Freedom Road: Part 1; Genesis 1:1-5
“This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.”
A hermeneutic is a method of interpretation. For God’s child, His intended hermeneutic for us is demonstrated in the very first sentences of Scripture. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Statement of fact, no explanation, no apologetics to make the case. The very first sentence in the Bible is authoritative and assumes superintention for the rest of the book.
Secondly, its truth is plainly stated, and separated from God’s mystery. God’s servant is to carefully observe the details and draw truth accordingly without presuming anything. We also see another interpretive tool meant for God’s people that excludes the necessity of knowing what the Hebrew word for “day” means: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” So, “day” here obviously means one solar day. Therefore, God’s word is to be interpreted literally and taken at face value. God also elaborates and confirms the literal meaning.
God is glorified when His children use the brains they are given. There are going to be truths that are difficult to understand. But God never intended His word to be overly difficult to understand, and certainly, God’s children are not to be dependent on scholars. This is clear from Acts 17:11 where we have the Bereans confirming the teachings of one of the greatest Bible scholars of all time, the apostle Paul. What about allegory, symbolism, and parables in the Bible? How do we know when to apply those principles to interpretation? Well, the Bible usually tells us when that’s the case. It is my contention that the Bible contains its own rules for interpretation. For instance, in Galatians 4:24 we read, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” In Matthew chapter 13 we read the following:
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
Regardless of the fact that our Lord explains this parable in no uncertain terms, various contrary interpretations abound from the supposed scholars of our day. And even in regard to the complexity of the book of Revelation, our Lord gives clear methods of interpretation and interpretive keys:
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev. 1:19,20).
And angels as well….
6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her (Rev. 17:6,7).
Regardless of clear interpretation from our Lord and holy angels, the Gnostics and self-aggrandizing academiacs of this day defile our sanctification with their arrogant musings. Some, like Francis Chan, describe us as “clay vessels struggling to describe this vast treasure.” Hardly. Our Lord wants us to understand—that’s important to Him. He wants us to be free with the truth found in the perfect law of liberty (John 8:32, James 1:25).
Everywhere throughout the Scriptures, they teach us how to interpret them. Matthew 4:4 teaches us that in some way, ALL Scripture contributes to our spiritual growth. 2Timothy 3:16,17 teaches this as well. To the contrary, many in our day have bought into the idea that the study of last things (eschatology) is “less relevant” than “the gospel” and is “secondary truth.” Yet, Paul said that those who have hope in regard to eschatological truth “purify themselves” and “comfort one another” (1John 3:2,3; 1Thess. 5:11).
Yet another example among many is the unique hermeneutic laid forth by the Holy Spirit for Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. It states that Christ “opened His mouth [perhaps an illusion to Matthew 4:4] and taught them, saying….” What does it mean when you are being taught? When you go into any kind of classroom for the purpose of being taught, and that is the goal, all things needed to accomplish that goal are assumed. His audience for that sermon was, for the most part, the uneducated peasants of that day. And they were “taught”—past tense. The Sermon on the Mount is to be taken literally, and at face value. Trust me, these people knew nothing of New Covenant Theology; or for that matter, the vileness of it all, or anything regarding deep theological matters of interpretation. The hermeneutic for that sermon was common sense, period.
Furthermore, because the Bible interprets itself, another big question is solved; especially in regard to new believers: “Where is the best place to start?” Answer: “In the beginning.” Because the Bible interprets itself, a study of the book of Genesis will also cover the rest of the Bible. When I was a new believer, other Christians chuckled at the fact that I didn’t follow the usual churchy cliché of “starting in the book of John because it is about the gospel.” ALWAYS counsel a new believer to start in the beginning, and then take the opportunity to disciple by showing how the old interprets the new and vice versa. And where do we get that? Again, from the Bible itself (Matthew 13:16,17, 51,52; 1Peter 1:10-12). In Matthew 13:51,52, Jesus, while stating that what He was saying at that time was the new—was also stating that the old was necessary also. What is more obvious than the fact that the book of Revelation cannot be fully interpreted without many Old Testament books; particularly, Daniel and Ezekiel. And for that matter, Genesis as well. This is why theologies such as New Covenant Theology cannot withstand biblical hermeneutics. It also reveals how teachings like Geerhardus Vos’ “Biblical Theology” were forged with the very fires of hell.
