Where Are the Young Men? by Dr. Bob Payne

The question which marks the title of this month’s article has been asked not only at our IBFNA meetings but also in gatherings of most fundamental Baptist circles. It has been correctly pointed out that many young men are rushing headlong into Reformed Theology and are becoming enamored with Reformed teachers and their doctrine.

In addition to this, we see many fundamental seminaries and colleges moving in the same theological direction, perhaps partly in an attempt to appease and draw students and partly because Reformed Theology has a pseudointellectual draw for some educators. As would be expected, changes in music and standards have also followed in lock step with the theological changes.

In this month’s moderator’s column, I would like to explore what is at the heart of Reformed Theology and how it manifests itself, as well as what can be done about the young preachers’ flight to falsehood.

THE HEART OF REFORMED THEOLOGY

At the heart of Reformed Theology is an inconsistent hermeneutic (what we might call “the Reformed hermeneutic”) which seems to manifest itself in the following ways:

1. The interpretation of some biblical passages with an inconsistently literal hermeneutic (e.g. not seeing dispensational distinctions in the “Sermon on the Mount” and applying it directly to the church).
2. The priority of grammar and exegesis over the total hermeneutical process. The Reformed hermeneutic sees grammar as the final argument to some questions without careful consideration of the rest of the hermeneutical process.
3. The other extreme of #2 is that words have absolutely no meaning outside of a context. This is actually a Neo-orthodox approach to scripture.
4. An arrogant “cerebral” approach to the scriptures (with a resulting attitude of “We are smarter than you are!”). Human reasoning takes precedence over biblical teaching; philosophy supersedes the text.
5. An excessive dependence on historical theology (instead of biblical and systematic theology). The reasoning seems to be that if the teaching is old enough, and if the theologian teaching it is respected enough, what is being taught MUST be true.
6. A tendency to ignore progressive revelation and dispensational progression by reading back characteristics of the present dispensation into previous dispensations without sufficient textual support (this is commonly done by reading back certain aspects of our present salvation into the Old Testament, as well as by applying certain aspects of the present ministry of the Holy Spirit into the Old Testament). This leads to a sort of confusion between Israel and the church.

SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?

Is the solution to the young preachers’ flight from fundamentalism to appease them? Should we begin to adapt our doctrine, music, etc. in order to draw them back into the fold? Does our theological and cooperative “tent” need to be a little bigger? Instead of engaging in a philosophical discussion of our own, we need to ask ourselves, “What saith the scripture?” The problem of people departing from sound doctrine is not new. No matter what time era we find ourselves in, the biblical response to such a situation is clear:
1. Use and teach sound hermeneutical principles consisting of a consistently literal (normal) interpretation of the Word of God. We need to use the methodology mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (8:8): “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”
2. Patiently preach, teach, and reason with these young men from the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:2). This will include much one-on-one teaching time. Dogmatically shouting what you believe louder than you normally would will prove to be ineffective in reaching hearts. Shine the light on the text, and allow it to speak for itself. Love them; be a mentor! Let’s follow Paul’s methodology who ministered to a very difficult “audience” (Acts 17:2): “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” Bauer and Danker’s lexicon tells us that the Greek word translated “reasoned” means “to engage in speech interchange, converse, discuss, argue.” We need to engage them from the scriptures and “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).
3. Pray, pray, pray for those young men under your ministry (1 Sam. 12:23).
4. Model a godly life before them (1 Tim. 4:12). Words spoken from the mouth are much more forceful when backed up by a Godly walk.
5. Invite them to IBFNA meetings, and be sure to let them know about our young preacher’s scholarship.

In these theologically confusing days, we need to encourage young men to be focused on Christ, centered in God’s Word, and consistent in their biblical interpretation. Nothing less than the future of biblical fundamentalism is at stake!

_______________________________

Originally published in The Review (IBFNA), August 2010.

It's All about Interpretation | Dr. Bob Payne

Have you ever noticed the many parallels between theological liberalism and political liberalism? Have you ever noticed how many who embrace theological liberalism also embrace political liberalism? Is this all just a coincidence? I don't think so. I believe that both theological liberals and political liberals in the U.S. share a common hermeneutic with regard to their authoritative documents. You see, it's all about interpretation.

The political liberal interprets the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” that was written so long ago that it is irrelevant to today's society. As a result, he believes that the Constitution should not be interpreted so literally. The political liberal also believes that it is acceptable for the judiciary to “legislate from the bench.” Instead of following a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, it is perfectly acceptable for the courts to change or make up new laws as needed. Interpretive principles such as context and original intent are set aside as unimportant. Things outside of the Constitution, such as foreign court cases and foreign laws become influential in Constitutional interpretation. In essence, to the political liberal, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is reader-centered, not author-centered.

