of sin.

One of the most disturbing developments has come from popular evangelicals, moderates, and intellectuals, who keep telling us that sin is not all that bad. 

This dumbing down of evil is oh, so slick. If there is some offense to God that they don’t think is really so bad, they just tell us that “the Bible doesn’t speak to that.” 

After all, they are the elite, and they think they just may know more than God. When a heinous practice is condemned by those who teach the holiness of God, this group reminds us that no sin is worse than any other and we shouldn’t be so hard on that crowd.  It doesn’t seem to matter to them that God has condemned that practice.

Finally, there are the misguided leaders who keep reminding us that we shouldn’t deal with the bad in this world.  We are told not to speak out on political things.  Don’t bother voting; just love people, forgive them, and let them make their own choices.  While love, forgiveness, and soul liberty are important, that is not all that the Bible teaches.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MATTER?

The big question is, what are we supposed to do?  The writings of the apostle Peter will answer much of that question.  No matter who wins, temporarily there will be persecution and suffering.  Paul’s epistle to the Philippians outlines how it is possible to retain one's testimony and joy when circumstances appear to gang up on us.  For now, we need to go back to the Bible for instruction as to why we should speak out on matters of righteousness, and that would include speaking for truth at the polls.  The real power, however, is in prayer.  So, how should we pray in light of all of this?  It is easy to construct an imprecatory prayer against those that we disagree with.  Contrary to the intellectual view, there are times to pray for such a victory…as long as we leave it with God.

Have you ever thought about what would happen if we were to participate in concentrated prayer for the salvation of a wicked ruler?  If God were to act in response to the cry of His people, the major problem would be solved in a split second!  This reminds me of the terrorist who was saved a couple years ago in the morning service of a student church planter.  In one second, he went from being a destructive force to being instead a man who will never fly a plane into a building in order to destroy hundreds of innocent people.  He came to church a coward, but left that morning a man of courage who now helps people instead of hating them.

SHEPHERD'S STAFF – October, 2012

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.  Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com 

What is Lordship Salvation and Why Does it Matter?

There is an on-going debate over a certain segment of fundamentalists preaching and practicing a new paradigm shift for separation commonly known as “gospel-driven separation” or “gospel centric fellowship.” Today, the primary mantra has been “It’s all about the Gospel,” from which doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromise is tolerated or excused for the sake of fellowship around the gospel.  But, what sort of gospel message is the rallying point for this kind of compromised fellowship and cooperative ministry?

“There is today a very subtle shift that, on the surface, is very persuasive…. Rather than base separatism on the Bible, the whole counsel of God, we should use as our test the Gospel. There is a plea that says the only doctrines for which we should contend are those doctrines that impinge directly upon the Gospel…. That [Gospel-Centric separatism] broadens our fellowship incredibly to include organizations and individuals who are patently disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture and yet are somehow tolerated, vindicated and even honored in some of our circles.”1

In recent articles we have been considering why there should be no fellowship or cooperative efforts with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The reasons include aberrant theology such as non-cessationism, amillenialism, ecumenical compromise, embracing the world’s music in the form of RAP, Hip Hop and CCM for ministry. All of these are grounds for withdrawing from and having no fellowship with believers who teach and do these things. All of this, however, is being tolerated, allowed for, excused or ignored by certain men who minister in fundamental circles, men who are forging cooperative ministries with the evangelicals and influencing the next generation to follow them.  There is, however, one overarching concern that trumps all of these issues with the evangelicals combined. That is Lordship Salvation!

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. Lordship views “saving faith” as incomplete without an accompanying resolve to “forsake sin” and to “start obeying.” Lordship’s “sine qua non” (indispensable condition) that must be met to fully define “saving faith,” for salvation, is a commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience. (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 48.)

It is virtually impossible not to know that the evangelicals, almost to a man, believe, preach and defend Lordship Salvation (LS). When the T4G and Gospel Coalition conferences convene they gather around the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Certain men in fundamental circles, however, are drawn together in “gospel-centric” fellowship with evangelicals. They are gathering around a common acceptance of and bond in Calvinistic soteriology, primarily in the form of Lordship Salvation.    

