Building Upon a New Rock?

Pagan Worship Music

Music as a Test of Fellowship

“¹³ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? ¹⁴ And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. ¹⁵ He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? ¹⁶ And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. ¹⁷ And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it {the truth to which Peter just testified} unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. ¹⁸ And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock {the truth to which Peter just testified} I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹ And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven {salvation through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ}: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:13-19).

          The “kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 16:19 is the beginning of “the regeneration” and refers to the church as the “body of Christ” on earth during the Church Age and the Kingdom Age.  Only “born again” people gain entrance into the “body of Christ” by “grace through faith” in the finished work of Jesus Christ.  Without any doubt, the vehicle for Christ’s intended foundation for any true church growth is the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation “by grace through faith.”  Paul clearly stated that this was the foundation upon which the church at Corinth was built. 

“⁵ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? ⁶ I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. ⁷ So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. ⁸ Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. ⁹ For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. ¹⁰ According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. ¹¹ For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 3:5-11).

          Faith in Jesus Christ is the only acceptable Rock upon which the true church of Jesus Christ can be built.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message that the church of Jesus cannot allow to be corrupted by any identification with worldliness.  The vehicles and mediums through which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is transported and communicated must be pure, holy, and unadulterated from contamination of worldliness.  This is no new message.  This was the message of Haggai to the priesthood of Israel that had allowed the worship of God by the nation of Israel to be contaminated by the integration of paganism into their culture.

“¹⁰ In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying, ¹¹ Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, ¹² If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. ¹³ Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. ¹⁴ Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean” (Haggai 2:10-14).

          I was saved in 1969 in a Bible church.  That church was Presbyterian in polity with a Board of Elders, while purporting Congregational government.  The pastor emphasized personal soul winning, separation, and was an expository preacher.  The church grew to over 500 strong.  I remember the pastor remarking in the early 1970’s about a popular gospel music album recorded by Tennessee Ernie Ford.  He warned that the popularizing of gospel music by the music industry would do great harm to evangelical Christianity.  The premise behind his statement was that sacred music should never be used to entertain.  Sacred music or spiritual music was always to direct the worshippers attention to God.  Less than a decade later, that same pastor started a Christian radio station that began playing mild contemporary Christian music (CCM).  The local church that he spent most of his lifetime building was destroyed by his compromise in the next decade, finally dissolving.  He had removed the Rock Christ Jesus and began building upon CCM.

          There are thousands of such testimonies about the destruction of local churches through the rise of CCM.  I personally know of over a hundred such testimonies.  In most cases, the elderly people who made enormous financial sacrifices to build those churches were sacrificed by new pastors who were more concerned about church growth than they were about the sheep who cried out to God against this new intrusion upon the purity of their worship.  Just because a man has a theological degree does not make his methodologies theological. 

          Everything in life, including music, can be used to build up or tear down.  There is music that builds up and there is music that tears down.  If I were to ask in what way Rock music has been used over the last sixty years, anyone with a historical connection to the culture that Rock produced would answer that Rock corrupted everything and anyone with which it was involved.  Drink of the cup that Rock music serves up and you drink of “the cup of devils.”  Rock music is pagan in its origins and demonic in its outcomes.  Rock music is a cultural aberration.  If Rock has any business in the church, that business is evil business.  The business of Rock music has always been demonic and destructive.  This has been its history for thousands of years.  To use Christian Rock as tool for church growth is an oxymoron in terminology that creates a paradox in practice. 

“¹⁵ I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. ¹⁶ The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? ¹⁷ For we {the spiritual temple of the local church} being many are one {unleavened} bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (Christ- the manna from heaven}. ¹⁸ Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? ¹⁹ What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? ²⁰ But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. ²¹ Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils {Paul is referring to Christianizing the pagan love feasts - the idea is that pagan practices cannot be integrated into the church’s worship}: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (I Corinthians 10:15-21).

Why are the elderly believers resistant to CCM?  They are resistant because they are the generation that existed during the birth of the Rock and Roll culture.  Believers who are in their fifties and sixties (and older) lived through the 1950’s and 1960’s.  They saw first-hand the growth of the Rock Culture and its affects upon society.  They saw firsthand the worship of Rock idols like Elvis the Pelvis and the rise of the free love culture that grew from the Rock culture.  Only the most ignorant of that generation were not aware of the sensuality of the syncopated music with its back-beat or off-beat.  For those of us that were lost in our sins, the music moved us and we liked it.  There was no doubt in our minds about where it moved us and upon what the music focused our thought-life.  We did not really care about the words that were put to the music.  Occasionally we heard the words, especially those words that spoke of rebellion and doing things our way – “It’s your thing, do what you want to do, I can’t tell you who to sock it to.” 