In a similar way, theological liberals also treat the Word of God as a “living document” that does not need to be interpreted in a literal manner. Making up doctrine, and outrightly ignoring, despising, or doubting what God has clearly written in His Word is the order of the day. Many important interpretive principles such as context and an historical understanding of the text are set aside. To the theological liberal interpretation is not concerned with a meaning rising naturally from the text, but one that is imposed forcefully upon the text. In a similar manner to the political liberal, the theological liberal approaches the interpretation of the biblical text in a way that is reader-centered instead of Author-centered.

Although you and I may consider ourselves to be both politically and theologically “conservative,” we still need to make sure that we completely avoid the liberal man-centered approach to biblical interpretation. We need to approach the Bible with a consistently literal hermeneutic and allow the text to speak to us. Although we may generally adhere to sound doctrine, we must not approach the text of Scripture with an inconsistent hermeneutic so as to confuse Israel and the church, view the kingdom as something that is to be lived “here and now,” or teach that the rapture is anything but imminent. Let us strive for a biblical interpretation which allows the text to be consistently understood its normal sense.

From the February 2010 Review (http://www.ibfna.org)

The Root of Theological Error | Dr. Clay Nuttall

This month I taught another module on Introduction to Hermeneutics, and I will teach it again in Egypt in February. Last September, I also taught it in Jordan. In every class, students tend to raise the same questions. They are confused as to how so many people can study the same text and get so many different interpretations. One student asked, “Which denomination is right?” My answer was, “None of them; the truth on every subject is in the Bible text, not in a denominational creed or statement of faith."

The question we should ask is this: “If the truth is in the scripture, why doesn’t everyone get the same interpretation of every text out of the Bible?” The answer is simple: nearly everyone comes to a text with presupposition and motive. There has to be some way to erase our presuppositions. The good news is that there is a way; and it is simple, not complicated.

A maxim I pass on to my students says that anything you cannot simplify has probably been poisoned by man. This is the reason why the faithful interpreter who wants to find the one interpretation of a text will “simplify to clarify”, while the one who wants to insert motive and presupposition will “complicate to confuse”. Does this mean we are challenging their motive? Yes, it does.

THE SIEVE OF A BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC

God has given us a “hermeneutical sieve” to help us strain out motive and presupposi-tion. Use of that one biblical system will accurately block the addition of human insertions into a text. The system is mathematical and will succeed in producing a single interpretation to central texts of scripture.

The reason why there are so many conflicting ideas in theology comes from a failure to obey the system and rules that God’s word has clearly outlined. I warn you that this God-given restriction will be hated by those who persist in putting their own ideas into the text. One reader suggested that this idea would limit God, but it is actually the other way around. The constant infusion of philosophy into Bible text is what hinders the teaching of truth. Without a sieve to strain out error, there is no way to arrive at a theology that is biblical.

THE POINT OF TENSION

This takes us to the age-old tension between faith and reason. Throughout history, humans have always been tempted to add to or detract from scripture. This is exactly what happened in Eden in the conversation between Eve and Satan. Most of the people in our circles would say that the Bible is the final authority in faith and practice. The truth is that the root of human reason is the cause of the conflicting theology in our midst. This reading of philosophy into the text can be readily seen in much of contem-porary writing, worship and practice.

Yesterday I was reading an article by a prolific writer whom I consider a friend. It happened to be on church polity, a study of interest to me. I was amazed to note how easily culture and human philosophy were stated in the discourse, as if they were equal to the clear statement of Bible text.

Our problem seems to be that we assign the misuse of human reason strictly to liberalism, as if we could not possibly commit that error ourselves. Reason has value, but faith that rests on the Bible is supreme; that is why we need the one system of interpretation that rises from Scripture. I am convinced that the root of theological and doctrinal error comes from a hermeneutic that is based on human reason.

WHAT, THEN, IS THAT ONE HERMENEUTIC?

There is one system of biblical interpretation. It is that normal, plain, ordinary, consis-tent literal system that represents the similarity to, and is limited by the construct of, all literature. That system reveals three unmistakable rules, which are (1) grammar, (2) context, and (3) the historical setting of the text that is being interpreted. Many tools for interpretation are revealed in holy writ; but they are tools; not rules.

One major error is the idea that application is a part of the interpretation. There is only one interpretation of each text, but there are many applications. If application is made a part of interpretation, the conclusion will be corrupted by human reason and innocent (or deliberate) adjustment of the text.