Following are samples of Lordship’s corruption of the Gospel for justification.

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation.” (Dr. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? pp. 219.) 

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior.” (MacArthur, Ibid, p. 150.) 

“If you want to receive this gift [salvation] it will cost you the total commitment of all that you are to the Lord Jesus Christ.”  (Ps. Steven Lawson, The Cost of Discipleship: It Will Cost You Everything.) 

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.) 

“This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience--unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Based on clear, unambiguous statements from advocates of LS thousands in Fundamentalism reject LS as a corrupt and false interpretation of the gospel.  Dr. Kevin Bauder published a serious misrepresentation of a known fact when he wrote that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.”2  Kevin Bauder has never edited or retracted that statement.

When the Lordship advocate speaks of “following Christ,” he is speaking of the gospel. When John MacArthur refers to “The Cost of Following Christ,” he really means “The Cost to Receive Christ.” MacArthur believes there is a “Real Cost of Salvation,” or more accurately a “Real Cost for Salvation.” He believes that the gospel demands a commitment of one’s life, and a promise of surrender to the lordship of Christ in an up-front “exchange” for the reception of salvation. (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 82.)

Dr. Ernest Pickering recognized that LS, as MacArthur defined it, was a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Following are two excerpts from Dr. Pickering’s review of the first edition (1988) of John MacArthur’s  The Gospel According to Jesus.

“MacArthur laments, ‘Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit’ (p. 96).  This theme recurs over and over again in the book.  The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of ‘merely’ believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life.  It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures.  Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, ‘The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel…’” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 70.)

“One of the chief objections to the notion of ‘lordship salvation’ is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of ‘lordship salvation’ tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God.”

Several months after an April 2010 personal meeting with Dr. MacArthur NIU president Dr. Matt Olson announced that with MacArthur they “agree on the most substantive issues of life and ministry.”3 Then Olson hosted MacArthur’s executive pastor Rick Holland in the NIU chapel pulpit to address impressionable young people.4 NIU would not have had Rick Holland in its pulpit, or validated John MacArthur’s doctrine and ministry if the administration had any serious reservations over Lordship Salvation. With Olson’s statement on MacArthur and putting Holland in the chapel pulpit NIU stamped its approval on and endorsed a false gospel, namely “Lordship Salvation.”

Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel?”  Men in fundamental circles who are converging with the evangelical advocates of Lordship Salvation are either tolerating an egregious error or have themselves embraced Lordship Salvation and are rallying around it in gospel-centric fellowship with like-minded evangelicals. Have Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, et. al., been willing to state in unvarnished terms whether or not they believe LS as John MacArthur, John Piper, Steve Lawson, et. al., “believe, preach and defend” it is the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Lordship Salvation is not the gospel!  LS clouds, confuses and complicates the Gospel. LS corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).  Above all other considerations (aberrant theology, ecumenism and worldliness) we cannot fellowship, promote or cooperate with evangelicals who “believe, preach and defend” Lordship Salvation.


LM

Related Reading:.
For a clear, concise example of the egregious error that is Lordship Salvation please read, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page.  This article is a reproduction of an appendix entry by the same name that appears on pp. 284-286 of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.  In it I examine a statement by John MacArthur that appears in all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus.  You will find that there is no more clear example of Lordship Salvation’s corruption of the simplicity that is Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

As an addendum please see, Lordship Salvation Requirements by Pastor George Zeller

What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?
“How can there be unity within a fellowship when two polar opposite interpretations of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ are accepted as legitimate?”

Footnotes:
1) Pastor Marc Monte, Preserving the Separatist Impulse

2) Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?”
“There is no universal ‘mutuality in the gospel’ among evangelicals and fundamentalists. ‘Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,’ because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the one true Gospel. It is irrefutable, and Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology in the form of LS as a false, works based Gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in “conservative” evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Dr. Bauder is also well aware of.”