Those that grew up on the foundations of the Rock culture knew the hidden messages in the songs like “Puff the magic dragon” and the “Candy Man.”  This was the music of a cultural revolution and it was a revolution against everything moral, absolute, and Christian.  Rock has never changed its goals.  Rock has always been anarchistic and anti-Christ.  Is there any wonder that this same generation resisted Christianized Rock music when it was introduced into the church with new words?  Is there any wonder that this same generation resisted when Rock was introduced into the church as appropriate for worshipping God?  Those growing up in the birth days of the Rock culture always knew that Rock was about the message in the music itself.  We fully understood the message of the music – it was about SEX.  The words were only extensions of the message of sensuality and rebellion. 

          For most people of my generation, Rock music in the church is like a preacher at his pulpit preaching the Word of God while pornography flashes on a screen behind him.  Dr. Dana Everson makes a similar observation about Rock music playing in the background while trying to obey Philippians 4:8 –“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

“Although the audience may attempt to focus on the performer, and although the performer may be expressing things which are honest, pure, lovely, and true (Philippians 4:8), the audience cannot help but absorb some of what is presented in the background on the stage . . . Even if the audience were able to block out the background by their own self-control, is it right for the producer to place offensive background on the platform where it becomes a stumbling block?  There is really no way to separate the performer from the background without removing the backdrop or moving the performer away from the backdrop.

Similarly, the words of a musical selection may align with Philippians 4:8, but the music must provide an appropriate background and platform or a conflicting message will result.  This principle can be seen both in individual cases and musical selections and in the sense of the endless drone of public musical background which present society tolerates.”[1]

“⁴ Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. ⁵ Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. ⁶ Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. ⁷ And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. ⁸ Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. ⁹ Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Philippians 4:4-9).

Much of what is happening in Contemporary Christianity and the Emergent Church movement is really varying degrees of Neo-paganism.  It is Neo-paganism because they adopt heathen, pagan worship practices with which to worship God.  One need not search too far without discovering the use of syncopated music as a major aspect of pagan worship practices.  Common to the mystery religions was the practice of Ecstasism and Enthusiasm. S. Angus, in his book The Mystery Religions, details these two practices.

“. . . Ecstasy (ekstasis) and Enthusiasm (enthusiasmos), both of which might be induced by vigil and fasting, tense religious expectancy, whirling dances, physical stimuli, the contemplation of sacred objects, the effect of stirring music, inhalation of fumes, revivalistic contagion (such as happened in the church at Corinth), hallucination, suggestion, and other means belonging to the apparatus of the Mysteries.”[2]

          Both Ecstasy and Enthusiasm were used to promote a heightened sense of euphoria to the religious experience.  No one in the pagan culture gave any thought to the fact their religious experience was being carnally manufactured.  In this euphoric state, the participant experiences a feeling of having communed with the spirits.  The reality was that such practices were simply the carnal manipulation of the person’s emotions.  Actually, his involvement has been with the supernatural realm of darkness, but not the light of the divine.  Ecstasism and Enthusiasm were Satanic in origin.

          Adapting pagan worship practices with which they worshipped God was the sin of the “mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38) that came out of Egypt in the Exodus.  We find an excellent representation of Neo-paganism in Exodus 32:1-6 where Aaron leads Israel by making a golden image of Jehovah and worshipping Him with the pagan music, licentious feasts, and riotous living of Egyptian paganism.  

“¹ And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. ² And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. ³ And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. ⁴ And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. ⁵ And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a {worship} feast to the LORD {Jehovah}. ⁶ And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (Exodus 32:1-6).

This mixed multitude certainly describes the Emergent Church where gathering a crowd has become their objective.  Their motivation of evangelism is covert to the mixed multitude.  The fact of the matter is that with which they win them is that with which they will be forced to hold them.  This whole philosophy of sensationalism to gather a crowd goes back to the city wide evangelism campaigns of more than fifty years ago.  These campaigns changed the focus of the Great Commission from going and telling to coming and hearing.  This methodology made the church house and traveling tent shows the doorways to salvation.  This false methodology has infected almost every facet of evangelical Christianity to the point of its destruction.  That corrupted methodology began to measure the success of evangelism by numbers rather than by spiritually transformed souls living selflessly for Christ.  What a subtle web the old deceiver weaves!  How easily believers traverse into the destruction of their own spirituality.  Uniquely, they ensnare themselves in their destruction while defending what ensnares them. 

“²² Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. ²³ But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. ²⁴ And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, ²⁵ In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; ²⁶ And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (II Timothy 2:22-26).

---

[1] Everson, Dana F. Sound Roots: Steps to Building a Biblical Philosophy of Music. (Greenville, SC: Bible Rival Ministries, 2010), pages 266-277.

Book available at:www.biblerival.com

or http://www.lulu.com/shop/dana-everson/sound-roots/paperback/product-13996034.html

[2] Angus, S. The Mystery Religions (New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1975)

 
Anonymous comments will not be allowed. 