The basic conflict here is not about an interpretation of the text; it is about the fact that people use a variety of humanly invented systems. These human additions cause the confusion that results in many interpretations rather than one correct one; this is the root of doctrinal error.

In the end, the Bible student has two options: (1) to use the one biblical system and be limited to a theology that is placed in scripture by the Holy Spirit or (2) to choose any other system, thus allowing him to conclude anything he desires in his theology.

[This is taken from Shepherd's Staff published by Dr. Clay Nuttall - www.shepherdstaff.wordpress.com]

A Text without a Context, Pt. 4 | Dr. Bob Payne

Although this study could go on ad infinitum, this will be my final installment to the "Text without a Context" series. The passages for this installment are found in the Old Testament:

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Ps. 105:15; 1 Chon. 16:22)

Since I began in the ministry, I have been extremely concerned not only with the misuse of these passages, but the unbiblical teaching and attitude concerning the pastorate by those who misuse them. I believe that in many cases both interpretive and doctrinal error go hand-in-hand with the scriptures under our consideration.

"Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" is usually erroneously applied in this way: "Since the pastor is God's anointed man and God's prophet, no one has any right to question a pastor as to his morals, ethics, or teachings. God plainly tells us in His Word to 'touch not mine anointed.' All discipline of 'God's man' should be left to God Himself." Roy Branson, Jr. reflects this unbiblical view in his book, Dear Preacher, Please Quit! (pp. 33-34):

We're saying that if a man of God is out of the will of God, leave him to God to take care of; and believe it, God will take care of him. One may say, "Well, what if he's tearing up our church?" Either live with it or go to another church, but don't ever try to get rid of the preacher. You may be right and the preacher may be wrong, but, if he's called of the Lord, that's God's man and we will tell you God will take care of him. When you try to do it, you put yourself in the position of Saul's Amalekite.

At the end of the chapter Dr. Branson gives an illustration of a young lady who approached him following a service. She said that she was having an affair with a well-known local pastor. Roy Branson ends his story (and chapter) with these disturbing words:

What did the author do? He prayed with the young woman and she sought and received God's forgiveness. He told no one, not even his wife, about the problem. Leave God's man to God to straighten out.

By the way, the above affair was ended because the young lady got right with God and refused to continue it. [Nothing is said of the pastor's repentance, OR his resignation!!!]

Finally, let us be sure we understand that God put no qualifications, no "unless" or "if" on the warning, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm."

As I stated before, I believe that the position articulated above abounds in both contextual and doctrinal error:

CONTEXTUAL ERROR

If we are to set these passages in their proper context, two questions need to be answered: 1) To whom does "mine anointed" and "my prophets" refer? and, 2) What does it mean to "touch" them or "harm" them? The contexts of our passages make the answers to these questions plain (both contexts are very similar). Notice whom God is addressing in Psalm 105:6-15:

6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. 7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: 11 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: 12 When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. 13 When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; 14 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; 15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

According to vv. 9-12 the "anointed" and "prophets" of v. 15 are a reference to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. It is also apparent from vv. 13-14 that "touching" them, or "harming" them refers to protection from physical danger. J. Barton Payne's comments on 1 Chronicles 15:18-22 shed light on why God referred to these men as He did:

The titles by which the patriarchs are described possess, at this early period, more generalized meanings than those they came to have later. They are called "anointed" . . . , in the sense of being set apart by God's Spirit--a phrase elsewhere used specifically for prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exod 29:7), and kings (1 Sam 2:35), with whom the presence of the Spirit was symbolized by a visible anointing with oil, and ultimately for Jesus (Christ = Messiah = "anointed"; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 2:2; Acts 10:38).

The patriarchs are also called "prophets," in the sense of being recipients of God's special revelation--a title later used specifically for those who proclaimed God's revealed will . . . . Abraham was thus designated a "prophet," at the time of God's special protection against Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20:7); others of the patriarchs did, however, make specific predictions (e.g., Jacob, Gen 48:19; 49:1). (From the Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 391.)

To apply this passage to the modern pastor is wrong. The modern pastor is not equivalent to any of the patriarchs, nor is he the same as God's covenant people, Israel.1 Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that the pastor is equivalent to the king of Israel (another comparison often made as "God's anointed"). Perhaps a very broad application might be made for all believers2 that God "looks out for" and protects His own. To go any further than this application twists the context and violates a proper dispensational interpretation of the scriptures.

