Man–Sin and Death

It is one of the undeniable facts of life–death.  From our perspective we can rightly discern its universality though we rarely think about its eventual claim upon our own earthly existence.  Scientists spend time and money on theories of man’s origins, but how many have any scientific theories about his end?  Unlike science, God has not left us to face the inevitable in ignorance.

According to the Scriptures death operates in two realms–the physical and the spiritual.  A man is physically dead when his spirit departs his body.  James 2:26, “For as the body without the spirit is dead. . .” and Ecclesiastes 8:8, “There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of his death. . .”

A man is spiritually dead when he is separated from God because of his sin.  Ephesians 2:1, “And you hath he quickened [made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sins.”  Death, then, is a state of separation and not a state of annihilation; therefore, it is a beginning and not just an end.

So why is there death in the world?  Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”  And as we saw last time, Romans 5:12, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.“

Adam never would have experienced death if he had obeyed God.  Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”  He did eat, and he immediately died spiritually and began the slow but steady process of dying physically.  As it was with him, so will it be with us.  We are all born spiritually dead and are dying physically because of our sin.

Therefore, a man is unprepared for life if he is unprepared for death.  Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”  Life insurance, wills, and pre-arranged funerals can be good means to take care of those you leave behind, but what Biblically prescribed preparations have you made for yourself against the day of your death?  Luke 12: 19 –20,

And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years: take thine ease, eat drink and be merry.  ²⁰ But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee. . .

In John 5:28 – 29 Jesus Himself said these words,

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, ²⁹ And they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Proverbs 14:32, “. . . but the righteous man hath hope in his death.”  Is that true for you?  Do you know what lies beyond the grave for you?  You can know, and indeed you must know because your departure from this life on earth to that in the eternal state is certain.

“These were more noble. . . in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Acts 17: 11

Read Simple Bible Truths Series, Part 11

Man-His Creation and Purpose

Origins are an oft-debated subject in scientific, educational, political, and even theological circles.  While it is the “science” or “faith” of origins that gets all the press and the focus in the debates, the consequences of origins must not be overlooked.  “And what are the consequences of origins?” one might ask.  They are whether man has a purpose in his existence and whether he has any accountability concerning the way he lives.

In a truly evolutionary universe, man would have no real purpose in his existence.  He just is, and there is no real reason for his being as he would only be a product of time and chance.  An evolved man would not be beholding to anyone or anything for how he lives either.  This means he would truly be without accountability.  The invention of authority structures and accountability to those structures would be foreign to the nature and order (or would that be non-order?) of an evolved man.  So then he would be free to act and behave as he solely directs himself because he has no purpose or accountability as these things would be relics of the fairy-tell world of a delusional creationist.

So does man really have no purpose for his existence?

Colossians 1:16, “For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

Hebrews 2:10, “For it became him [Christ], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. . .”

According to the authoritative Scriptures, man’s purpose for being is simply for God.  Man was created by God for Himself.

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;²⁷That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from everyone of us:²⁸For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as certain of your [Athenian] poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Acts 17:26-28

So we see that despite this present generation’s cry of “It’s all about me!” life is not about me.  It is all about God.  Each man’s life should be spent “seeking the Lord” that made us.  Instead of this, man’s time is spent in pursuit of many other things like fun, pleasure, fame, riches, etc.

Just as our Creator has made us with a purpose, He also is the One to Whom we must all give an account.  Would you be somewhat fearful of an IRS tax audit that would look at every transaction and every record about your finances including those about which you thought no one knew?  How much more man should fear the examination of Him that sees and knows the very deepest thought of your heart.  The Pharisee of old asked Christ about paying taxes in order to entrap Him with His answer; however, in His answer Christ brought to light a truth they were not prepared to receive.  “And he saith unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” Matthew 20:25.  Caesar’s likeness was undeniably the image on the coinage of that day, but God’s likeness was and is on all mankind.  Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them.”

Are you prepared to truly render to God the things that are His?