3) Dr. Matt Olson, Open Letter To Friends in Ministry, November 23, 2010.

4) Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

Archival Series: Should We Abandon the Name “BAPTIST?”

In light of the previous articles’ discussion of both the Highland Park Baptist Church* and the former Northland Baptist Bible College dropping “Baptist” from their names I present to you the following from Dr. Ernest Pickering (1928-2000).

SPECIAL PROBLEM—COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES
Many colleges and seminaries were brought into existence by the prayers and sacrificial giving of fundamental Baptist people. There has developed in some of these schools an “itch” to distance themselves as far as possible from their Baptist roots (the “denominational walls” as some have called them), become more broadly “evangelical” in their posture, while retaining, insofar as possible, the support of their Baptist constituency.  One such school, long part of the Baptist movement in the United States, embarked on a course to change its name.  While publicly asserting they were not really changing anything essential, and while “pushing the right buttons” so as to assure their long-time constituents that everything was all right, the president of this institution had a definite agenda in mind which did not coincide with the historic position of the college. It was the president’s intent to move the school away from the separatist Baptist position it had historically occupied.

In a set of notes distributed only to the Executive Committee of the institution, the president, who had only recently come from a position in an interdenominational, new evangelical school, lamented that for all these years the college had been cut off from the “conservative evangelical community” due to its Baptist image.  Since he believed this “evangelical community” needed a liberal arts college to which they could send their students, he proposed to his Executive Committee (and later to the Board of Trustees) that the Baptist school make the changes necessary in order to enable them to fill that need.  One of his principal declared goals was to “broaden the student and supporting constituency to include all conservative evangelicals.” He suggested the school pattern itself after the Moody Bible Institute and “de-emphasize denominational walls.”  In other words, for all practical purposes, the school would cease to be a Baptist institution in the sense that its founders originally intended.  Those who began the school never envisioned it to be training ground for “evangelicals.”  They purposed for it to be a center for the training of people who would have Baptist convictions to serve in fundamental Baptist churches.

The entire purpose of the founders has now been perverted.

Part of the plan to change the institution involved the creation of a special board of reference apart from the regular governing board.  Members of this board would not have to meet the same doctrinal and ecclesiastical requirements as members of the regular board, so that “prominent evangelical Christians whose church membership might otherwise exclude them from the Board of Trustees” could serve.  The name of the college was to be changed and the name “Baptist” removed from the publicized title in order to give it the desired broader image.  The proposed program has now been completed. The name is changed, the college is moving in a broader sphere, and yet it still retains its approval as an official Baptist training institution by a national body of Baptist churches.

CONCLUSION:
The current infatuation with abandoning the name “Baptist” is but part of a larger problem in the church today—the effort to minimize differences and magnify similarities.  It is also propelled by the enormous pressures of the evangelical ecumenical movement which is gathering people of various denominational persuasions in large meetings with the express purpose of breaking down denominational prejudices (a la “Promise Keepers”).  True Baptists cannot and ought not be part of such efforts.  The convictions we hold are not merely “denominational prejudices.”  They are divinely—revealed truths rooted in the Holy Scriptures.  Let us not apologize for them, but preach them and teach them in the power of the Spirit so that future generations may continue to faithfully stand by them.

Dr. Ernest D. Pickering, Th.D.
Copyright 2004 by Baptist World Mission
Reprinted by permission (excerpt pp. 6-8, 12; bold added)

*What Do Pillsbury, Tennessee Temple & Northland Have in Common?

Site Publisher Commentary
From nearly 20 years ago Dr. Pickering, in seemingly prophetic imagery, was articulating what we see unfolding in fundamental Baptist circles today.  An example such as: Under the direction of Dr. Matt Olson the former Northland “Baptist” Bible College “embarked on a course to change its name while publicly asserting they were not really changing anything essential.” See, Is NIU “Unchanged?” Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

Dr. Pickering concluded his article with this statement, “…a larger problem in the church today—the effort to minimize differences and magnify similarities.”