It is also interesting to note that the phrase "touch not mine anointed" has little to do with verbal attacks or accusations of wrong-doing. This would be Branson's primary interpretation, as well as the interpretation of many of the modern charismatic false teachers. As I stated earlier, the primary reference of "touch not" and "harm" is to protection from physical danger.

DOCTRINAL ERROR

There are some erroneous doctrinal implications behind these "twisted texts." In my experience those who hold that Ps. 105:15, and 1 Chon. 16:22 may be applied to pastors of local churches also hold to the following unbiblical teachings:3

"The pastor is the sovereign monarch and dictator of the local church."

Is this true? What does the Bible have to say?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. (1 Cor. 3:5 N.A.S.V.)

2 Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. ( 1 Peter 5:2-4 N.A.S.V.)

Notice that Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:5 calls those who minister "servants." This is far from the attitude of a man who considers himself to be the sovereign of the local church. The Bible knows nothing of the unbiblical, man-made distinction between "clergy" and "laity" which places the pastor on a higher, more exalted level than his people. Our Lord taught us that ministry is not something executed from a lofty position above others, but it is something performed from the "low" position of Christ-like humility (Matt. 20:26-28) as the Lord's servant.

The 1 Peter passage is also instructive. Notice that Peter does not tell us that the pastor is a monarch, a king, or a dictator. He indicates in 1 Peter 5:2 that he is a "shepherd." Peter goes on to tell us in v. 3 that a shepherd should not be a man who "lords it over" his sheep, but instead, he should be an example to the flock. The Friberg Greek-English Lexicon defines the Greek word translated "lording it over" (katakurieuo): "of exercising dominion for one's own advantage lord it over, rule over, domineer over (MK 10.42)." Clearly, the scriptures indicate to us that the pastor is not to be a dictator, but one who leads by example.

Having said all of this, it is important not to over-emphasize the "leading by example" aspect of the pastorate. By so doing, some have weakened the office of the pastor, and have relegated the shepherd to a hired hand of the flock who does as he is told. This too is a distorted view of the pastorate. Once again, the Word of God is clear in this area as well:

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer [episkope], it is a fine work he desires to do. (1 Timothy 3:1 N.A.S.V.) Let the elders that rule [administrate or preside over the affairs of the local church] well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Hebrews 13:17)

According to the previous scriptures the pastor rules and presides over the entire ministry of the local church (both the "spiritual" and "material"). His position demands respect, submission and obedience. In spite of this he is still not the dictator and king of the local church. My plea is for BALANCE. Dr. Clay Nuttall brings some clarity to this issue:

A real danger also exists in not seeing his [the pastor's] administration in balance. . . . It has been soundly preached that a bishop's administration and rule are by example and precept. That is true. Woe to the pastor who does not preach the Word. It alone is the final Authority and Guidebook. Shame on the pastor who lords it over God's heritage. Let us all deride dictatorial self-centeredness . . . .

Let not man say, however, that the pastor's leadership is limited to his influence and example, or to the simple leadership of teaching as verbalization and integration into his own actions and the actions of others. To take from him responsibility and authority, to enforce, by rule, Bible commands in the local church is not an attack on him but on Christ.

The Lord Himself imposed that oversight (1 Pet. 5:1-4) and the pastor will answer directly to the Chief Shepherd for exercise of it. The bishop is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7, 17) and that implies much more than being an example. He is to rule (1 Tim. 5:17) and anything less than that is a failure. Some have played grammatical games and contextual shuffling to deny the Lord's instruction to undershepherds. Those actions are beneath the dignity of the office. (The Weeping Church, pp. 103-104).

"The pastor is to be untouched by accusation or discipline, even if the accusations are true."

Once again, we must ask ourselves: "Is this a biblical teaching." No, it isn't! Based on this teaching a pastor could never be put out of the pulpit, even in cases of doctrinal heresy or immorality. This is contrary to the Word of God. Pastors must be held accountable for their actions as well as their soundness of doctrine. We need to go no further than 1 Timothy 5:19 to demonstrate this: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." Dr. Robert Gromacki was correct in his comments about this verse: "As members of a church, elders are not immune to the procedure of discipline. The same standards apply to them as well as to the layman4 ."

Notice in v. 19 that Paul tells Timothy to "receive not an accusation." Literally the thrust of the Greek here is "stop receiving an accusation." Evidentially, Paul is trying to stop a practice that was already in process, where an individual would bring an accusation to Timothy against a pastor. Timothy was not to entertain an accusation or begin the discipline process unless the sin could be substantiated by two or three witnesses.5 If then a serious sin were substantiated, the pastor should be disciplined. Unlike what some are teaching in our day, the Bible clearly instructs us that the pastor should be disciplined for things such as doctrinal and moral perversion. In this way, the pastor is "touchable."