“These were more noble. . . in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11

Read Simple Bible Truths Series, Part 11

Read Simple Bible Truths Series, Part 9

Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”  We all no doubt have suffered the great disappointment of unfulfilled promises.  Someone promised us something, but for whatever reason they did not follow through on their word.  As we have considered the importance of the Bible’s inspiration, preservation, and authority, we still need to consider the Bible’s trustworthiness.  We cannot independently verify God’s accounts of the existence of Heaven, Hell or other like things recorded for us in the Bible nevertheless we know that they are true because of faith.  However, there are a multitude of events that God foretold would occur that are now a part of recorded human history.  In fact one reason why God foretold the unfolding of certain events was to attest to the veracity and, thereby, the trustworthiness of His Word.  Isaiah 46:10, “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” 

In the Book of Daniel penned during the time of the Babylonian Empire, God foretold the coming successors of world powers including the Medes and Persians, Greece (including events pertaining to the life of Alexander the Great) and Rome.  For some so-called Bible “scholars” the accuracy of these prophecies point to its being written after rather than before the events.  They do not seem to want to accept the Scripture’s accurate foretelling.  Perhaps this is due more to their not wanting to accept the Bible’s foretelling of yet future events like the Great Tribulation, Anti-christ, and Armageddon than with events of the past.  (It may be like the evolutionist’s belief in Uniformitarianism being more of a grasp for a hope in the earth’s continuing future than an honest appraisal of earth’s past.)

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation 5 For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old. . . 6 Whereby the world that was, being overflowed with water perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count slackness, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:3-7, 9.

Titus 1:2, “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie promised before the world began.”  God has, is, and will keep everything that He has promised despite the modern “scholars” criticism to the contrary.  Have you found that steadfast, unshakeable hope that resting in the sure promises of God as found in the Scriptures can bring to your life?

 “These were more noble. . . in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” Acts 17: 11

Read Simple Bible Truths Series, Part 10

Read Simple Bible Truths Series, Part 8

We are excited about this possible opportunity and already see how that the Lord has been preparing us for just such an opportunity the last couple of years.

“He had a great burden for the soldiers,” said Jason Parker, pastor of High Country Baptist Church of Colorado Springs.  “His specific prayer request was to see 300 soldiers come to Christ.  He was also praying for God to call 10 of those soldiers into the ministry.  That was one of his specific prayer requests.”

I had the opportunity to visit with Dale at an informal pastors’ fellowship in eastern South Dakota just before he left for the Army.  In conversing with him he expressed how excited he was about the possibilities of being in a position where people would be coming to him looking for answers in life and being able to share the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with them.

I understand that his funeral is today.  Will you join me in praying for his family and also that God would answer his prayer for 300 soldiers to be saved and that 10 of them might serve the Lord in ministry?

When the present presidential leadership of Central Baptist Theological Seminary speaks of continuing the heritage and vision of that institution, he can only do so in the same way that the above old man did of his “family’s” axe.  There was nothing original left of the old axe, but since the individual parts had been changed out separately with much time elapsing between the events it was possible to think that the axe was something that it no longer was.  So is the case with CBTS.

Since the institution was founded upon a separatistic Fundamentalist  foundation and firmly set by its founders to maintain that same course, any current claims of continuing in that heritage coupled to an attached statement that expresses a desire to have “careful, limited fellowship” with Evangelicals, albeit those who believe that they are somehow conservative, is nothing more than imaginative thinking.

A quick review of the “changed out parts” of Fundamentalism at CBTS by Dr. Bauder

It is generally acknowledged that Fundamentalism has three essentials.  The first is Biblical doctrine, the second is Biblical militancy, and the third, is Biblical separation.  In each of these three vital areas, Dr. Bauder has made alterations that are inconsistent with and subvert CBTS’ Fundamental heritage.  In order to make these changes seem necessary, he has set on a course to systematically redefine Fundamentalism by changing its history and terms and maligning many of its leaders.  I covered many of the historical issues in my nine part series entitled “Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism” [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9] so I will refrain from repeating that material in this post.

I subsequently followed up that series with two articles covering his replacement definition of ecclesiastical separation as he narrowed it from being church-purity focused to instead being Gospel-purity focused.  The first of these was “Is Ecclesiastical Separation about a Pure Church or a Pure Gospel?“ which was an introduction at my blog to  my article “A Pure Church or a Pure Gospel: Does it Really Matter?” guest published at In Defense of the Gospel blog.  The second piece was “There Is a Difference and It’s a Name Changer.“

Fundamentalism’s position on personal separation has greatly suffered as well falling victim to Dr. Bauder’s declared inability for the Scriptures to have any direct application to anyone not personally addressed in the Biblical text thus making any and all of the Bible’s applications totally and undeniable dependent upon the relative strengths or weaknesses of extra-Biblical means.  There is more detail about this further down in this post.