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

TESTS of FELLOWSHIP

Areas of Ecclesiological Separation Necessary to Maintain Church Purity

          God puts the administration of His pulpits in local churches under the direction of the pastor of each local church.  The care and administration of what is preached from that holy desk is a grave responsibility that is beyond degree.  Giving someone the right to stand behind that holy desk and proclaim the Word of God is a privilege that should never be given to anyone who has not been carefully vetted about his beliefs and what he will preach.  Everything a preacher teaches from a pulpit is viewed as coming forth with the authority of God’s Word.  Most of those in the pews will accept what is proclaimed without any ability to insure that it is in alignment with what God has said.  Therefore, who I allow to preach from the pulpit that God has given me to administrate must be someone I believe will never lead a new believer astray.  This also becomes my test of fellowship with other pastors and other local churches.  As the pastor of my local church, I am God’s appointed watchman and guardian over the sheep of His sheepfold.  Other believers in a local church are also responsible for the purity of truth from the pulpit ministry of a local church as well as everything taught in all other aspects of the ministry of that local church.  However, ultimately the responsibility falls upon the administration of the pastor.  He is the “overseer.” 

          This was the emphasis of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter twenty when he called the pastors from Ephesus to hear his admonition regarding their responsibilities to their flocks.

“²⁴ But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. ²⁵ And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. ²⁶ Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men {the admonition is that they strive for the same testimony when they come to the end of their lives}. ²⁷ For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God {Paul taught in-depth doctrine by teaching all that the Word of god said, not just portions}. ²⁸ Take heed therefore unto yourselves {they would be held accountable for the same}, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. ²⁹ For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. ³⁰ Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. ³¹ Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 2:24-31).

          Clearly, the responsibility for the tests of fellowship by which any local church is governed must be administrated by the “Holy Ghost” appointed overseer of that local church.  Therefore, the definitiveness of the doctrinal criteria for the administration of fellowship will be determined by the depth of a pastor’s understanding of God’s Word and the depth of his understanding of the degree that any departure from God’s Word affects the lives of believers under his administration. 

          However, these tests of fellowship are being defined by many outside of the local church.  Bible Colleges, Seminaries, and leaders of local church fellowships and associations are telling us that these tests of fellowship are too narrow.  They are telling us that these narrow tests of fellowship are fractionalizing fundamentalism into groups so small they are becoming ineffective in their cultural influence.  Perhaps this last statement by itself tells us why most of our historical tests of fellowship are being abandoned – the quest for cultural relevancy.  In this quest for cultural relevancy, evangelical Christianity is growing increasing like the world by degrees.  We see varying degrees of this worldliness directly proportionate to the abandonment of our historical tests of fellowship.

We have numerous Scriptural examples of tests of fellowship throughout the epistles of the New Testament.  If they were tests of fellowship for early Christianity, they certainly should be maintained as God ordained test of fellowship today. 

The Gospel

“⁶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: ⁷ Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).

          When Paul speaks of the Gospel, he is referring to all that God does to save a person from beginning to end.  Paul speaks of the Gospel that saves the soul, saves the believer’s life, and ultimately even saves the believer’s body (I Thessalonians 5:23).  This is the expanded Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:16-17 and explains in its fullest sense throughout the rest of his epistle to the Romans.  Although I Corinthians 15:1-11 gives us an abbreviation of the Gospel, the epistle to the Romans is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  To what degree then can we allow someone to depart from this Gospel of Jesus Christ and continue to have a working partnership with him in ministry?

          Obviously, there must be a clear presentation of the objective facts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before we can continue in fellowship with another person or local church.  There are two areas that are essential regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ before true fellowship can exist between believers or local churches.

1. There must be a clear understanding of the objective facts of Gospel of Jesus Christ and what those objective facts accomplish on behalf of the sinner. 

2. There must be a clear understanding of what defines a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

          The Gospel of Jesus Christ involves numerous details about the person of Jesus the Christ that are essential to His accomplishing His work of redemption.  Not one of these details can be allowed to be corrupted if the purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be maintained.

1. His immaculate conception and physical incarnation in a human body

2. His life of perfect sinlessness

3. The detailed fulfillment of all prophecies regarding His incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and glorification

4. The vicarious nature of His death, burial, and resurrection.

5. The propitiation of God’s wrath for the sins of the whole world

6. The impartation of God-kind righteousness (justification) to the believing sinner

7. The complete victory over death by His resurrection and glorification affording the believer the same surety in the gift of salvation

          Understanding these elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is essential to a biblical faith response.  Corruption of any one of these seven details will corrupt the faith of anyone seeking to be saved.  It is a test of fellowship that the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is continued with patience and clarity until a person thoroughly understands the details of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  To allow the compromise of the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in anything other than patience and clarity until a sinner understands his condemnation and his complete dependence upon what Christ did to save him is complete irresponsibility manifesting a pragmatism that is of the grossest kind.  Yet, this abuse is the foundation of the Church Growth movement.