FINAL THOUGHTS

The scriptures should never be twisted and doctrine manufactured for one's own benefit. It is my fear that many men who hold to the "touch not mine anointed" view of the pastorate have done just that. The old nature, full of pride and arrogance desperately wants to justify a dictatorial leadership style. The carnal man finds comfort in the statement: "God says never to question anything that I ever do or say." May God help us to find a biblical balance in our view of the pastor's leadership in the local church.

END NOTES:

1. Confusing the church with Israel can lead to further doctrinal error, particularly eschatological error.
2. 1 John 2:20 (N.A.S.V.) tells us that all believers are anointed: " But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know."
3. Although this may not be true in every case.
4. Excuse the term ("layman"), but we understand what he means.
5. A principle very familiar to students of the Old Testament. Notice Deut. 19:15: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

A Text without a Context, Pt. 3 - Dr. Bob Payne

Continued from September…

PASSAGE #2: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20)

Revelation 3:20 is a passage that has been used for many years in gospel presentations. It is normally used as a "clincher" verse to demonstrate a person's need for personal acceptance of Christ as Savior. It is usually applied this way: "Christ is knocking at your heart's door . . . all you must do is invite Him in and He will save you from your sins." Most picture in their minds Warner Sallman’s Famous picture, Christ Knocking at Heart’s Door. BUT, is this an appropriate and contextually accurate way to apply this passage? Furthermore, is this application theologically correct? I believe that the answer to both of these questions must be a resounding "no!"

I would like to convey through this article that Revelation 3:20 was never intended to be used as a salvation verse at all, but is actually an exhortation to believers. I will present my case in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that using Revelation 3:10 as a salvation verse rests upon a defective interpretation of the text. Second, I will also seek to present a contextually accurate understanding of the passage under consideration.

A DEFECTIVE INTERPRETATION

Is Revelation 3:20 a salvation passage? Look at the context. In Revelation 3, verses 14-22 we find the last of the messages to the seven churches. Verse 14 tells us that Christ is addressing this letter to the "angel [most assuredly a reference to a pastor, not an angelic being] of the church of the Laodiceans." From this point on, there is no indication whatsoever that our Lord is dealing with anyone else but believers. No doubt these Christians were disobedient, careless and complacent, but the context does not even hint to us that these people were anything else but genuine believers.

Notice the language of v. 19: "as many as I love." The Greek verb translated "love" here is phileo. As Dr. Daniel B. Wallace writes in his article, "Revelation 3:20 and the Offer of Salvation:" "Here phileo is used for ‘love'--a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. (Indeed, it would be impossible for God to have this kind of love for an unbeliever, for it routinely speaks of enjoyment and fellowship . . . )." Reading further in v. 19, we notice the words: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten [italics mine]." The passage indicates that the ones whom Christ loves, He disciplines. According to Hebrews 12:6-8 only true sons are disciplined by the Lord, not those who are unsaved:

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

God does not discipline those who are not His. Clearly, the context reveals that only saved people are in view in Revelation 3:20, not unbelievers.1

The concept of a person "inviting Jesus into his heart" is also attributed to Revelation 3:20. It is based upon a careless translation of eiseleusomai pros auton. There is no problem with the A.V.'s rendering of this Greek clause: "I will come in to him." However, a difficulty occurs when interpreters try to translate the clause: "I will come into him." The two meanings are quite different. Neither the Greek nor the English is hinting at penetration ("into"), but rather direction ("to"). If Christ would have been indicating penetration into the human heart, the Greek word eis would have been used, and the translation "I will come into him" would be justified. But the Greek word pros is used here, indicating (in this context) motion towards someone. Wallace clarifies the issue for us:

"The idea of ‘come into' would be expressed with eis as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person (thus, spawning the idea of entering into one's heart). However, spatially prov" means toward, not into. In all eight instances of eisercomai pros in the NT, the meaning is ‘come in toward/before a person' (i.e., enter a building, house, etc., so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person himself/herself. In some instances, such a view would not only be absurd, but inappropriate (cf. Mark 6:25; 15:43; Luke 1:28; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 16:40; 17:2; 28:8)."

It is perhaps best to avoid such expressions as "inviting Jesus into your heart." It is, at best, an expression that is extra-biblical and theologically questionable. Moreover, the terminology can create great confusion in the minds of children.2 It would be far better for us to use the biblical term, "faith."3 Wallace has some significant observations:

"Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly 'received Christ into their hearts' without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation."