I will not be taking the time in this post to examine what changes Dr. Bauder may have made to CBTS’s educational approach or its understanding of revival or spiritual power.  [BTW, Don Johnson has posted an article which includes a discussion about CBTS's ethos statement on "revivalism" at his blog an ox goad, eh?  in "A New Fundamentalist Manifesto?"]

I do want to add some pertinent remarks concerning a change in emphasis regarding leadership qualities.  Dr. Bauder views with contempt the strong leadership represented by many of Fundamentalism’s leaders and promotes instead servant-leadership.  Dr. Rolland McCune commented on the rising servant-leadership issue within Fundamentalism in his review of Dr. Doug McLachlan’s book Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism.  About this leadership issue Dr. McCune wrote,

The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical.  He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it.  But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding.  Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15).  His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement.  This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order.  Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal.  Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.  [Emphasis added] 1

A closer look at some other strange “cuts” left by Dr. Bauder’s new axe

Here are some strange “cuts” left from what is supposed to be a Fundamentalist axe.

1.  I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe speaks of the Gospel as having assumptions and implication as part of its essence.

What is the gospel? Paul described it as the message that Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-8).  The gospel assumes that we have sinned, that our sins have placed us under God’s wrath, and that we cannot save ourselves.  It assumes that Christ is returning to execute God’s judgment upon the living and the dead.  It assumes that Christ is a qualified sin-bearer, i.e., that He is truly divine and truly human, born of a virgin, sinless in His person, and righteous in all His acts.  It assumes that we have an authoritative, inerrant source from which to learn all of these things.  The list of truths that are assumed in or implied by the gospel is quite long, and we do not yet know everything that belongs on it.  What we do know, however, is that these assumptions and implications are extremely important, so important that to deny any one of them is to deny the gospel itself.  These necessary assumptions and implications of the gospel are called the fundamentals.   A fundamental doctrine is precisely a doctrine that is essential to the gospel. 2

With all due respect given to whom it is due, but making such statements in regards to the Gospel on the assumed basis that 1 Corinthians 15 provides the singular, limited, definition of the Gospel reveals an incredibly, ineffective exegesis ability for a seminary president.  The Gospel of Mark itself begins with these instructive words, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”  Let it be stated without equivocation that the assumptions or implications concerning the Gospel, as Dr. Bauder speaks, are themselves a part of the actual Gospel.

Fundamentalism rejects a theology that says that the Bible contains the Word of God.  It should also reject a theology that places the Gospel on a slippery slope of assumptions and implications.

2.  I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe would come to these conclusions about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ in response to the Da Vinci Code.

Getting married and begetting children are human activities.  If Jesus had married, He would have been a husband according to His human nature.  If He had begotten children, He would have been a father according to His human nature.  Since the properties of the divine nature do not display themselves in the human nature, Jesus’ children would not have received anything from His divine nature.  They could, perhaps, be called “children of God” in the same sense that Mary can be called “mother of God,” but their nature and constitution would be purely and simply human.  They would not have been miraculous beings.  Since they would have been born from a purely human mother, and since they would not have received Jesus’ divine nature, they would have been sinners, standing in need of salvation.

Some might find it odd to suggest that Jesus’ children (if He had begotten any) would need Him to be their Savior.  Is that really any more unusual, however, than the fact that His mother, Mary, needed Him to be her Savior?  Yet the Bible explicitly states that she acknowledged her need of a Savior (Luke 1:47).

The conclusion seems to be inescapable.  As a genuinely human being, Jesus could have married.  Nothing about His deity would have made a marriage unthinkable.  No moral precept would have prohibited it.  A married Jesus would not be incompatible with biblical Christianity in any way.