With this in mind, let us look at Genesis 1:1-5:
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
If one listens to the theological Timothy Learys of our day, these first verses are supposedly about the gospel. Go figure. Anybody see “gospel” here? Supposedly, God created the earth as a chaotic void (representative of man and his devices) so He could then bring forth light in the midst of “chaos” as a way to “show forth the gospel.” Anybody see “chaos” here? Since when does dark + void + water = chaos?
If people would just shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit, something astounding is going on here. In the beginning, God created the Earth, and the following verses are what He created first. So what do we have? Thus far: darkness, and water, in a void and without a form, and then God adds light. So what we have now is darkness and light as one (what in the world would that look like?!), suspended in a void with a body of water that has one side (“the face of the deep” [probably all of the water that is now on the Earth]). This isn’t a picture of man, this is God’s majesty and mystery on display. How can light and darkness be one and the same? Add this gargantuan mass of water with a surface, and without form elsewhere, and what you have is a spectacle that cannot be recreated in any kind of illustration. In addition, God offers no explanation for this, but rather states it as fact. This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent. Note verse four: “And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.” Obviously, if the light and darkness were not one, He wouldn’t have separated them. One can create all kinds of theories about what God was supposedly symbolizing in these verses, but I assume the light and the darkness being one causes most of the models (if not all of them) to break down on that point. One wonders if that was intentional on God’s part.
Such was the first day of creation. The first five verses create many questions that only God can answer. Did He create darkness in the first day? It would seem so, because He gives both light and darkness their names in verse 5. Was water already present before the creation of the earth? Perhaps, we have no indication here that water was created. But if light and darkness were created, does that mean there was no light and darkness before the creation of the Earth? And what in the world do the two look like as one?
Yes, the wonderment of our great Father. We stand in awe of Him, do we not?
How ironic that those who approach the Bible literally are often accused of being “overly simplistic.” Really? Seeing these verses as gospel seems more simplistic to me, if not downright silly. Not only that, please do not mess up my present condition of being awestruck by God’s majesty with another boring 7-11 praise song. That’s seven verses about the gospel repeated eleven times.
paul
Freedom Road: Introduction
If our Lord came back today, things wouldn’t be much different. I firmly believe this because of what I read in the Sermon on the Mount. Like today, the theological brainiacs of that era were saying that Christ came to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).
Something else would be the same as well. He wouldn’t even meet with the academic theological brain trust of our day. I’m sure they would be incredulous in even considering it, but Christ would not seek them out, nor would he agree to make an appointment with them. Like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers of that day, they would have to catch up to him in the ghetto and wait their turn. If Christ stopped by in April, one can only imagine the perplexed looks on the faces of Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and CJ Mahaney when Jesus fails to appear with them at this year’s T4G Conference.
We are in the same kind of crisis today that was present then: the opinions of theologians ruled the day. Saints were reading the Scriptures through the established prisms created by men (notice how many Sunday Schools and Bible studies are based on periodicals and popular Christian books of our day). The apostles and the common people were shocked at our Lord’s plenary dismissal of the theological giants of that day:
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28,29).
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” (Matthew 15:12).
And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Matthew 21:23).
Truly, we are a church culture enslaved by the musings of men who lust for worship from the church peasantry. Their clamoring of compromise to be invited to the next big gig is shamefully obvious. And has anybody noticed how many Scripture references appear in 200+ pages of the most popular Christian books of our day? Forgotten is the fact that our Lord is speaking directly to us in His word. And we are not only born again into completely new creatures, he has also given us an indwelling Illuminator, Counselor, and Helper. This emphasis is conspicuously missing from the theological rock stars of our day. What could be more obvious than their own wonderment of what we would do without them?
I have learned 90% of what I know that matters during two major trials in my life. In the second, God has shown me how dependent I have been on the opinions of men in my understanding of truth. So now I embark on a journey with just me, the Holy Spirit, and God’s word. I intend to start at the very beginning, Genesis 1:1, and these will also be devotions for my family. Please comment, for you can also add fruit to this endeavor. But there is but one rule: share what God has taught you from these passages and DO NOT quote dead scholars or live ones!
Here I go. And I am free. Teach me Lord, because only truth sanctifies.
paul
The Impressive Compass Bible Church and Their Future Apostasy
“Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well.”