“Minimize differences and magnify similarities.”  Isn’t that exactly what Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, Doug MacLachlan, Sam Horn, Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and others like them have been attempting these many months with the “conservative” evangelicals.  Kevin Bauder’s 24 part Now, About Those Differences series was nearly an exercise in futility for readers trying to discern first, where he was noting any real differences, and second, identify any differences that might preclude cooperative efforts between fundamental Baptists and evangelicals.  Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration was excused by Drs. Bauder and Doran.  John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren has been ignored by both men.  Catchy phrases and ideas such as, “separation in academic contexts, it’s all about the gospel, gospel-driven separation and gospel-centric fellowship” are the rallying cries for minimizing the differences.  Men who have adopted the new paradigm shift toward a “gospel-centric” fellowship seek common ground with non-separatist evangelicals by magnifying similarities they share, which at its core is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation* interpretation of the gospel.  When, however, they come to aberrant theology, worldliness, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals those differences are minimized, tolerated, allowed for, ignored and/or excused for the sake of  “community.”

“Community” the very word that Dr. Pickering cited as the motive for a course change that included abandoning the name “Baptist.” And away with the name went the application of a core fundamentalist Baptistic principle, namely biblical separation.  The very same course change Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, et.al., have embarked on and attempting to influence others to follow.  The difference today is simply a reverse order. With the exception of Matt Olson at Northland “International” University they, their institutions retain the name “Baptist, but the principles and application of fundamental, separatist Baptists are going away ahead of the name for the sake of “community” with non-separatist, compromising so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

In the face of a growing mood for change among certain men who claim a heritage to biblical separation we thank God there are men who are going to put God and His Word first and ahead of the influence to adopt the new fashion compromise.  To the purveyors of compromising Scripture for the sake of community: We will not follow you down the jagged path of tolerance for the sake of “community” with non-separatist, compromised and erring believers in evangelicalism. We will instead continue to “admonish” our brethren in evangelicalism to obey the Scriptures and remain withdrawn from (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) them until they move toward obeying the Lord and His eternal mandates. We will, instead, “preach them (divinely revealed truth [including biblical separation]) and teach them in the power of the Spirit so that future generations may continue to faithfully stand by them.

* See, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

Related Reading:
Community is Being Elevated Above Theology, by Dr. Doug McLachlan

Dr.McLachlan wrote, “specifics’ of doctrine are dismissed or unimportant.” In Matt Olson’s Confidence in the Next Generation article on the Grace Bible Church, a member of CJ Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, a major specific of doctrine is not even mentioned. A doctrine that the current official NIU doctrinal position states was “temporary,” must be “rejected, opposed” and “cannot accept.” That major doctrine is Charismatic theology, which teaches that the sign gifts of tongues, prophecy and healings are active and should be sought after today. Yet, Matt Olson praised this church and its pastor.

Has God Changed the “Old Paths” for a new “Radical Center?” by Dr. Lance Ketchum.

Apparently, there are now certain acceptable deviations from the pathway of righteousness and doctrinal purity. These new degrees of acceptable deviations are not based upon an accusation regarding the fallibility of Scripture, but the fallibility of theological dogmatism. Apparently, we can never be certain about anything any longer. Oh yes, there are certainly theological absolutes, but they fall into a very narrow category we will call the fundamentals. Apparently, now the only real fundamental worth separating over is the Gospel. Of course, this Gospel Only view must be very broadly defined to include Lordship Salvation, Easy Believism, Only Believism, Monergism, and even the Pentecostal Full Gospel. These New Centrists are no longer going to separate over unimportant doctrines such as false Ecclesiology, false Eschatology, false Cessationism, or even over what defines acceptable spiritual music in the worship of God.

Is This Really Authentic? by Pastor Brian Ernsberger.

Dr. McLachlan is laying down the claim that these men “and others like them” are bringing about what he wrote in his book. I would disagree. What these and others are doing is what Dr. McLachlan is articulating in his article, not what he articulated in his book. Dr. McLachlan has shifted his criteria for reclamation.

Has Converging With Evangelicals Been a Dangerous and Failed Experiment?

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