It comes up by way of a guest post on Kent’s blog by David Sutton, but the subject is one Kent himself has written about as well. The most recent blog is called, “Perfect Tense Preservation”.

First, I’ll try to state the argument succinctly. Kent (or others) can correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the argument:

it is written

The argument uses the words of the Lord Jesus in responding to Satan as an argument for the perfect preservation of the Scriptures.

The argument is based on the Lord’s use of the perfect tense in the phrase, ‘it is written’. The perfect tense, we are told, refers to past action with ongoing results in the present (to the person speaking).

Since the Lord referred to God’s Word by using the Greek word gegraptai, ‘it is written’ or ‘it hath been written’ (YLT), the argument goes that this proves the words initially written by Moses and quoted by Jesus were continually in existence from the time of Moses to the time of Christ in a perfectly preserved written form. Further, the word assumes, according to the argument, that the words will be preserved into the future since the ongoing effect of the perfect tense is such that when the future becomes the present, the effect is maintained.

In TSKT, I made the point that what Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy was written down by Moses and continued written down some 1400 years later when Jesus referred to those passages. Thus, if Jesus claimed those words were still written down in His day, then we should understand that we still have them written down in our day.

Well, I have some questions about this.

Question 1

Is it the implication of every perfect tense verb that a condition that began in the past and continued to the present (from the speaker’s perspective) must always continue into the future as each moment of the future becomes a ‘new present’?

For example, we have Mt 8.6:

KJV  Matthew 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

The word ‘lieth’ is in the perfect tense. We could translate ‘hath been lying’. Does the word imply that the servant yet lies at home sick of the palsy in our today’s present time? One would hardly think so since the Lord healed him (and he has since, presumably, died).

Another example, Mt 12.47:

KJV  Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Are Mary and the Lord’s brothers still standing outside that house in Capernaum, waiting to speak to him?

On the face of it, it seems to me that this argument is attempting to make the perfect tense mean something it does not mean.

Question 2

The word gegraptai in the NT is used in every instance (I think) as a citation of scripture. It parallels an OT word, kathab in its Qal Passive Participle form. As I understand it, the QPP has essentially the same force as the perfect tense in Greek (out of my depth here, someone correct me if I am wrong!). In any case, the word is used in this form many times as a formula for citing scripture (see Josh 8.31 or 1 Ki 2.3, for example). But…

What about 2 Sam 1.18, where it says “behold, it is written in the book of Jasher”. Is this citation meant to say that the book of Jasher will be preserved to this day? (Could someone send me the link on Amazon?)

Or how about Neh 6.5-6?

KJV  Nehemiah 6:5 Then sent Sanballat his servant unto me in like manner the fifth time with an open letter in his hand; 6 Wherein was written, It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words.

The QPP of kathab isn’t translated ‘it is written’ here, but it is exactly the same form as is used in Josh 8.31 or 1 Ki 2.3. No one would suggest that Nehemiah would expect us to find Sanballat’s letter today, would they?

It seems to me that these examples suggest a different use for the term, ‘it is written’, than the ‘perfect argument’ above proposes.