A PROPER UNDERSTANDING

In Revelation 3:20 Christ is portrayed as standing outside the lives of church members. The Laodicean church had become complacent and self-sufficient. They no longer felt that they needed the Lord, for they were "rich, and increased with goods," and "had need of nothing." They were about to be judged, and now Christ tenderly appeals to them one more time, as individuals, to return to intimate fellowship with Him. William R. Newell writes,

"Here we have Christ in all His tenderness, His unfathomable devotion! In these last words to the Church, the love of the Bridegroom makes Him forget wholly the work of the Judge. It is The Beloved, of the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 5:2).

This final plea of the Lord Jesus to the individual heart, where he has been shut out of the love and fellowship of the general company, should win every heart that UNDERSTANDS!" (The Book of the Revelation, p. 79).

Our text says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock." The perfect tense of the verb histemi portrays the standing as a past action with present, continuing results. The present tense of the verb krouo indicates a continuous knocking. Christ's appeal to the individuals of the church (as well as to lukewarm Christians today) is to open the door ("if any man hear my voice, and open the door"), so as to let Him back into their miserable, empty lives. Then, and only then could the intimate relationship with their Lord be restored ("I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."). Concerning deipneso ("sup"--which is a metaphor for fellowship), J. Hampton Keathley III writes in his internet commentary on the book of Revelation:

"Dine is a Greek word which referred to the main meal of the day—a real feast. This Greek word, deipnew, was used not only of the chief meal of the day—a full course dinner—but of the meal which was the occasion for hospitality and fellowship. At this meal, however, He is the host. It is He who sets the table and we are His guests dining on that which He has provided."

Revelation 3:20 is clearly a passage written to Christians to repent of sin and be restored to full fellowship with the Lord. Again, Keathley writes,

" . . . this passage is addressed to the church—to believers. This is a call to fellowship with the Savior. As an invitation to Christians, it's a call to repent, as commanded in verse 19. It is a call for confession of one's sins with a renewal of mind and heart to continue to draw upon the glorious life of Christ daily through walking by the Spirit and living in the Word. It means abiding in Christ, the vine (John 15:1-7; 1 John 1:7-10; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:14-18; Rom. 8:1-16)."

May each one of us heed Christ's appeal in the midst of this uncaring and spiritually apathetic generation!

END NOTES:
1. Walvoord agrees, "This was an appeal to Christians rather than to non-Christians" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, p. 942).
2. How well I remember a Junior High student telling me of the time when her little brother "asked Jesus into his stomach" because he couldn't understand how Jesus could live in a person's heart!
3. We should all reevaluate our soteriological terminology to make sure that it is biblical. How cautious we need to be!

Intellectual Quicksand - Dr. Clay Nuttall

Editor's Note: I am interrupting my series on “A Text without a Context” to publish an article by Dr. Clay Nuttall. One of the characteristics of what might be termed a “Reformed hermeneutic” is an arrogant, “cerebral” approach to the scriptures. This results in a “we are smarter than you are” attitude. Human reasoning at times takes precedence over biblical teaching.

In his article “Intellectual Quicksand” Dr. Nuttall deals with the arrogant attitude of intellectualism that is threatening the consistently literal hermeneutic that those who write for this blog hold so dear.
___________________________

One of our readers, a good friend, wrote me about a conversation he had had with a future seminarian. The young man was quite enamored with the intellectuals in today’s evangelicalism, and he complained about a lack of intellectualism among fundamentalists. I mention this incident because I have had the same experience with at least a half dozen young men over the past few months.

Personally, I am thrilled to find anyone who not only is searching for information, but also is willing to screen massive amounts of material in order to understand the meaning of a given subject. One of my major goals as a teacher is to press my students on toward analytical and critical thinking. They need to learn to ask questions about everything.

The problem with this illustration is that every one of the above-mentioned young men was guilty of the same mistake; they sought intellectualism, but seemed unable to recognize the difference between truth and error in the midst of it. Several of the popular figures they identified as intellectuals teach theological error openly, but the younger men seemed to lack the ability to recognize that fact.

Such is the danger of broad intellectualism, an elitism that is heady for a young student - it is a spider’s web. It is quicksand, ready to entrap the unsuspecting.

THE UGLY TRUTH BEHIND THIS

Now mind you, I am not defending the presence of dull or lazy minds in fundamentalism. Although it has had - and does have – many thinking theologians, I don’t think I could honestly say that this is the norm in our movement. The absence of careful and demanding study has provided us with a fairly nasty list of examples of how not to do it. The debates we have observed are too often extremely shallow, usually ending with personal attacks. (We have probably learned that technique from the liberals, who always attack character when they don’t have an answer.)