I am encouraged about one thing this week. I remember a pastor asking me about Compass Bible church’s pastor/teacher Mike Fabarez four weeks ago: “Hey Paul, what do you think about this guy? He really seems to get it.” I remember thinking after reading the email: “What? Are you kidding! This guy is great! How could you be such a pessimist? I thought I was the one who sees this doctrine behind every bush!” Reflected in the pastor’s use of “seems” is his realization of how subtle this doctrine is. That’s encouraging; some get it, but Fabarez is not one of them.
As any reader here knows, I have been vigorously promoting the “Aggressive Sanctification Conference” hosted by Compass Bible Church that took place this past weekend. I even contemplated flying out there for the conference. Susan and I watched the conference together on live video stream. We were greatly encouraged by what we heard for the most part, but throughout the conference, we both perceived some red flags. Before I elaborate, let me tell you what happened in the final message of the conference by Compass elder Bobby Blakey. It was practically a full-blown New Calvinist sermon. In fact, the primary target of Fabarez’s criticism, Tullian Tchividjian, would have fully agreed with it.
Blakey clearly presented the following thesis in his message: in essence, “Yes, we need to be aggressive and all of these imperatives we are learning are awesome! Ya man, aggressive sanctification rules! And I am going to show you how to kick butt from the fourth commandment! You see man, like, we need a day of rest so we can contemplate the gospel and how great God is, and how little we are, like, we are just grasshoppers. Then that empowers us and invigorates us so that Jesus can do His work….[and don’t miss this]….”through us.’” Missing was the balance that reminds us that Jesus will not be judging His own works at the Bema Seat. Missing were the biblical words, “colaborers,” and “Helper.”
Blakey’s thesis also strongly suggested an “invigoration” that is always present with our works as a result of taking a day to meditate on God’s greatness and what he has done for us through the gospel. This element of his message could have just as well been preached by John Piper himself. Missing was the Apostle Paul’s description of how he served God through a multifaceted array of emotions, weaknesses, and circumstances. Missing was Christ’s agony in His obedience to the cross as one who knows the Father as Himself. In addition, Blakey’s rendition of the exodus to make this point could have just as easily been penned by Graeme Goldsworthy. The whole message reeked of New Calvinism. And shockingly, he implemented a New Calvinist staple to further his point foisted on the book of Ephesians: the indicative/imperative hermeneutic which is a mainstay of Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology. I sat dumbfounded and shell-shocked.
New Calvinists have no problem with aggressive sanctification whatsoever, just so it all goes through the cross first and is ALL performed by Jesus “through us.” Apparently, Christ misspoke and really meant to say, “Good contemplating my little grasshopper…,” instead of, “Well done faithful servant.” The Conference started with a message by Fabarez who apologized for being an apologist by erecting his upstart Aggressive Sanctification blog. He said it wasn’t his “forte” and he didn’t enjoy it at all. He obviously wanted to make sure everybody knew that he is above the fray. Nevertheless, his contention against the fusion of justification and sanctification was outstanding, but over-simplified. Most New Calvinists will have it for lunch, especially since nobody knows who the New Calvinists are because as Fabarez mentioned, he doesn’t like to name names. This is like the aids epidemic that flourished between 1969 and 1979 because it didn’t have an identity. Somehow, New Calvinism doesn’t pose as much of a danger. Apparently, it’s like catching a cold—no need to get ugly about it and start naming names.
The second message was by associate pastor Pete Lasutschinkow. Compass’ website states that he studied biblical counseling under Jay Adams at Westminster Seminary. That’s good if it was the only reason he was there at the time. The message was outstanding and very Adamsesque. He cited a lack of leadership among men as the greatest danger to the Christian family today, but I have news for him; teaching that elders have more authority in the home than the husband—and one spouse believing in synergistic salvation constitutes a mixed marriage is not helpful either (as others such as New Calvinists teach).
Other than Blakey, another one of Fabarez’s boy-elders, Lucas Pace, started out strong by describing obstacles to discipleship. Susan and I took notes vigorously, but then he got into framing disobedience via David Powlison’s Heart Theology which is the counseling application of Sonship Theology. The Bible never frames misplaced priorities in regard to idols in the heart. Again, another example of New Calvinist leaven permeating Compass’ eldership.