A citation of an authority

It seems to me that the phrase ‘it is written’ as used by the Lord in Mt 4 and Lk 4 is intended simply to cite the Scriptures as the Lord’s authority for rejecting Satan’s temptations. It is not intended to make any comment about the preservation of the Scriptures at all.

~~~

Please note, I don’t want to get into a discussion of every aspect of the King James Version argument. All discussion that might ensue in this post must be limited strictly to the ‘perfect argument’ as outlined above. Please correct my understanding of the argument if I have misunderstood it or show me how my questions fail to dismiss the argument.

Any comments that fall outside these parameters will not be posted.

In this series, we are coming to an understanding of godliness as a lifestyle demonstrating fear or reverence for God by actions of respect towards men. These ideas are behind our definition:

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God displayed in respect for others that is visible to outside observers and is not confused with worldliness.

In our last article, we were working on an understanding of worldly desires (as mentioned in Titus 2.12). Here is how we concluded last time:

Worldly desires are lusts, passions, affections set on worldly things. Let’s recall our definition of ‘worldly’:

Worldly – Something is worldly when it belongs to the affairs of life on this earth, especially as opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

If our hearts are set on the things of this world, to the crowding out of spiritual thinking that is always mindful of heaven and God’s viewpoint of things, we are worldly in our desires. Such a heart-set makes a Christian lifestyle impossible. Our actions flow out of our hearts.

We are going to turn to 2 Jn 2.15-17 and to an examination of the ‘things in the world’ that the passage talks about. As we do, let’s start with a working definition of the ‘worldly lusts’ or ‘worldly desires’ we were talking about last time.

Worldly lusts are desires for worldly things without regard for God or God’s perspective.

If this definition is going to have any value for us, we will need to understand what those worldly things are. This is where 1 John comes in.

The first clause is a straight-up prohibition:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.

Two categories are prohibited here: love for the world itself and love for the things that are in the world. When interpreting this passage, many will say that ‘world’ here refers to the evil world system as opposed to God. This is a valid definition in some contexts, but I wonder if it is appropriate here. We are going to discover that the world John is describing is ‘passing away’. This is true of everything in this world, whether it is complicit in the evil world system or not. My house, for example, is part of this world. It is passing away (far more rapidly than I care for). Would this command cover my house? Should I ‘love’ my house? It is passing away. I am suggesting that ‘world’ here means something much broader than we traditionally think, but we will come back to this later.

The next clause is a third or fifth class condition. I would recommend reading Daniel Wallace here for a good grasp of the distinctions, but as I read it, I think that this condition is probably a fifth class or “present general condition”. That is, it is something that is a real possibility in the present time, a general principle that is possible now. And given the context, it is possible that a believer could fall under this category:

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The terror of this teaching is that it speaks of a horrible heart condition where the one who loves the world does not love the Father (I am taking “love of the Father” as subjective, not objective). The ‘not’ in the text is in the emphatic position in the clause, underscoring the non-existence of this quality. The Lord Jesus taught us something similar in Mt 6.4, saying ‘no man can serve two masters’ (cf. Lk 16.13) and James goes so far as to say ‘friendship with the world is enmity with God’ (Jas 4.4).

I should note that the apostle John often speaks in extremes. Does he mean that if a believer loves the world in any way at all, there is NO love for the Father in his heart at all? I want to escape by saying that it is possible to be a conflicted believer who loves the world in some ways, and in those ways has no love for the Father, while still loving him in some ways. If that is true, then I think our passage is saying that to the extent one’s heart is set on the world, to that extent love for the Father is non-existent in the heart. The love for the world has crowded the Father out of that portion of one’s heart.

Be that as it may, the warning is terrifying. And John doesn’t give us any weasel room, but speaks in the starkest possible terms. Love of the world is a spiritual failure.

The next verse narrows down the terms to a degree. Here John is going to define for us ‘the things that are in the world’, i.e., ‘all that is in the world’. He defines these things by three famous phrases:

‘the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life’.

What are these things?

The lust of the flesh

The word for ‘lust’ is epithumia, which gives us a connection with the worldly lusts or desires of Titus 2.12. In a recent discussion at our church, I defined this desire as a desire for the indulgence of the senses. Before we move on because we think “we’ve got it, we know what this one means”, I want to stop and think about this in light of another passage.

Gal 5.19-21 speaks about the ‘works’ of the flesh. When we think of the ‘lusts of the flesh’, we usually think of sexual immorality. Every Bible-believing Christian agrees that the works of the flesh are wrong. I don’t know any Bible believer who would endorse any of these ‘works’ as acceptable.

But John is commanding us not to love the world or the things that are in the world. He is commanding our affections. The lust of the flesh, according to my definition, is a desire for the indulgence of the senses. The senses can be stimulated by far more things than sexual immorality. I have gone to many sporting events where my senses have been stimulated. There is an incredible rush of sensory experience in a full 81,000 seat stadium when one’s home team takes the field, when it scores a touchdown, when it defeats a hated rival, or even when it pulverizes one of those ‘sacrificial lambs’ that fill a college football home schedule. I can testify that this is a sensory, if not a sensual experience.

Such experiences are often matters of taste, even of acquired taste. If you have made yourself a fan of another football team, your experience when my team pulverizes you will be far less gratifying than mine. And some sensory experiences that move others leave me cold. I get no sensory rush from a charismatic religious service, but many people do.

I believe that John is talking to us about something far more subtle and captivating than the works of the flesh. He is talking to us about what we love. As such, we need to love God, love heaven, love the things above, not the things beneath, and especially not the desires of the flesh, something different from the works of the flesh.

The person who loves these desires of the flesh is exhibiting an inordinate love of the world, i.e., worldliness.

Lust of the eyes

This is the desire for the possession of the appealing. The stuff that we come to value, either because it is valued by many like fine art and such, or because it is valued by us because it looks good to us. We see it, we want it, and once having it, can’t bear to part with it, even if it is in ruins and tatters.

The person who loves those things that appeal to the eye is exhibiting an inordinate love of the world, i.e., worldliness.

Pride of life

Initially, I thought of this as simply pride, a desire for the elevation of self. I think it is much more than that. In fact, pride itself is listed as a sin and is already under prohibition. It is a work of the flesh. So this ‘thing in the world’ is something more. It is something of an exultation in ‘life under the sun’, to borrow a term from Ecclesiastes.

There is a joy and pride that goes with life in this world – sometimes it is seen in nationalism, or in civic pride, or in the exultation in living this life in a beautiful city (like I do). This ‘joie de vivre’ can capture our hearts and become the center of our being and living. It is thus for many in our world.

The person who loves the exultation that comes from living the good life (however you define it) is exhibiting an inordinate love of the world, i.e., worldliness.