Neither would Jesus as a parent.  As a true human, Jesus could have fathered children. Parenthood would not have contradicted His deity.  No moral precept would have prohibited His fatherhood.  His children would have been ordinary human beings, sinners like all others, standing in need of a Savior.  A Jesus who begat children would not contradict biblical Christianity in any way. 3

My Bible tells me,

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.  He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.  Matthew 19:12

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.  Hebrews 10:5-7

 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.  Titus 3:9

Years ago while I visited a prominent Washington DC area IFB church, the assistant pastor who led the Sunday School class substituted a video portrayal of the life of Christ in place of a lesson.  The “Christ” in the video was a laughing, prankster type who stepped back out of the reach of a women coming to touch him for healing only then to smile and laugh as he came back close enough for her to be healed.  In the discussion that ensued I noted two important comments.  The first was from a wise old man who said he was offended at such a light, profane portrayal of Christ.  He reminded the class that according to the Scriptures Christ was the Man of Sorrow and also that we are never told in the Scriptures that He laughed.  The second remark was that of a foolish women who retorted, “In my own mind that is how I like to think of Jesus.”  To that retort of hers and to what Dr. Bauder has written I say, “None of us are allowed to think of the Lord Jesus Christ other than as He is revealed in the Scriptures.”

It was not God’s will for Christ to marry; therefore, it is foolishness to discuss its pros or cons.

Furthermore, while Christ was in the flesh, in no way was He given to the experience of being in the flesh.  Being in the flesh was for Him a humiliation not any what a fulfillment.  Yes, He ate food like we must eat food, but I doubt that He ever remarked that anything He ate was exquisitely good.  Things which pertained to His flesh were things to be endured not things to be sought after.

Finally about this subject, there is a direct contradiction in thought to assert as true both that Christ had to be born of a virgin to be sinless and that if He were to reproduce His offspring would be sinful.  If the second part is true, then Christ’s own sinlessness is brought into question because the same thing that would make His own children sinners would have made Him a sinner though He were born of virgin with no earthly father.  If the first part is true, then stating that He would produce sinful offspring likewise brings direct questions against His own sinlessness because that sinful nature in His offspring could only come from Him.

3.  I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe would opine like this on same-gender attraction.

As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality.  Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.

The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course.  Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses.  Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful.  The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.

and this

My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership.  They are no disqualification from church office.  They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people.  In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.

Attractions are things to be managed.  They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon.  They can be learned and unlearned.  Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them. 4

The Bible clearly states that to arrive at such a place men have first walked a long way from God and so corrupted themselves that God has given them up to a reprobate mind to do things they otherwise would not do.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Romans 1:26-28

Dr. Bauder appears to be giving credence to evolutionary science whose consensus is that people are born with same-gender attractions.  The Scripture gives no support to the notion of natural same-gender attraction.

Furthermore, sin is not to be managed and indeed it cannot be.  It is a master over men, and never mastered by them.  Christ’s death and resurrection are the basis for present victory over sin for believers because the power of sin has been broken.

4.  Finally, I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe denies the ability of the Scriptures to be authoritative in respect to its applications.

Without second-premise arguments, we would not be able to apply Scripture at all.  Because our names do not occur in the text, the applicability of virtually every biblical promise, command, prohibition, and principle depends upon some version of the second-premise argument.  This is true even in the matter of salvation.  Here is an example.

Biblical principle: God commands all humans everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
Outside premise: I am a human.
Conclusion: God commands me to repent.

This argument is so natural for us that we do not even realize that we are making it.  Unless we did, however, we could not apply the text to our own situation.  The strength of the argument depends upon the certainty of the assertion that we are humans.  Since our confidence in this assertion is unshakable, we regard the application of the text as certain.

Precisely because they do not come from Scripture, second premises are always subject to evaluation.  To question a second premise is not to question biblical authority.  Second premises can and should be examined. 5

Let us pay strict attention to what is being said.  If the Scriptures cannot be applied at all without some second premise arguments, if all second premise arguments are formed extra-Biblically upon mere human frameworks whether that is our faulty human reasonings, our imperfect human sciences, or our deceitful human experiences, and if all applications made thereby are necessarily always subject to human re-evaluation, does it all amount to nothing more than a novel way of undermining Biblical authority?  Confessing that the Scriptures are authoritative but then hedging all of its applications upon human weaknesses makes the confession useless in the end.  Where is the “old axe” whose “cut” left a confident “Thus saith the LORD” in its preaching and teaching?