The blame for this void cannot be pinned on any one thing. It could be that so many of our churches, with their lame excuses for any kind of organization, have caused this. The lack of really serious Bible study, along with too many flat-line sermons, might have something to do with it. In addition, I’m sure our educational institutions haven’t put this issue on the front burner because, without exception, all the young men referred to at the beginning of this article are from “schools of our stripe”.

No matter who or what is to blame, it is sad that we have failed to stir their thinking process. It is tragic that we did not give them the tools that would enable them to recognize theological error. And so they rush off to study under some intellectual guru who will instruct them to think about error as though it were truth.

SO, WHERE DO WE GO WITH THIS?

Please don’t write me before you read the following: I am not against intellectual pursuit! We need to demand that our young folks learn to practice analytical and critical thinking. They need to do so with a strong Biblical understanding of how to recognize error even when it is cloaked in apparent intelligence.

What kind of intellectualism is it that passes error on as if it were equal to truth? It is an information repository that is less than honest, that lacks integrity. Intellectual pagans are not deserving of our adulation. The apostle Paul speaks of this very issue in II Timothy 3:7 - “Ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.”

Elite intellectualism in itself is a curse, rather than something to be worshiped. It is information without benefit of wisdom. It is academia at its worst. Someone who is smart only about facts may possess only half the wits he needs in order to be actually intelligent.

Every reader could do something to set this aright. Step No. 1: spend those hours reading instead of staring at the tube. Step No. 2: learn to ask questions about everything you read. In your study of the Scripture, stop telling the text what it says, and instead start asking questions of the text. Learn to think; and pass that skill on to those around you, particularly the young people. Perhaps then in the future we will have fewer young men being drawn into the quicksand of intellectualism. We need more people who, when they come face to face with bald-faced error, are aware of it. That, surely, would give joy to the heart of our Heavenly Father.

JUST FOR THOUGHT

It is not just the young men who are in danger of being taken in by an orator with information and a smooth tongue. Some months ago in this journal I referred to a very popular writer as a “false teacher” because he holds or supports several unbiblical views, such as Preterism. That makes him a false teacher. Since he is viewed as an intellectual, I was not really surprised at how many of you wrote to scold me.

The real problem behind all this is that I do not know of any of these evangelical icons who practice a hermeneutic that is Biblical. What, then, does that say for the well-meaning friends who rush to their defense?

A Text without a Context, Pt. 2 - Dr. Bob Payne

The hymn writer wrote:

"Sing it o'er and o'er again:
Christ receiveth sinful men;
Make the message clear and plain:
Christ receiveth sinful men."

It is vitally important for us as Bible believers to make sure that we "make the message clear and plain" as we seek to present the gospel to a lost world. Some well-meaning, genuinely zealous Christians, have fallen into the trap of carelessly using out-of-context passages to present the "good news" about Jesus Christ. Passages torn from their context definitely do not "make the message clear and plain!" In fact, applying passages incorrectly only makes the gospel message seem confusing; and ultimately, serves to destroy the credibility of the entire plan of salvation.

Although there are seemingly an endless number of passages which are incorrectly interpreted as salvation passages, our study for the next two articles will center on only two verses: 1 John 1: 9; and Revelation 3:20. I hope to demonstrate that the contexts in which these verses are found are referring to those who are redeemed, not to those who are unsaved. As a result of this, it will become obvious that to use these two passages in our gospel presentation is inaccurate and potentially dangerous. The passages within the Word of God that speak of man's sinfulness, the penalty for sin, and the remedy for sin are numerous. There is no excuse for using inaccurately applied passages to point people to Christ! May God use this study to drive each one of us to "dig" into God's Word so that we might "rightly divide (handle accurately) the word of truth."

PASSAGE #1: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

This verse from John's first epistle is sometimes applied in this way: "God wants those who don't know Him as Savior to confess their sins to Him. Only then can He forgive a person of his sins and cleanse him from all unrighteousness." At first glance the statement may seem harmless, but it not only presents a verse out of context, it also teaches doctrine that is patently false and unbiblical. Should those who have never received Christ as Savior be urged to confess individual sins in order to be saved? Our answer must be an emphatic and resounding "no!" Those who do not know the Lord are never commanded to confess their individual sins, but are only to acknowledge their sinfulness (Rom. 3:23).