~~~

The damning characteristic of each of these ‘things in the world’ is that they don’t come from the Father, but from the world.

For all that is in the world … is not from the Father, but is from the world.

These things dominate the minds of men in the world, but they ought not to dominate the mind of a child of God. Recently our family were on a trip across the USA. We happened to stay in a certain town where the state soccer championships were being held. Our motel was overrun with normal young people. We talked to a few of them in the lobby, asking about their tournament and so on. These young people responded in ways completely typical of young people everywhere. And their thoughts and values were entirely on ‘this world’ things. They had no thought or hint of a thought about anything beyond this life.

Well, they were teenagers. I didn’t expect them to be thinking about Plato, much less Christian theology. But the fact is that many professing Christians are pre-occupied with things in the world, not realizing that their attention is diverted from the Father.

Finally, the last point about the ‘things in the world’ is that it is all temporary. It all is passing away, it has no future.

The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

~~~

The worldly desires of Titus 2.12, it seems to me, are the same as the illicit loves of 1 Jn 2.15. They are not loves or desires (lusts) for a prohibited thing in itself. They are loves/desires for things that really are just of the world, having their source in the world. But … having the world as their source, for us to pay attention to them is to pay attention to the world, to love the world and to desire the things of the world. And so our hearts and minds are diverted from living for and pleasing God.

This is worldliness.

You are not charitable with the CE’s IMHO.  You do hold them to a higher standard than our fellow Fundamentalists.

My correspondent cites some situations where fundamentalists shared platforms with dubious characters and one where a fundamentalist made a judgement in a church discipline situation that appears to have been at least unwise, if current available information is accurate. I have advocated a ‘wait and see’ position in the latter case. In the platform fellowship cases, I have not had a lot to say, although I have said some things.

My correspondent concludes:

Taking a wait and see is fine, but not when you are so hard on the CE’s.  You are not consistent in this area in my opinion.

Until we take out the beams in our eyes, we will not honor and glorify God!

I promised my correspondent a response here at oxgoad, so this is it.

The fact is that I am hard on Conservative Evangelicals. They aren’t conservative enough for me and they still have most of the errors of New Evangelicalism as part of their philosophy and modus operandi. They are very little different from the original New Evangelicals (although some differences can be discerned).

And the fact is that I tend to take a wait and see approach to the errors (real or alleged) of fundamentalists because on the important questions, fundamentalists get the answers right. I might add that I take a wait and see attitude toward fundamentalists of various sorts, including those I criticize most. Some of my other correspondents are ready to virtually tar and feather some of the more leftish fundamentalists. I am not ready to do that yet. These correspondents might think I am too soft.

Why the difference and what does it reveal?

First, I think it reveals that I am a fundamentalist. I think that the willingness to “wait and see” and give room for errors is common to men and it reveals what they really are in their philosophy and ministry orientation. I am willing to work with, tolerate, or even excuse fundamentalists to a certain extent in spite of their errors because we share common values in the things that are most important to me theologically and philosophically. A number of people are willing to work with, tolerate, or excuse conservative evangelicals in spite of their errors. What does that say about their values theologically and philosophically? What does it say when these people also want to wear the label fundamentalist?

So I think it is quite natural for anyone to make distinctions harder and faster against those outside his group and be more tolerant of those inside his group.

Well, I can hear the protests now… You are willing to tolerate errors? And you call yourself a fundamentalist!

I think that fundamentalism has been too guilty of devouring one another… of eating its own young, so to speak. We have had occasions where divisions are made over issues that really shouldn’t matter. They are matters of soul liberty, in my opinion, and shouldn’t divide the body of Christ (other than perhaps give a focus or flavour of emphasis in a local body).¹

I also think that a single error does not a pattern make. And I suppose even two errors does not a pattern make. Some of my friends have done things recently that I wouldn’t have done. I actually corresponded with them about it because I thought their decisions were unwise at best. They had their reasons, I don’t entirely agree with their reasons, but they don’t answer to me, do they? But should I now decide that these errors now preclude all fellowship between us forevermore, amen? I don’t think that is necessary, at least not yet. If they continued to make such errors, if they were consistently making the same mistakes, if they were becoming a bad influence on my own ministry by my association with them, well… then I would probably have to take steps to disentangle myself from such fellowship.²