“¹⁸ Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. ¹⁹ When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. ²⁰ But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; ²¹ Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. ²² He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. ²³ But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:18-23).

          There are a number of false beliefs that immediately provide Red Flags to departure from these two essentials regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  One such belief is that a person can lose his salvation after he has been “born again.” It is ridiculous to think a person could be un-“born again,” un-sealed with the Spirit, un-baptized from the “body of Christ,” or un-indwelled with the Spirit.  Yet, there are those that say this ought not to be a test of fellowship.  

The eternal security of the believer’s salvation is an outcome of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Show me a person without eternal security of his salvation and I will show you a person who has not understood the Gospel and who is still lost.  Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is a test of fellowship. 

Another problem is the failure to teach repentance from “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1).  We have many professing Christians who claim a “born again” experience, but who have never repented of their trust in their infant baptism or their sacramental view of salvation.  They continue in varying degrees of co-redemption because of someone’s failure to teach them the necessity of repentance from “dead works.”  Failure to teach of the necessity of repentance from “dead works” is a test of fellowship.  Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, especially in His confrontation of the “scribes and Pharisees,” dealt more with repentance of their trust in the works of the Law (Moralism and Ritualism) than He did with repentance of sin.  The Apostle Paul gives the same emphasis is Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.  Because of this gross failure, local churches are filled with people converted to a religion of Christianity, but who have never been “born again.”

There must also be a clear understanding of what defines a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Bible uses five different verbs that are included in a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot deny that God has inspired these five different verbs defining His expected responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  To deny that they are in the Word of God would be ridiculous.  Therefore, the corrupters of the doctrine of salvation seek to simply reduce them to all having the same mean – believe.  The fact is that things that are different are not the same.  These five verbs do not have the same meanings.  These five verbs define five different actions that define a faith response to the Gospel.  Removing any one of these five verbs is a form of reducing and corrupting a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is also an order to these five responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that form the hand of faith that receives God’s gift of salvation.  
      

1. Repentance of sin (not sins) and “dead works” (repenting of any trust in Moralism or Ritualism to help in one’s salvation)

2. Understanding and believing the details of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

3. Public confession that Jesus Christ is Jehovah (His Deity)

4. Calling on the Name of Jesus to saved

5. Receiving the Person of Jesus as Lord and Savior (This is receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit.  This is not consecration.  Making consecration a required response to the Gospel is Lordship Salvation.)

          There are certain anomalies that also must become tests of fellowship.  One of these anomalies is Augustinian Theology.  Augustinian Theology corrupts almost every category of Theology in radical ways, especially the doctrine of salvation.  Calvinism is merely a reformation (in most cases, merely a restatement) of Augustinian Theology.  In both Augustinianism and Calvinism, the doctrines of Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Pneumatology are greatly corrupted.  In both cases, the teaching that God has chosen certain individuals to be saved, while all others are without hope, is a false doctrine that is suppositional and lacks any credible biblical exegesis.  Election is never, not even once, used in this way in the Bible!  Therefore, certain doctrinal anomalies coming from Calvinism must be tests of fellowship.  

Monergism

          Monergism is the belief that man is so totally depraved (total depravity, or total inability) that he cannot even believe.  Faith must be given to him in regeneration before he can believe.  Therefore, Monergists believe regeneration precedes salvation.  Monergism is the belief that God chooses only certain people (unconditional election) to be saved, regenerates only those Christ died for (limited atonement) at some undetermined point in their lives, giving them the gifts of faith and repentance, and brings them to understand the Gospel, whereby they must ultimately believe (irresistible grace).  Then God will cause those He has elected, regenerated, and saved to persevere in their faith (perseverance of the saints). 

          All of these premises and suppositions of Calvinism are outcomes of a false view of the doctrine of election.  However, Augustinian Theology corrupts numerous other areas of Theology as well.  Each corruption becomes a test of fellowship. 

The contextual continuity of the epistle to the Romans demands that we see Romans chapter ten in the light of three dominant truths already established from the earlier chapters:

1. God is universally propitiated for the sins of the whole world from the fall to the end of time. 

2. This translates into universal provision of the free gift of salvation to “whoever shall call upon the name of the LORD.”  Salvation is available to “whosoever.”

3. Although both of these two statements are true and should be universally applied, and although Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is sufficient for the salvation of all, it is beneficial only to those who respond in faith according to God’s inspired directives of repentance from sin and “dead works,” believing the objective facts of the finished work of redemption as detailed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, confessing Jesus as Jehovah, calling on the name of Jesus as Jehovah to save, and receiving Jesus Christ in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. 