The failure of the second premise argument can be seen even in the simple, undisputable example provided by Dr. Bauder.  Being a human according to extra-Biblical standards is not as certain as he suggests.  African-Americans (and Native Americans among other groups) were not viewed as humans during a shameful period of American history.  The Constitution did not view them fully human.  There was published science which affirmed they were not.  Sadly, many churches and Christians felt the same way,  If African-Americans were to have relied on Dr. Bauder’s second premise argument to know whether they could be saved, they would have had no confidence in the matter.  (By the way, even today evolutionary science teaches men that they are only a type of animal rather than created in the likeness of God.)  As for me, I am completely confident in my own humanity but not because of science, the testimony of others, or even self-awareness.  I know beyond a shadow of any doubt that I am human in need of salvation because the Bible itself and the witness of the Holy Spirit to the Bible’s truth tell me that I am.

What do all these strange “cuts” by his axe reveal concerning its nature?

Affirming that the Scriptures have absolutely no authoritative application is a “cut” left from an axe, though eerily familiarly to me, it is definitely not the axe of Biblical Fundamentalism.  I remember who it was that taught that the Scriptures were to be subjected to human reasoning, do you?  I also remember what the reaction to that premise was, do you?  Now that some men, who desire to creep in unawares within Biblical Fundamentalism, are attempting to attach a sanitized human reasoning to a novel “ideal” Fundamentalism and promote its prudent use in theology, discerning men see it for what it really is.  It is not the axe that used to be wielded at CBTS and there are more than a few people who knew that this is true.

My brethren, these are serious matters that the faithful Christian cannot ignore.  A fervent and robust defense of the Biblical Faith is still in order especially in light of certain men now publicly declaring that they want the pens and voices of the critics to be silenced.

1. Dr. Rolland McCune, “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992),”  Detroit Theological Baptist Seminary,  Allen Park , MI,  November 1994.
2. Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “The Importance of Separation,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 4 August 2006.  Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20060804.pdf.
3. Dr. Bauder, “The Da Vinci Code, Part Eight – Could Jesus Marry?” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 28 April 2006.  Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20060421.pdf.
4. Dr. Bauder,”A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 2 July 2010.  Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/222-reflections-on-an-outing.
5. Dr. Bauder, “Now About Those Differences, Part 7 -Second Premise Arguments,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis,  16 July 2010.  Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/226-now-about-those-differences-pt-7.

O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.  Isaiah 37:16

In this multipart series on prayer, we have already seen a few important lessons.  First, we were reminded that the Lord alone commands the host and is in complete charge of us His children.  Therefore, neither man nor any hindering circumstance can prevent His will from being performed in our lives.  Secondly, we also learned that through Him we have been granted the promise of prevailing power.  Sometimes this power is demonstrated in delivering us out of great trials and at other times in taking us triumphantly through them.

In this post I will be considering the important significance of King Hezekiah’s third introductory phrase, “that dwellest between the cherubims.”

Under Moses’ leadership the Tabernacle and its furnishings were constructed during Israel’s journey from Egypt to the land of promise.  Concerning the Ark of the Covenant, we read these instructions about its construction in Exodus 25:10-21:

And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. 11 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. 12 And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. 13 And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. 14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. 15 The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. 17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. 18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. 21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

The Ark could be described as a box and its separate lid was the Mercy Seat.  Reading further in Exodus would reveal that the Ark was to be placed within a partition in the Tabernacle called the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place.  Into that place no human except for the anointed High Priest was ever to come.  Even the High Priest’s access  was limited to only the Day of Atonement and had to be with blood.

Tucked into these instructions concerning its construction there is another important significance about the Mercy Seat, and I believe that this is the reason that King Hezekiah prayed to the God “that dweltest between the cherubims.”  We can find that significance in Exodus 25: 22,

And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

The Mercy Seat was the only place where God’s glory dwelt among His chosen people, it was the only place where atonement was made for the sins of the people, but it is also the only place where He promised that He would meet with them–”there I will meet with thee. . . from above the mercy seat.“  Indeed the only place that a holy God can meet with sinful fallen man would have to be a place of mercy.