And finally, here is where I think the biggest factor in my treatment of the two parties lies:

The conservative evangelicals have repudiated fundamentalism as a ministry philosophy. That doesn’t make them my enemies, as such, but it certainly doesn’t make them my opinion leaders. They aren’t the guys I am going to teach my people to pay attention to. I am not going to try to get my people to read their books, go to their conferences, employ their methods or enter any other kind of ‘guru-like’ relationship with them. I think the fundamental error of the conservative evangelicals is that they continue to insist that the new evangelicals were right when the new evangelicals left fundamentalism.

For this reason alone, their writings and leadership can’t be trusted. They shouldn’t be followed. They shouldn’t be made much of.

My criticism of the conservative evangelicals is because the errors they make are consistent with their stated philosophies. They aren’t anywhere close to being or becoming fundamentalists, so they don’t act like fundamentalists. I think it is important to point that out to the naive.

On the other hand, fundamentalists, in spite of their errors, do get fundamentalism right. They understand that there is a difference between the church and the world and they try to maintain it (however imperfectly). They understand that you can’t support every popular Bible teacher that shows up on television, radio, or in your local Christian bookstore. They know that many of these popular teachers will lead you into serious compromises with the world or with false teachers if you follow their teachings to the letter.

So fundamentalists act like fundamentalists and I appreciate it. I may not like everything my fundamentalist brothers do and I may find that I need to question them about some things they have done. But my fundamentalist brothers are fundamentalists. They have the right philosophy… and as long as they stick to it, they will get less criticism from me than the conservative evangelicals will.

I hope that makes some sense. More probably needs to be said, but we can get to that in the comments if anyone cares to engage what I have said.

I would like to add a few more words that relate more to the recent unpleasantness of the latest SI back and forth that I referenced earlier.

Some people are mightily impressed with statements that conservative evangelicals have made ‘distancing’ themselves from some other evangelicals and their excesses. You know, statements are just statements. Anybody can make a statement. What matters is deeds.

Recently, my online friends³, the Bayly bros made a very interesting blog about goings on at the recent PCA convention. I cite the blog for this quote:

Except for an excruciatingly close vote on the training and certification of women for ministry roles, the Strategic Plan was adopted en masse—and the Strategic Plan consists of actionable items. Votes on Friday authorizing statements about homosexuality and abortion are toothless institutionally. Statements are statements; action items are action items.

Exactly. “Statements are statements; action items are action items.” The conservative evangelicals are good at statements. Let’s see them take some action against some of the egregious errors I keep talking about. Let’s see the Together for Calvin guys kick Piper out for cosying up to Rick Warren. Or at least publicly rebuke him for it, but I’d like to see some action rather than more words.

Well, that is enough for now. I do welcome comments, but let’s remember my rules about them:

1. They must be ON TOPIC
2. They must be actually willing to advance a conversation – if you keep saying the same thing over and over, you’ll find you don’t get ‘air time’.
3. No insults or demeaning tone.
4. I am the sole judge of the above three, if you don’t rise to their level in my opinion alone, well… thanks for the comment anyway, but it will just be between you and me.

1. For example, I can cooperate to some extent with other fundamentalist brothers who disagree with me about versions, dress issues [to some extent], some church polity issues, etc. They wouldn’t join my church, I wouldn’t join theirs, but we can work together in some ways.
2. For my correspondent whose criticisms prompted this post, yes, I mean the two people in your first examples of my inconsistency.
3. but not fellow fundamentalists

At least, their purports to be a discussion, but after four weeks nothing of substance has really been discussed.

In some discussions of the topic over the last few years at various online locations, some have alleged that my opposition to closer ties with conservative evangelicals is theological. In other words, since many prominent conservative evangelicals are Together for Calvinism, my opposition is rooted in my non-Calvinistic theology.

Well…

I ran across something this week that puts the lie to that theory. I thought it would enlighten some for me to share it with you.