          No one would have a problem following the contextual continuity of the epistle to the Romans and the categorical theological establishment of the three statements above if it were not for the pre-suppositions of Calvinism and Reformed Theology that are imposed upon the epistle.  For them, the word “whosoever” means whosoever of the elect.  For them, when God says it is His will that all come to repentance and that all are saved, it means all who are elect.  For them, God’s love for the world refers to two different kinds of grace. 

1. Common Grace (or Prevenient Grace) comes to all people.  This is basically defined as God temporally withholding his judgment upon sinners and the reprobate (those not chosen by God to be saved) allowing them the common blessings of life (“the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike”).

2. Irresistible Grace (Efficacious Grace) comes only to the elect (those chosen by God to be saved).  God regenerates the elect at some unknown time before their salvation giving them the gift of repentance and faith in the person of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect sinner will not be able to resist God’s grace and will, at some unknown time in his life, place faith in Jesus Christ.  Because of this special working of God in the lives of the elect person, he will ultimately persevere in living the Christian life proving he is one of God’s elect (this is not the same as the doctrine of eternal security). 

          These two distortions of God’s grace flow from three other theological pre-suppositional aberrations of Calvinism and Reformed Theology imposed upon the interpretation of the whole Word of God.

1. Monothetism: the monothetic definition of God’s sovereignty (whatever God wills to be done must ALWAYS be done or realized).

2. Determinism (God is the ultimate cause of all things thereby controlling all events in human history and in the future.)  God can foretell the future, not just because of foreknowledge, but because God controls and causes all events in history.

3. Monergism (being saved is not based upon the will of an individual making a faith decision to trust Christ, but upon the sovereign will of God operating within (not upon) the elect prior to their salvation by regenerating them before salvation in order for them to believe. 

          In Calvin’s preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion (second edition of 1539) we have a defining statement that really tells us why the exegesis of all Calvinists is perverted, transforming it into eisegesis.  This happens because all Calvinists look at the Scriptures through the theological pre-suppositions of Calvin.  This is clearly stated to be Calvin’s purpose in writing his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

“I have endeavored to give such a summary of religion in all its parts (in the Systematic Theology laid out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion), and have digested it into such an order as may make it not difficult for anyone who is rightly acquainted with it (the Systematic Theology laid out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion) to ascertain both what he ought principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it.  Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish to enter into long discussions of doctrine or dilate on commonplaces, and will therefore always compress them.  In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work (the Systematic Theology laid out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion) as an essential prerequisite.[1]”  (Underlining and parenthesized areas added.)

          What does this statement of Calvin tell us?  It is a definitive reality behind most of what defines the Hermeneutics of Calvinism and Reformed Theology.  Calvin made his Institutes of the Christian Religion “an essential prerequisite” to being able to properly exegete the Scriptures accurately.  In doing so, he also negatively transformed the biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics) of every Calvinist (anyone believing the theology of his Institutes of the Christian Religion) into eisegesis. 

The Local Church and Congregational Government

          Augustinian Theology and Calvinism greatly corrupt the doctrine of the church.  They corrupt the evangelical purpose of the church by their Replacement Theology and their Theonomic world view.  They corrupt the evangelical purpose of the church by their false doctrine of Kingdom building.  Therefore, they purport a universal view of the church as opposed to a local view of the church.  These false doctrines are not simply acceptable variations of views of the church.  They corrupt the doctrine of the church at almost every level.  Covenant Theology is not another acceptable alternative to Dispensational Theology.  Dispensationalism is NOT something new to the last century of Christianity.  Dispensationalism is the outcome of solid biblical exegesis.  Covenant Theology is the outcome of biblical eisegesis (pre-suppositionalism, to which most Covenant Theologians admit). 

          Augustine’s Amillennialism in his Theonomic worldview was hardly reformed at all by Calvin.  Calvin simply changed the one-world church from Roman to Reformed.  Walvoord speaks of Augustine’s view of the church:

“Augustine (354-430) also believed in the coming of Christ after the millennium and could for this reason be classified as postmillennial.  His view of the millennium, however, was so removed from a literal kingdom on earth that it is virtually a denial of it, and he is better considered as an amillennialist. . . Their (Roman Catholicism’s) very structure of church government and their program of works depend on use of Old Testament promises about the coming kingdom as fulfilled in the church.”[2]

          Calvin’s reformed view of the church continued Augustine’s heretical hierarchal view of church government and his replacement of Israel by the church.  This continued to generate varying degrees of the Big Church view of Christianity rather than the local church view of Christianity.  Although there can be degrees of this that can be tolerated, the degrees are borderline as tests of fellowship.  For instance, one’s view of the church will greatly impact his practical application of Ephesians 4:3 – “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”  If your view of the church is a Big Church view, you will apply this imperative to a responsibility between all churches, regardless of their beliefs.  If your view of the church is a local church view, you will apply this imperative to a responsibility between individuals within a local church and then to your local church’s cooperation with other local churches of like precious faith. 