Therefore, Compass is destined to go the way of ministries like NANC, Coral Ridge, Grace Community Church, and Clearcreek Chapel. Leadership always thinks it can toy with a little bit of leaven. Things are going good for Compass right now, but like Dr. John Street when he was at Clearcreek Chapel, Fabarez is asleep at the switch. Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well. When John Street allowed Powlison’s Heart Theology into Clearcreek Chapel’s NANC training program, that was the beginning of the end—as an elder, I saw it happen with my own eyes. Fabarez is well on his way to being a mega-sellout like John MacArthur Jr. unless he reins in his boy-elders, but let me tell you why that’s not going to happen.
I have recently learned how our present church culture is dominated with the neo-evangelicalism that evangelicals were decrying in the 60’s. Basically, neo-evangelicalism rejected biblical separatism. From it, truism’s like, “All truth is God’s truth”; You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater [even though the baby is a Canaanite]; Don’t be apologetic, focus on the “truth” and the rest will fall in place [kindred to Fabarez’s approach at the conference]; take off the shelf what is good, and leave the rest there; etc.
Hogwash.
And this is the reason Compass will go the way of all the others—they don’t get it: “sanctification” means to “set apart.” And obviously, they are not aggressively setting apart. They allowed the spirits of the very doctrine they decry to speak throughout the conference!
paul
A Second Open Letter to Lou Priolo
Dear Lou Priolo,
I see that you are still the featured speaker at Clearcreek Chapel’s annual “Family Enrichment Conference” taking place on January 27-28, 2012. Still convinced that you are a man who would never use the position that God has placed him in to give undue credibility to men who are unrepentant regarding evil deeds, I will now make an attempt to spell things out more clearly for you:
Because the Clearcreek elders are drunk with visions of grandeur, they sought to neutralize me as a member because I basically figured out what they were spoon-feeding the congregation. I became a threat to their role as the great new Reformers saving the church from the Dark Age of Synergistic Sanctification.
I left quietly with my family after they used every cult tactic in the book to dissuade my concerns. A letter was issued to all elders and my departure was upon receipt of that letter. The parishioners were not aware of the contention between the elders and me. Less than a week later, two elders, Dr. Devon Berry, an associate professor of psychiatry at UC, and Mark Schindler, arrived at my house and announced that I was “under church discipline.” And this is key: Devon Berry said that it was the “first step of church discipline.” They were obviously concerned that I was no longer under their authority and parishioners would want to know why we left. We had been members there for at least eighteen years and I was a former elder. Russ Kennedy, the pastor/teacher at Clearcreek, may have been concerned that he would be sent packing like he was in Illinois for being less than forthright about his theology.
Though I was dazed and confused about the visit, I did one thing right; I asked that the reasons for the church discipline be put in writing and that I would be given time to pray about it. In the meantime, I was counseled by two pastors to return and “play the game until I could leave in peace,” and was also counseled by my son-in-law (a missionary in Puerto Rico) to NOT submit to the discipline. But here is my first point: regardless of the fact that my life was supposedly full of sin, they waited till I submitted a letter of departure to the elders to put me under church discipline. Why?
After my son-in-law called them on it—it set off a string of blunders and additional lies to cover up other lies. Instead of telling an intelligent lie that I gave them a letter after being confronted about sin I wouldn’t deal with, they instead stated in a letter to me that they did not interpret my letter as intent to leave membership because I didn’t specifically say, “please remove me from membership.” But here is what my letter stated:
After much consideration and prayer, and with a heavy heart, I tell you that there is no possible way I can remain at Clearcreek Chapel with my family. Furthermore, I am not willing to discuss the matter any further. Shirley may remain long enough to wrap-up outstanding ministry while I search for another church home.
Here is their response to me in regard to the charge:
We have attached your letter received by us on December 9, 2007 [actually, they did not attach the letter. This was a ploy to see if I retained a copy for myself because my wife couldn’t find one in my computer files where I normally kept such records]. You have represented this letter as your demand to have your membership removed from the Chapel. No such request or demand is in the letter. You say that you are going to be seeking another church and then state your disagreements with the Chapel. You did not ask to remove your membership. We did not receive this as a request to be removed as a member.