The thing I ran across was a series of chapel messages by Paige Patterson at Southwestern Seminary, preached through the 2008-2009 school year. You can find the series on iTunes, at the “iTunes U” section. Navigate to Southwestern Seminary and look at the audio offerings. The series is called: “Questions You Cannot Avoid”.¹

I don’t think anyone can deny that Paige Patterson is a conservative evangelical. He was president of the SBC in 1999-2000, acting as part of the renowned “Conservative Resurgence” in the SBC. However, he isn’t “Together for Calvinism”, his theological persuasions appear to be much closer to mine than the popular T4C men.

As examples of his conservative views, here is an article he wrote “Concerning Alcoholic Beverages, Fermented Juices and the Believer”. His views here are very close to mine. Here is another article where I find a good deal of practical wisdom as Patterson critiques the apparent weakness of SBC churches in 2007: “FIRST PERSON: Of Grinches, Goblins, Gremlins and Ghosts”. And here is one of those messages I listened to, a truly dynamic chapel message on the holiness and sanctity of sexual purity:

Feb25Chapel

[Update: This is the Feb 25, 2009 chapel message if you want to find it via the Southwestern chapel site linked above.]

There is a lot to like here. I recommend you listen to the whole series of chapel messages. They are really good. At least… most of them are really good and two of them expose areas of difference with fundamentalism that mean the distinction must be maintained. Even in these two messages I am thinking about, there is still a lot of practical and Biblical wisdom that we can glean from.

Now, what are those two points of difference?

Topic One

In one of the earlier messages, Dr. Patterson reads a column by Richard John Neuhaus, the late founding editor of First Things. The column was perhaps the last thing Neuhaus ever wrote. From a human standpoint, it had some aspects of human wisdom. Patterson read it favorably and spoke of Neuhaus admiringly. Neuhaus was raised Lutheran, the son of a Canadian Lutheran minister who himself became a Lutheran clergyman. However, at the age of 54 he converted to Catholicism and became a Roman Catholic priest. The doctrines of Roman Catholicism are problematic enough, but, according to Wikipedia, Neuhaus even hoped in universalism:

Neuhaus expressed a strong hope in universal salvation, but stopped short of teaching it as a doctrine, emphasizing it as a hope, not a belief. “In sum: we do not know; only God knows; but we may hope.”

Now, it is undeniable that Neuhaus was an intelligent and gifted man. I am sure he said some good things. But why wouldn’t Patterson identify his errors when speaking to his Seminary chapel? If you felt you must cite him, why wouldn’t you make it clear that the man had huge spiritual problems?

As a fundamentalist, it is this kind of easy familiarity with questionable religious characters that makes me want to keep my distance. It is the willingness to be connected with something like the Manhattan Declaration or the connections with Warren and Driscoll and others. As I read 2 John in particular, I find that we are all going to answer for our associations. If these conservative brothers are going to maintain these kinds of connections, then I have to keep my distance.

Topic Two

Later in this series, near the end of it, there is a message about the “Worship Wars”. Patterson joked in the message the week before that they had scheduled an “after chapel meeting” out in the parking lot to settle the question once and for all.

Now, I have to say that even in this message, Patterson has a lot of wisdom that I like. But there is a problem, a divide that holds fundamentalists back from close association with conservative evangelicals. For Patterson, the decisions one makes about ‘worship’ isn’t a question of ‘style’. There are other matters that are critical (and some of his points here are good). But style is largely irrelevant, a praise band is fine, contemporary style is good, and ‘What a Friend We Have in Jesus’ is awful.

Essentially, I think it comes down to this: the conservative evangelical sees music itself (not lyrics) as amoral. They see style as amoral. The fundamentalist in reply says, “No, music and musical style have meaning. You can’t have music or style that contradicts biblical truth.”

It is ironic that in some of Patterson’s comments and articles he complains about the church too closely imitating the culture and losing its power. Yet apparently he doesn’t see musical style as an issue in that category, except perhaps in the current fad of turning church services into long ‘musical concerts’ with little preaching and no Bible reading.

Fundamentalists approach culture differently than conservative evangelicals do. That is not to say fundamentalists are monolithic and are all exactly the same with respect to the music they use. But the fundamentalist approach is to keep a distance from culture. As a fundamentalist, I think we have good reasons for that. And as a fundamentalist, this difference is one distinction that demands we keep our distance from the conservative evangelicals. This is a philosophical difference, but it determines the whole approach we take to ministry.