To understand the context, and ultimately the correct teaching of this verse, we need to understand the identity of "we" in 1:9 (obviously the author is including himself). There are four possibilities: 1) the word "we" is referring to humanity in general (of whom John is a part); 2) the word "we" is referring to all unbelievers (of whom John is a part); 3) the word "we" is referring to all those who profess to know Christ as Savior (some are saved and some are not. . . of whom John is a part); or 4) the word "we" is referring to all believers (of whom John is a part).

With very little difficulty we should be able to immediately exclude #2 from our consideration. It would be impossible for the "we" to be referring to those who are unsaved, since John would have to be including himself in this group. Would it not be more than a bit absurd to say that John considered himself to be a lost man?

Nevertheless, could 1 John 1:9 be speaking of mankind in general (#1), or perhaps just professing Christians (#3)? Our answer must be an emphatic “no.” The context of the book makes this clear. Chapter one, verse three tells us that "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." This would not be an appropriate designation for either mankind in general, or for those who just professed Christ and didn't actually know Him. Also, notice the following statements found in chapter two, verses one and two: "My little children," and "we have an advocate with the Father," as well as "he is the propitiation for our sins." Once again, these statements would not be appropriate descriptions of either #1 or #3. The only way to sensibly interpret the "we" of verse nine is as a reference to all believers (#4).

As we read further in John's first epistle, we will also notice that in chapter two, verses 12-14, John tells us directly that he is addressing believers. Just a few verses later, he indicates yet again that he is writing to those who know the truth: "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth" (2:21). No, John is not writing to humanity in general, or to the unsaved, or to merely professing Christians, but to genuine believers.

Keeping the context in mind, how then do we understand "confession" as it relates to a believer? First, it is important to understand the meaning of the word. The Friberg Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word homologeo, which is translated in 1 John 1:9 as "confess": "fr. a basic mng. of saying the same thing. . . as confessing that someth. is true admit, agree (HE 11.13); of an acknowledgment of sins confess (1J 1.9)." God wants us as believers, when we sin, to immediately confess/admit/agree with Him about our sin. Continual confession of known sin is an important part of the Christian life. Dr. Hall Harris writes in his internet commentary: "John points out that if as Christians we confess the sins we are aware of, we may be sure that God will forgive our sins and cleanse us not only from those sins we confess but from all unrighteousness."

So then, the meaning of the word isn't difficult, but just what is the purpose of this confession? Does it help "keep us saved?" J. Dwight Pentecost writes concerning 1:9:

"When the believer sins, the blood of Christ is instantaneously, automatically applied to the believer (v. 7), maintaining his sonship with the Father, but sin has broken fellowship. My child may strain our relationship by disobeying, but he is still my child. Disobedience does not affect position, it affects fellowship. To be restored to fellowship with God we must confess our sin" (The Joy of Fellowship, pp. 30-31).

Donald Burdick agrees,

"It must be remembered that this epistle was written to those who already are forgiven (2:12). John is not here speaking of the initial forgiveness of sin which occurs at the point of salvation. At that time the guilt of all one's sins--past, present and future--is forgiven. The forgiveness of this verse, however, is an experience which comes after salvation. Its function is to remove that which has disturbed the believer's fellowship with God. Whereas the former is a legal remission of guilt, the latter is the Father's forgiveness of His child to restore undisturbed communion" (The Epistles of John, pp. 26-28).

Zane Hodges also concurs with Pentecost's and Burdick's view on confession:

"What is considered in 1 John 1:9 may be described as ‘familial' forgiveness. It is perfectly understandable how a son may need to ask his father to forgive him for his faults while at the same time his position within the family is not in jeopardy. A Christian who never asks his heavenly Father for forgiveness for his sins can hardly have much sensitivity to the ways in which he grieves his Father. . . . The teaching that a Christian should not ask God for daily forgiveness is an aberration" (1 John from the Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament volume, p. 886).

Conclusion

How careful we need to be with our interpretation of 1 John 1:9! To the unsaved man, sin is a matter between a lawbreaker and the Judge; but to the believer, sin is a matter between a son and his Father. Confession of sin does not maintain the believer's salvation, but it maintains the son's (small "s") close fellowship with his Heavenly Father. 1 John 1:9 encourages believers to daily and regularly confess known sin as the Holy Spirit brings it to our minds. To use this passage as an encouragement for people to receive Christ as Savior is not accurate. 1 John 1:9 is clearly a passage directed to Christians. Zane Hodges' comments are appropriate to conclude our study:

". . . confession of sin is never connected by John with the acquisition of eternal life, which is always conditioned on faith. First John 1:9 is not spoken to the unsaved, and the effort to turn it into a soteriological affirmation is misguided" (1 John from the Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament volume, p. 886).