The End Times

          The corruption of the doctrine of the church (Ecclesiology) also corrupts the doctrine of the end times (Eschatology).  The Apostle Paul considered the doctrine of Christ’s second coming critical enough to correct aberrations that arose due to false teaching.  This is certainly true of the rapture of the church.  The pre-tribulation view of the rapture of the church and a pre-millennial view of the second coming of Christ to the Earth to establish His Kingdom are tests of fellowship. 

“¹³ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. ¹⁴ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. ¹⁵ For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: ¹⁷ Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (I Thessalonians 4:13-18). 

          The historical context that prompted these inspired words from God was the false teaching that the rapture had already happened (II Thessalonians 2:1-2) and that believers were now living in the terrible days of God’s wrath upon planet earth.  God intended these words to be taught to all believers so that they might “comfort one another with these words.”  To allow the false doctrine of mid-tribulation or post-tribulation rapture of the church to be taught is a complete corruption of the purpose of I Thessalonians 4:13-17 – “comfort one another with these words.”  What comfort is there in a mid-tribulation rapture of the church when one-third of the world’s population will be destroyed by the first six seal judgments of Revelation chapter six?  Certainly there is no comfort in thinking we must endure all the judgment of the nations in a post-tribulation view of the rapture.  In fact, these perversions of the rapture of the church are discomforting.  These perversions of the rapture of the church are tests of fellowship.  They cannot be tolerated. 

Sanctification by Faith

“¹ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? ² This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ³ Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? ⁴ Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. ⁵ He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:1-5)?

          There are a number of tests of fellowship when it comes to the doctrine of sanctification.  For anyone to think that sanctification, either positional or practical, can come by human effort apart from divine enabling is absolute foolishness.  We can no more sanctify ourselves than we can save ourselves.  Secondly, there is an aberration of the doctrine of sanctification that teaches that the believer’s service, or “work of ministry,” is acceptable to God solely on the basis of our positional sanctification.  In this perverted view of sanctification, meaning personal holiness and separation, practical sanctification has nothing to do with God using the believer to His glory.  This perverted view of sanctification removes all of God’s conditions upon His blessings such as answers to prayer, producing the “fruit of the Spirit,” and being used of God to bring lost souls to Christ and make disciples of Christ of them. 

          Practical sanctification is an operation of the Holy Spirit of God along with the believer (“fellowship”) who has yielded (Romans 6:11-13) his will to God’s will.  Then, the Spirit of God fills that believer, practically sanctifies him, and empowers him to live the Christ-life.  He thereby, produces the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-24) as the overflow of that filling, and thereby “abides” in Christ (John 15:5) bringing “forth much fruit.”  All ministry that is not done in “fellowship” with the Spirit, becomes a work of the flesh that is nothing more than “wood, hay, and stubble” (I Corinthians 3:12).  This will become a pile of ashes at the believer’s feet at the Judgment Seat of Christ.  Knowing that all of this is true, this certainly must be a test of fellowship.  How could any pastor allow the sheep of his fold to be misled in any way regarding this wondrous doctrine of God’s enabling grace when so much is at stake? 

---

[1] Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1970), pages 227-228.

[2] Walvoord, John. The Millennial Kingdom. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), pages 8 and 10.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed. 
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

I have received a number of emails from pastors around the country expressing concerns about the Integrated Family Movement. Although I find that many things they say are true, I also greatly disagree with the way they force a philosophy of the family upon local churches claiming that any form of age divided or gender divided Bible study classes, even a nursery or Cry Room in a local church, is intent up dividing the family. The following article by Pastor Rench presents a biblical answer to the accusations of the Integrated Family Movement.

Mrs. Doris Aikens Sunday School Class 1957

Is Sunday School Biblical?

W.M. Rench

Calvary Baptist Church

Temecula, California

“Is Sunday school biblical?”  Usually such a question means: “Is it right, or should it be practiced?  Should we participate in it?  Is it the will of God?  Should it be supported, promoted and encouraged as an essential part of the ministry of a church?”

There has arisen in recent days a concerted effort by some groups in our country to cast aspersions on the ministry of the Sunday school.  This movement was, in part at least, inspired by some very real and legitimate concerns about what passes for “youth ministry” across the “evangelical” world. Much of what is called youth ministry is about as far from a biblical definition of ministry as one can get.  Young people do not need more entertainment with a pinch of religion thrown in for accent, they need to be challenged to step up, take up the cross and follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

The biblical format for a Sunday school ministry is one that seeks to reinforce and encourage whatever biblical training is taking place in the homes of the children and young people.  We parents are charged with the responsibility of teaching the Bible to our children, but a careful study of the Word of God will reveal that God raises up teachers in the church. He calls and equips them to teach others.  He uses them to be a blessing and help to children, young people and adults alike. 