~~~

There may be more differences than these two, but they are perhaps the primary distinctions between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. It isn’t hard to see these differences. I think that we can show that these two differences are directly connected to the two defining eras of fundamentalist history (the 20s and the fight with modernism and the 50s and the fight with new evangelical compromise). I think we can also show that these differences are significant and must be maintained.

But I have to say I like Paige Patterson. I just wish he was a little more conservative than he is.

1. You can also find the messages on the Southwestern chapel site, although the messages are not identified by series.

the meaning of godliness

toward an understanding of worldliness – part 1, part 2

To continue…

In reading my material over again, I find that my understanding has grown and I will need to correct something I said in part 2. I’ll do that in context below and let you know when I do it.

Our study of this topic brought us to Titus 2.11-12 one of the most useful passages in the NT for the purpose:

NAU  Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

The grace of God instructs us:

1. To deny ungodliness and worldly desires
2. To live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age

First, the opposites:

Living sensibly

The word used here comes from a Gk word group that means ‘of sound mind’. When Jesus cast the demons out of the maniac of Gadara, the man was found ‘clothed and in his right mind’. But the word doesn’t mean just ‘sane’ but ‘restraint, modesty, self-possessed’. It is reflected in the different attitudes of ancient Greek philosophy to the world and the Christian attitude to the world – the Greeks scorned the world; the Christians restrained themselves in it. They were sober.

A sober approach to the Christian life also opposes a charismatic [experience oriented], mystic, ascetic or libertine approach. Instead it is self-restrained.

Living righteously

The root idea of righteousness is conformity to a standard. To the Greek mind, one was righteous who conformed to human law and obligations. The Bible sets the standard much higher – the standard of righteousness is God’s perfection. Living righteously involves a consciousness of God’s standard and a desire and effort to conform to it.

Living godly

See my previous article on godliness!

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God displayed in respect for others that is visible to outside observers and is not confused with worldliness.