The present whereabouts of the Mosaic Ark is the stuff of lore and legend; however, where it is and whether it still exists is of no real consequence to the New Testament believer who enjoys the better promise of a better covenant with God.  But one thing still has not changed and that is that God will still only meet with men in one place and that place is still a place of mercy.  This mercy place is now not just a place but the very person of the Lord Jesus Christ the God-man.   Yes, the dwelling place of God’s glory (John 1:14) was also the sacrifice which alone can cleanse all men from all our sin.  (This time it is a better “once for all.” Hebrews 10:10)  In Christ Jesus, God has and does meet man.  That meeting place is still an exclusive place since no man can come to the Father except through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

God promised to meet and commune with the children of Israel from His dwelling place between the cherubims.  It is no wonder then that to this exact place King Hezekiah journeyed by prayer.  It is also no surprise that God dwelling between the cherubims above the Mercy Seat was merciful in answering the king’s prayer.

It is very evident that there exists a current crisis concerning prayer in our day.  Sadly, prayer is being dumbed down to a position that makes many Christians more comfortable with the fact that they experience little to no specific answers from God when they pray.  While there are many reasons why believers’ prayers can go unanswered from the Lord, one thing that remains true–prayer is asking and the answer is receiving.  It really is that simple.

Read these exciting verses in Hebrews 2:9-17

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. . . 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The incarnation of God in Christ is truly amazing and well beyond our comprehension in many respects.  Of this we can be most assured, the Incarnation was not about creating a Christmas season nor was it because it was the best of several options available to God for sending Christ into the world.  This passage of Scripture says that it “became” or was fitting for Christ to be one of us and also that it ”behoved him” or was necessary for Him to be one of us.  Why was it becoming and why did it behoove Him to be like unto His brethren?  The Scriptural answer is so “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest.” 

I recall once upon a time early in my evangelistic ministry crying out to the Lord about a lack of finances which were so strained that some meals were missed and other times were very meager.  (Thankfully, the need to ask and receive is still a daily occurrence around here keeping us dependent upon the Lord.)  Respectfully, I reminded the Lord that being God and, therefore, self-sufficient He did not know experientially what it was like to need food like I needed it.  The Spirit soon reminded me that He did know because Jesus Christ had walked this very same earth and often Himself hungered.  In becoming man Christ took upon Himself the weaknesses and limitations of human flesh.  He hungered and was athirst.  He suffered ridicule and rejection.  He was pained and sorrowed.

My dear friends, when it comes to our many troubles, needs, or afflictions, remember that He knows and better yet He cares and best of all He is able to provide what is best.  Go to Him even now with all your needs.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.  Hebrews 4:15-16

Read Hezekiah’s Prayers Part 3

More to follow.

See also “Faith Baptist-Central Baptist Merger Talks Shelved: An Opinion Piece” at In Defense of the Gospel.

NEW LINK on the subject ”a new-fundamentalist manifesto?” at an oxgoad, eh?

ANOTHER NEW LINK “Cogitations Stemming from the Central/Bauder Ethos Statement” or “Do Fundamentalists & Evangelicals ‘Believe, Preach, and Defend the [same] Gospel?” at In Defense of the Gospel.

Update: I continue to work on my follow-up article to this post and trust to have “The ‘Old Axe’ of Fundamentalism at CBTS” published soon.

http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy/241-ethos-statement-on-fundamentalism-a-evangelicalism

The importance of ecclesiastical separation in Fundamentalism is such that I believe that it is necessary to reinforce its proper place amidst the present critics’ attempts to cull  men away to a fresh, more “accurate” perspective.

It is evident from Dr. Kevin T. Bauder’s writings that he sees problems within Fundamentalism.  No doubt the heads of many genuine, committed Fundamentalists would nod in agreement with this statement of his,

Much of what transpires under the name of fundamentalism is not the idea, but rather appurtenances.  If fundamentalism is going to be made healthy, it needs a good expectorant.  A few boils need to be lanced.  Perhaps some tumors will require surgery.  These procedures may cause discomfort, but they are done for the health of the body.

Someone who criticizes the phlegm and pus may not hate the body, but rather desire its health.  Someone may lay a tumor bare because the tumor disfigures and threatens the body.  The body is healthier without it. (Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “Now about Thoses Differences, Part One: Why This Discussion?” In the Nick of Time, May 28, 2010.)

However, there is a real difference in what men believe the appurtenances in Fundamentalism are.  We can be confident, though, that most self-identifying Fundamentalists do not believe that ecclesiastical separation which focuses on church purity is one of them.  Dr. Bauder in attempting to set the record straight for future generations of his “ideal” Fundamentalism wrote the following:

It has been suggested that we practice ecclesiastical separation because we are concerned about the purity of the church.  Strictly speaking, that is not true.  We practice ecclesiastical separation because we are concerned about the purity of the gospel. (Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “Thinking about the Gospel, Part 5: The Gospel and Christian Fellowship,” In the Nick of Time, July 13, 2007.)