Certain groups, some with good intentions and some with wrong motives, have attempted to denigrate Sunday schools using carefully chosen wording to provoke negative connotations for graded Sunday school classes.  Their charges are that the church seeks to divide the family and to drive a wedge between parents and children.  They will frequently repeat terms like age segregated and family division.  They make the charge that graded classes, secular or Sunday school, are a recent creation of secular humanists.  Further, they charge that classes tend to promote the institutionalization of children and the goal of humanists that they become wards of the State.  They insist that there is no support for the idea of such classes or schools in the Bible or in the record of history.  Just saying it loudly, angrily and often does not make it so.  They happen to be wrong on all the aforementioned counts.

New Testament characters make mention of schooling back through Old Testament history.   In Acts 7:22, Stephen refers to Moses’ schooling, saying he was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”  Even in the time of our Lord’s sojourn on earth there were such schools and they did minister to age related groups.  In fact, the religious component in these schools was more prevalent than the other educational disciplines.

Historian H.H. Meyer, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, said;

“Synagogues with attached schools for the young were to be found in every important Jewish community.  Public elementary schools, other than those connected with the synagogues were of slower growth and do not seem to have been common until sometime after Joshua Ben Gamala, (high priest from 63-65 A.D.), ordered teachers to be appointed in every province and city to instruct children having attained the age of 6-7 years.  In the synagogue schools the hazzan, or attendant, not infrequently served as schoolmaster.”

We find this well known office, schoolmaster, recognized in Scripture in the book of Galatians, where it is used as an analogy for the work that the Law of God does to guide men to Christ.  Webster’s Dictionary defines the word as follows; 1.“The man who presides over and teaches a school; a teacher, instructor, or preceptor of a school.  2. He or that which disciplines, instructs and leads.

Fred H. Wright in his book, Manners and Customs in Bible Times, wrote, “The archaeological expedition conducted by Sir Charles L. Woolley at Ur of the Chaldees, from 1922 to 1934 has proven there were schools in the city of Abraham’s youth.”  Wright goes on to mention biblical and historical references to the school of the prophets formed by Samuel.  He also writes of the synagogue schools that were prevalent at the time of Jesus’ childhood.  He writes, “When Jesus grew up as a boy in the village of Nazareth he no doubt attended the synagogue school.  The Jewish child was sent to school in the fifth or sixth year of life.”  And then he points out, “Until the children were 10 years of age, the Bible was the one textbook.  From 10 to 15 the traditional law was the main subject dealt with, and the study of theology as taught in the Talmud was taken up with those over 15 years of age.”  Wright later makes reference to the Rabbinical Schools common in Paul’s day.  He states, “As a young man of thirteen years of age, Saul of Tarsus came to Jerusalem to begin his training under the great leader, Gamaliel.” 

Paul even makes reference to this influential teacher he had in the days of his youth:  Acts 22:3  I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.  I trust that it is becoming evident to the reader that the charge that there is no precedent for age related schools in the Bible or in the historical record is unfounded.

“Wright goes on in his account, quoting from Camden Cobern in The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on the New Testament, “It is now known that there were 20 grammar schools in the great city of Rome when the Apostle Paul first visited the city.  Girls as well as boys were allowed to go to school, but there is evidence that more boys than girls availed themselves of the privilege.” 

Wright explains that Paul’s reference to a “schoolmaster” in Galatians came from a commonly known position in these schools.  Among the schoolmaster’s responsibilities according to references in several ancient papyri, was the task of getting those children under his care to and from school.  Archeological discoveries in Ephesus indicate that the school of Tyrannus Paul mentions using as a meeting place for the church established there, was an elementary school.

The eminent historian Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times Of Jesus The Messiah, gives us a portrait of the education of children in the Hebrew culture at the time of Christ:

“The regular instruction commenced in the fifth or sixth year (according to strength), when every child was sent to school.  There can be no reasonable doubt that such schools existed throughout the land.  We find references to them in almost every period; indeed the existence of higher schools and Academies would not have been possible without such primary instruction.”  He wrote, “It was deemed unlawful to live in a place where there was no school.”

He went on to say, “For a long time it was not uncommon to teach in the open air; but this must have been chiefly in connection with theological discussions, and the instruction of youths.  But the children were gathered in the synagogues, or in School-houses, where at first they either stood, teacher and pupils alike, or else sat  on the ground in a semicircle, facing the teacher, as it were, literally to carry into practice the prophetic saying, ‘Thine eyes shall see thy teachers.’”