Living godly, then, is adopting a pattern of life, acting and behaving with reverence for God uppermost in one’s mind. It is manifested in your actions towards other people. It is action that is consistent with spiritual thinking and contrary to the thinking of the world.

~~~

It is important to keep this lifestyle in mind when we are thinking about worldliness. Our passage says that we are to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, instead replacing them with a certain kind of lifestyle, one characterized by a restrained, sober mind that looks to God’s righteous standards and behaves in a godly manner out of reverence (fear) of one’s Creator and Redeemer.

Next, the synonym:

Ungodliness

Ungodliness is the opposite of godliness. Even in secular use, it always refers to unacceptable conduct. The ancient Greek city-states did not allow private religious practices – deviations from the official state religions was considered cultic and ungodly. Of course deviation from the norms of the official religion were also examples of ungodliness.

As time went by, the city-states declined in power and a more pluralistic society developed. One could practice other religions or no religion (atheism – refusing to follow the city gods). With this development, one could be atheos but not necessarily ungodly. It is interesting that Peter and Paul don’t mind the Greeks considering them to be atheos, but they are concerned that believers not be seen as ungodly. (See 1 Pt 2.11-20, for example.)

Ungodliness, then, is bad behaviour without reverence for God, especially bad behaviour as acknowledged even by Gentiles.

At this point, I want to make my correction from my part 2 article. I said there that almost all the behaviour at a nightclub we would consider worldly. Actually, the category here should be ungodly. While ungodly behaviour is related to worldly desires, and perhaps there is some overlap in the categories, it is better for us to maintain the distinctions that our text does. Ungodliness, then, especially relates to our behaviour.

Finally, to the main term we are looking at:

Worldly desires

We are going to look at these desires in a little more detail when we consider the next key passage concerning worldliness, 1 Jn 2.15-17, but let’s note a few things here.

Worldly desires are something to be denied, along with ungodliness. Obviously desires are something different than behaviour. The apostle Paul is always after more than outward conformity (although he is after outward conformity). The conformity Paul wants is a conformity of the heart, hence the thing to be denied are worldly desires. I think we could argue that a lot of ungodly behaviour flows from worldly desires. So we are to deny the ungodliness and the worldly desires.

Instead we are to replace these things by living in a certain way – a way that involves a restraint towards the world (a sober mind), an eye to God’s standard (righteousness), and a heart that lives to reverence (fear) our God and King (godliness).

Worldly desires are lusts, passions, affections set on worldly things. Let’s recall our definition of ‘worldly’:

Worldly – Something is worldly when it belongs to the affairs of life on this earth, especially as opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

If our hearts are set on the things of this world, to the crowding out of spiritual thinking that is always mindful of heaven and God’s viewpoint of things, we are worldly in our desires. Such a heart-set makes a Christian lifestyle impossible. Our actions flow out of our hearts.

Well that is enough for now. We’ll identify more key thoughts on ‘worldly things’ in our next installment.

His ‘case study’ is the recent conference in Powell, TN, the International Baptist Friends Conference. His view is that it is unacceptable to enter into ministry partnership with a church and pastor from Hammond, IN. In the main, I agree with this point.

In discussing the topic, Dave says this:

My guess is that plenty of people in the FBF are prepared to overlook it. It is clear that speaking for the Pastors School in Hammond doesn’t get one excluded from Bible Conferences or have churches refuse to host your music seminars. And that reality raises the point that needs to be discussed and illustrates something that I’ve been saying for at least a couple of years now—what ripple ramifications should this have for my fellowship?

Well, that is a good question. What should our relationship be with those who don’t see Hammond as such a problem as I do (or as Dave does)?

Dave goes on to say:

I doubt that many men in fundamentalist circles will stop having any of the good men who have spoken for or along side of Jack Schaap in to speak for them. They will ignore this or explain it away. They will say that these men have good reasons for what they are doing. They will minimize the theological and ministerial aberrations in Hammond.

To be clear, we are especially talking here about Vaughn, Binney, and Hamilton. A lot of fundamentalists will continue to have ministry partnership with these men, to one extent or other.

It sounds like Dave is saying that he wouldn’t have ministry fellowship with these men, given this statement:

I have good friends who are thoroughly committed separatists who will still have these men speak in conferences or in their churches or will serve with them on boards. It doesn’t make sense to me, but the bottom line is that it doesn’t need to make sense to me since they don’t answer to me.

A logical step from this position is to say that, on the other hand, fellowship with certain conservative evangelicals is legitimate even though they may have some problematic associations themselves. But, the logic would say, we shouldn’t condemn any brethren who do this, since many of our fundamentalist brethren are entangled with these other problematic associations.

To all that I say this:

1. The Hammond connection is a huge problem. I understand the rationale of Dr. Vaughn for attending the IBF conference, but am not entirely comfortable with it.
2. I don’t like the connections of Binney and Hamilton with Hammond. I still use their materials, but my connections with them likely end there.
3. One conference does not a pattern make. I am not comfortable with this choice, but it isn’t yet the end of the world for me.
4. I am appreciative of the apparent movement of Sexton towards the BJU/FBF orbit. I want to encourage it, but I wouldn’t just enter into unreserved fellowship at this point. He does need to shed the Hammond baggage if he wants less reserved fellowship, in my opinion.
5. The support of men like Dever for the Acts 29 (Driscoll) movement is far more problematic for me than Vaughn’s participation in the IBF conference. The charismatic confusion MacArthur promotes by his associations is likewise far more problematic.

As I say in my subject line, ‘it’s not simple’. The decisions of others make our relationships with them a matter of individual judgement. Since fundamentalism is largely an unorganized group of independents, it will always be thus. Some who wear the label won’t fellowship (partner) with others who also wear the label, for various reasons. Those reasons (and partnerships) may change over time.