Let us examine what a few unashamed, self-identified Fundamentalists have previously written on the subject of Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation.  It should not be missed that all of these men were associated with prominent Fundamentalist seminaries (Central, Faith, and Detroit).

FUNDAMENTALISM HAS THE DISTINCTIVE OF ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION

Another vital facet of the self-identity of fundamentalism is the doctrine and practice of ecclesiastical separation. It is at once both the most maligned and/or misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and separatism walk in lock step. James Singleton said correctly, “Without an authentic separation there can be no authentic fundamentalism.” pp. 27-28 (Dr. Rolland D. McCune, “The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,” Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 1, Spring 1996, pp.27-28.)

In short, what makes fundamentalism distinct is the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation.  Article 15 of DBTS’s doctrinal statement clearly affirms this doctrine: “Ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate with a church, ecclesiastical organization, or religious leader which does not hold to the fundamental, cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, and a like refusal concerning those who maintain connections or are content to walk with those who do not hold to the fundamental, cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”  As this article affirms, the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation focuses upon local churches and ecclesiastical organizations in the church age. (Dr. Robert V. McCabe, “The Old Testament Foundation for Separation,” Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 7, Fall 2002, p. 4.)

In a previous Faith Pulpit article (May/June 1996), Dr. Robert G. Delnay discusses “Third-Generation Christians.”  He states that “in the third generation the importance of deliverance and of the founding issues gets less and less.”  He further warns of the possibility that “the third generation will have brought about the end of the founder’s dream.”  These trends can also be a possibility within Fundamentalism.  Personal and ecclesiastical separation, and an exposition and defense of the faith can all become less significant to one who is unaware of their importance or Biblical basis.  One may even reject the whole stand with the excuse that “he knows better.”  He may struggle with the pride of youth and view himself as superior to those who have sacrificed for his spiritual growth. (Dr. Alan C. Cole, “Three Perils of Fundamentalism’s Next Generation,” Faith Pulpit, February 2000.)

Being a Fundamentalist is not just wearing a label.  It is a firm exposition of and commitment to a theological position, and, in particular, to personal and ecclesiastical separation.  It is the application of all doctrine to everyday life.  It seems that some, in their attempt to promote a softer and less distinct Fundamentalism, have forsaken their commitment to its declaration and practice.  At the heart of this issue is an attempt to be more relevant to mankind while forgetting faithfulness to the Lord and to His Word.  When one attends ecumenical conventions for male leadership, when one uses “Christian Rock” or Contemporary Christian Music to build his youth group, when one is unwilling to defend and declare personal and ecclesiastical separation, he is guilty of religious pluralism.  He is combining the world with the Word and clouding the lines of distinction between them. (Dr. Alan C. Cole, “Three Perils of Fundamentalism’s Next Generation,” Faith Pulpit, February 2000.)

The Board of Directors of Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary published in both the college and seminary catalogs a document entitled Historic Position Statement.  In it the reader is told, “Since mid-century, the school has taught secondary ecclesiastical separation.”

It is the purpose of this article to try to explain what is meant by this term, to examine several biblical passages traditionally used to defend this view, and to provide an example of this practice in a contemporary situation.

An Explanation of Secondary Separation

Paul Enns believes Christians should organizationally separate from apostasy but not from other Christians.  He describes those who separate not only from men who deny the Christian faith but also from believers who cooperate with apostates as neo-fundamentalists who are guilty of practicing secondary separation.

Paul R. Jackson, National Representative of the GARBC in the 1960s, said, “The position that we hold is set forth in three subdivisions. First, separation is an eternal and unchanging principle of God. . . . Second, God has commanded that we should be separate from unbelievers. . . . Third, it is God’s commandment that we separate from our brothers when they walk in disobedience.”  It is this third point that makes Jackson’s statement a good example of secondary separation.  (Dr. Myron Houghton, “Secondary Ecclesiastical Separation,” Faith Pulpit, November 2003.)