He added, “Thus encircled by his pupils,…the teacher should impart to them the precious knowledge of the Law, with constant adaptation to their capacity, with unwearied patience, intense earnestness, strictness tempered by kindness, but, above all, with the highest object of their training ever in view.  To keep children from all contact with vise; to train them to gentleness, even when bitterest wrong had been received; to show sin in its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify by its consequences;  to train to strict truthfulness;  to avoid all that might lead to disagreeable or indelicate thoughts; and do this without showing partiality, without either undo severity, or laxity of discipline, with judicious increase of study and work, with careful attention to thoroughness in acquiring knowledge—all this and more constituted the ideal set before the teacher, and made his office of such high esteem in Israel.”

Concerning the particulars of class structure in the Biblical era Edersheim writes;

“Up to ten years of age, the Bible exclusively would be the textbook…The Talmud was taught in the Academies, to which access could not be gained till after the age of fifteen.  Care was taken not to send a child too early to school, nor to overwork him when there.  For this purpose the school hours were fixed, and attendance shortened during the summer months.  Teaching in school would of course be greatly aided by the services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of home life.”  He adds, “Besides, a school for Bible study was attached to every academy, in which copies of the Holy Scriptures would be kept.”  He said, “Certain sections were copied for the instruction of children.  Among them, the history of the creation to that of the flood; Lev. 1-9; and Numbers 1-10:35, are specifically mentioned.  It was in such circumstances and under such influences, that the early years of Jesus passed.”

John Stambaugh and David Balch point out the following in their book, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, “The synagogue was a place of prayer, where the congregation gathered on the Sabbath and on holy days.  It was also a school, where the Torah was studied; some of the excavated synagogues included separate rooms for instruction.” (It sounds a lot like Sunday school doesn’t it?)

Ample evidence for the Biblical basis of a Sunday School ministry is provided in the above citations.  In addition, any diligent researcher can produce a ponderous volume of such evidence for the following facts; that schools have long existed; that Sunday schools, or Sabbath schools in various forms have long existed; that these schools gave attention to distinctions in ages of pupils; and that having classes with children in them was not viewed as an attempt to divide families.

Some 20 different terms in the Scripture show a distinction in age and  indicate differing levels of maturity, development and understanding.  Searching the Scripture you will find at least the following age related terms: a suckling, an infant, a babe, a weaned child, a little child, a child, boys and girls, a little lad, a lad, a stripling, a youth, a young man, a man, a man of full age, an old man, an aged man, a very aged man, a man well stricken in years and finally, a man as good as dead.  The contention by some that the Bible does not use age based distinctions is clearly groundless.  Age graded Sunday school classes simply recognize these distinctions in an organized fashion. 

Parents who teach their children the Scriptures do well.  Parents who teach their children the scriptures and give them the opportunity to grow up in Sunday school classes do better.  Parents who provide a biblical example for their children to follow are wise.  Parents who provide that example and allow their children to experience the example of godly Sunday school teachers demonstrate the greater wisdom.  Adults who faithfully attend the church preaching services do well.  Adults who also are found faithful to their attendance in an Adult Sunday school class do better.

When the Psalmist declared he had more understanding than all his teachers, (Psalm 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.), he stated two truths that have been missed by those administering the recent blows to the Sunday school ministry.

1. The Psalmist had many teachers. 

2.  That fact provided him the great opportunity of receiving the combined wisdom of all his teachers. 

The production of an airliner is the combined understanding of many minds rather than the wisdom of one mind.  The best equipped for life and ministry are those whose training is the result of many godly influences from the lives of preachers and teachers. 

Cliff Schimmels, in his book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Sunday School, wrote of going to speak at a small country church on an icy blustery winter’s day.  He was surprised to find it crowded full even on such a bad weather day.  He reflected on his own upbringing in Sunday school as he watched the children going to their classes.  After the services he sat visiting with an elderly man.  He told Mr. Schimmels fondly of his seventy plus years in that very Sunday school and of his blessed memories of many Sunday school teachers.  Then Mr. Schimmels wrote, “I asked him why, after seventy years of being in this Sunday school, he had chosen to risk life and limb to come out on a treacherous morning like this.  Surely he had heard all the lessons by now and wasn’t expecting anything new.  ‘Paul told me to come,’” he told me.”  Schimmels tried to recall someone named Paul who would have spoken so highly of him as a guest speaker that this man would come out in such inclement weather.  Schimmels asked, “Paul who?”   With that the old man took out his well worn Bible and began to read, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”  2 Timothy 3:14-15.  He closed his Bible and said, “I learned those verses in Sunday school before I learned to read.”  We do right as parents when we allow the influence and instruction of godly Sunday school teachers to come alongside our own training of our children as we raise them up to love, honor and serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed. 
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.