Hence, they unwittingly made the letter the issue and not sin issues, plainly verifying the fact that there were no sin issues being discussed before I submitted the letter. Instead of their response stating, “Paul, the letter is neither here or nor there and is not valid because we were in the second step of church discipline,” they made the interpretation of the letter the issue in order to justify a first step of discipline. But even a child would laugh at the ridiculous notion that my letter was not an intent to separate myself from Chapel membership. Furthermore, the fact that the letter initiated this unjust action speaks for itself. They knew they couldn’t say the letter came after the first step of discipline was initiated, so they had to say the letter wasn’t an intent to depart.
Secondly, the Clearcreek elders realized they had a second problem in the situation. After taking the advice of the two other elders (as opposed to the counsel of my son-in-law) and allowing Clearcreek to hold me hostage there for almost four months, I submitted a second letter to inform the Clearcreek elders that I had been counseled by other pastors to leave there with my family at all cost. Devin Berry and Mark Schindler then returned to my home to verify that my letter was an intent to leave membership. Why did they not ask for such verification in the first visit? But the bigger question that they anticipated from people was the following: “Why wouldn’t his attempt to leave be the second step of church discipline?” Well, they attempted to cover their tracks on that in the same letter:
On January 8, you received a visit from two elders who informed you that you were at the second stage of corrective discipline. You were given a letter outlining the category of sins, some specific examples of those sins and what true, godly repentance would entail. You did not then respond that you were not a member and not subject to discipline. You said you would prayerfully consider what we had to say and how you would respond.
I responded in a letter to their fellowship of churches:
Furthermore, in another lame attempt to cover their behavior, they claim (in the same letter) that I was presented with a second letter by two elders that initiated a second step of church discipline. I received no such letter; nor did I meet with two elders in regard to a second step of church discipline. In anticipation of these letters sent by me, I made the following request to the Clearcreek elders:
“In your written response to the website: http://www.eldersresolution.org, you claim that I was presented with a letter by two elders on January 8, 2008, that specifically stated that I was in the second step of church discipline. I respectfully request that a copy of this letter be sent to me, along with the names of the two elders that presented this letter to me at that time.”
The request was ignored. Why? Because no such letter was ever drafted and no such meeting ever took place; that’s why. In addition, such a letter could only produce additional contradictions, even if it was produced.
Apparently forced into a position to reply, they sent me the following email:
In our response to the website, we did not say that the letter given you “specifically stated” that you were in the second step of church discipline. In our response to the website, we wrote the following:
“On January 8, you received a visit from two elders who informed you that you were at the second stage of corrective discipline. You were given a letter outlining the category of sins, some specific examples of those sins and what true, godly repentance would entail. You did not then respond that you were not a member and not subject to discipline. You said you would prayerfully consider what we had to say and how you would respond.”
Also, we misread our records. On January 8, 2008 there was an Elder’s Meeting in which the elders who visited with you in December gave their report.
After leaving the church discipline and Clearcreek for the second time, and entering into counseling with pastor Rick Wilson, a certified NANC counselor, the Clearcreek elders excommunicated me on a Sunday morning without stating specific reasons and deliberately leaving the parishioners to their own imaginations. It is the most despicable form of slander I have ever witnessed in my life. Furthermore, a parishioner sent me the following email shortly thereafter:
But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the people for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend] at one point and [elder’s name withheld] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.
I later met with this parishioner face to face and confirmed the fact that the Clearcreek elders had full knowledge that this Chapel member was cohabitating outside of marriage while putting me under a completely bogus church discipline. Moreover, they submitted a six page resolution commanding my wife to return to the Chapel, stating that I had been declared an unbeliever by them and had no authority in her life. They also offered to supply her with housing, a job, and attorneys fees if she decided to divorce me. After accusing me of not sufficiently supplying for my family in a three-year period prior to 2007, their very own attorney supplied tax records in a domestic court hearing showing that I made over 100,000 dollars in 2005 in an attempt to elicit more child support that was being paid in the temporary order.
Dr. Priolo, these are wicked men. Not only do they teach blatant false doctrine, their vile character precedes them. If you go there, you are a partaker in their evil. And I will not go the way of those who have fled to other states to avoid their persecution, I will stand against them and their filthy false doctrine till my dying day, so help me God.
Paul M. Dohse
leave a comment