FBBC&TS has long been associated with the separatist movement.  It has stood against religious apostasy, and sought to maintain a Biblical position in the area of ecclesiastical relationships.  Its institutional Statement of Belief states: “We believe that progressive sanctification involves separation not only from ungodly living but also from ungodly teaching; that though we love all men and seek their salvation, there are areas in which we cannot have fellowship with unbelievers; that, in areas of ecclesiastical fellowship, it may be necessary to separate even from our brethren in Christ, if they in turn maintain fellowship with unbelievers” (FBBC College Catalog, 1992-1995, p. 15). 

Although the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early part of the century is past, the present theological trends prevalent in much of evangelical Christianity make the issue of ecclesiastical separation just as relevant today.  The old modernism may have died out, but newer forms of theological liberalism have risen up to take its place – all committed to the premise that the historical, scientific, and other factual content in the Bible should be viewed as containing error.  And even within so-called Bible-believing circles there are those who agree with this liberal concept of a Bible with errors in it.  Thus, one is faced today with mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic denial of the Bible’s factual accuracy and those with evangelical backgrounds and credentials agreeing with them – yet continuing to teach at well-known evangelical schools.  Other Bible-believing leaders and institutions, while not condoning this major departure from historic  Christianity, act as if it did not exist or is no big deal.  (Dr. Arthur B. Walton, “Ecclesiastical Separation,” Faith Pulpit, September 1993.)

Separation is necessary for purity and for the stability of the Church. Consider II Thessalonians 2:15, the church in Thessalonica was exhorted by Paul to stand fast to the true doctrine which he taught.  True doctrine cannot be maintained when believers collaborate with unbelievers!  The way to maintain doctrinal purity is to withdraw oneself from apostasy and those who would cooperate with apostates.  In this day of compromise and ecumenism, let the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ stand fast and hold the traditions which are taught in the Word of God.  (Dennis Zuber, “A Call for Separation,” Faith Pulpit, July/August 1995.)

One of the chief differences between New Evangelicals and fundamentalists concerns the views of each regarding what we call “ecclesiastical separation.”  Fundamentalist separatists believe that there should be complete separation from all churches and fellowships of churches that tolerate unbelief or compromise with error.  In contrasting fundamentalism and evangelicalism, [J. Randall] Peterson observed, “The spirit of evangelicalism . . . is more amiable.  We consider it important to maintain fellowship with other Christians, even if they are mistaken on certain issues, especially if they can join us in advancing the gospel.”  This observation is quite typical of the general attitude of New Evangelicals–”let us compromise doctrinal matters for the sake of evangelism.” (Dr. Ernest Pickering,The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, Bob Jones University Press: Greenville, SC, 1994, p. 21.)

Here is some of what I note from all of the above quotes. 

1. Ecclesiastical separation is seen as a distinctive of Fundamentalism and a chief difference between it and Evangelicalism.
2. Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation includes both separation from unbelievers and believers who compromise with them.
3. Ecclesiastical separation is focused on the purity of the church.
4. Evangelicalism halts at a separation that extends beyond the Gospel boundaries.

What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation away from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel?  At least one Fundamentalist suggests that to do so should only come with a change of labels as one is no longer in accord with historic Fundamentalism. 

Clearly the answer to the question, “Are conservative Southern Baptists fundamentalists?” is “No.”  This answer does not mean that Southern Baptists are not good people who genuinely want to serve the Lord or that the conservatives have not made advances within the Convention.  Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists.  Organizations which have been historically identified as separatist and fundamentalist need to decide whether they are willing to partner with conservative Southern Baptists and thus depart from their historic direction.  If they are willing to do so, they should drop the fundamentalist identification.  (Dr. George Houghton, “Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?” Faith Pulpit, January/February 2004.)

If you are going to change your stance on ecclesiastical separation, please do not forget to change your name, as the two go hand-in-hand.

Returning to the physician analogy, it seems to me that Dr. Bauder’s diagnosis and prescribed remedies go beyond the acceptable practice of general medicine and is more akin to Dr. Frankenstein’s theory in that he desires to put a new brain into what he sees as a dead movement.  But just as with Dr. Frankenstein, what he is presently doing appears to be giving the new life-filled movement of his “ideal” Fundamentalism the compromised thinking of Neo Evangelicalism rather than a greater degree of Biblical fidelity.

What more needs to be said?