This complexity is frustrating, but it is unavoidable if we wish to attempt a consistent fundamentalist testimony.

The young men that presently sit in the balance or along the sidelines in all this are sure not to be helped by the silence of the older generation at such a time as this.  I believe that the seasoned men of Fundamentalism need to publically speak to the issues at hand, and in today’s array of media options the far-reaching Internet should be the means of choice.

I and many others do not see Fundamentalism as dead.  Neither do we accept that its foundations were flawed.  Its history is still worth telling and worth knowing.  There are many Baptist churches that make Baptist a poor name to some people, but I still believe that under the Baptist name is the place to be.  There are many rogue independent churches who are precisely independent so as to do wrong without consequence, but I have no desire to change in that respect either.  Yes, there are more than a few Fundamental-labeled churches who have and are hurting not just the cause of Fundamentalism but the cause of Christ.  I have earnestly contended with more than a few prime examples here in the Dakotas and bear ministry scars because of it.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to radically redefine, realign, or redirect Fundamentalism.  I pray that you will be convinced of that as well.

I couldn’t agree more, especially with the call for the erstwhile leaders of fundamentalism to take some leadership with respect to the directions that some are promoting. We need to know if these men are on the right track. My instincts have been against what they seem to be saying. I could be wrong. But I’d like to hear from more men who stand as leaders in fundamentalism.

Godliness – Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God displayed in respect for others that is visible to outside observers and is not confused with worldliness.

Worldly – Something is worldly when it belongs to the affairs of life on this earth, especially as opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

In coming to our definition of worldly, we recognize that some things are worldly because they belong to this world and its affairs. In this sense, worldly things are earthly or natural. There is nothing inherently evil about worldly things in this sense.

However, it is undeniable that there is also a negative sense of worldly in the Scriptures. In this sense, something of this world or this life is worldly because in its earthliness or in one’s preoccupation with it, it is or becomes opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

I’ll offer a couple of examples to hopefully clarify what I mean:

• The desire for marriage: marriage itself is ‘worldly’ in a neutral sense, it is a thing of this life and this world, it isn’t a part of the world to come, according to the Lord. But the desire for marriage can be ‘worldly’ in the negative sense if one is so preoccupied or desperate for marriage that it opposes the life of the spirit, distracts from spiritual service of ministry, or leads one to compromise the injunctions against marrying unbelievers (or even makes one willing to marry a professing Christian who has a questionable testimony).
• The activities that go on at nightclubs are almost entirely worldly in the negative sense. They are ‘things of this earth’ and thus are part of life on earth, but the primary sense in which these activities are worldly is in that they are entirely opposed to the life of spirit and of heaven.

From our definitions, we need to move to a discussion of one of the most important passages for understanding worldliness, Titus 2.12.

NAU  Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

These verses follow a lengthy set of instructions, first to the older men (2.2), then the older women (2.3), the younger women (2.4-5), the young men (2.6), Titus himself (2.7-8), and bondslaves (2.9-10). Our verses (2.11-12) are the rationale for these instructions concerning character and conduct.

These various categories of people are to heed Paul’s instructions in 2.2-10 because the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation. It is the grace of God that instructs us:

1. To deny ungodliness and worldly desires
2. To live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age

This information gives us a synonym for worldly desires (ungodliness) and three antonyms (living sensibly, living righteously, and living godly). If we understand these terms, we will understand better what ‘worldly desires’ are. At first glance, I would say that they are desires that motivate ungodliness and are opposed to the sensible, righteous, and godly lifestyle advocated by the Lord and the apostles. These desires are characterized by their earthly-ness or earthiness.

While this doesn’t completely define worldliness, at least we are starting to head in the right direction. Worldliness would be, at its most basic, the dominating attitude of the person who turns this verse on its head, doesn’t deny ungodliness and worldly desires but instead denies the sensible, righteous, and godly life.

I want to examine each of these terms in more detail, but that will have to wait for part 3. It will also have to wait for a few weeks as I am traveling and won’t be doing much work on the topic for a week or two.

Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism

The author explains his purpose in the first Part:

In this series of posts I shall attempt to give answers concerning the following:

1. Whether Fundamentalism was flawed from its beginning by Scottish Common Sense Realism, sentimentalism, and populism or whether it rests more squarely upon Biblical principles;
2. Whether Fundamentalism was only a “partial and uneducated” return to the Biblical faith because it lacks in its appreciation for the history of theological development in contrast to those who are primarily interested in defending the Reformed faith;
3. Whether Fundamentalism should be broader in its vision and burden and be more culturally concerned as is the amillennialist  because of his kingdom-is-now theology and the post-millennialist because of his establish-the-kingdom theology;
4. Whether Fundamentalism should be actively listening to, dialoguing with, or learning from those outside of itself for the purpose of better spiritual growth and maturity;
5. Whether the historical lines of separation for Fundamentalists should be scrapped in favor of fresh approaches meant to allow fellowship and cooperation with Conservative Evangelicals; and
6. Whether we are actually now in a post-Fundamentalism era and in need of something new namely Paleo-evangelicalism.

This series is a response to Bauder’s recent series of articles trying to tell the history and philosophy of Fundamentalism (and making several errors along the way). I think the whole series is worth your attention and so I am providing links to each article below:

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Part Five
• Part Six
• Part Seven
• Part Eight

There is more to come. You should subscribe to the RSS feed on this blog and catch the rest.

UPDATE: Here is Part Nine (the last)

Related posts on oxgoad:

• should early Fundamentalism have embraced the flappers?

• cart before the horse [2]