The Best of Bunker

Flashback: Bunker on Economic Prospects from 2008

2010-08-16T07:14:00.000-07:00

**This article I wrote in October of 2008. In 2006 and 2007 I had warned of a crash of the "boom" and of the housing bubble and mortgage bubble, etc. Some folks who remembered those warnings, were asking me what to expect in late 2008.... mb

11/25/08 - 3rd Day - After Breakfast. This was a question I got for Q&A, but it seemed to need a longer more complete answer than the regular Q&A allows, so I thought I would post it as a separate blog post. I do not pretend to be an economist, and I can't say that my opinion is good or correct. I have been right quite a lot, so I just throw this out there for your information.

Michael,

I seem to remember you telling us that gas prices might plummet like this before the “big crash”. It was in a post or answer about inflation/deflation and TEOTWAWKI (The End of The World as We Know It). Do you remember that, and can you discuss it with us again now that it seems to be coming to pass?

Thanks

Thank you for your question. A brother here at the ranch brought this up just yesterday after I received your question, and I was already planning to write something about this subject, so here goes. My discussions and “what ifs” about the economy have taken place in many different places and in several different forums. I have discussed the idea of deflation/inflation with the group here on several occasions, and I had speculated that prices might plummet as a sign that a complete collapse was imminent. Of course I am not predicting anything. I am just speculating on what I see and warning people so they will know what to look for. I may be completely wrong, but my track record is pretty good. First, let me post what I wrote 17 ½ months ago about my opinion on the three forms that a collapse in Amerika might take:

“...there need be no catastrophic meltdown or hugeeschaton type of event that many people are expecting. The end of things as we know it can happen with a whimper just as easily as with a bang. Things generally “wax worse and worse”, and for the most part this is the pattern set forth by Israel in the scriptures – though there were wars, invasions, destructions, etc., generally those things were events in a longer downward slide brought about by idolatry, syncretism, and worldliness. As for events concerning the EOAAWKI (end of amerika as we know it), I have kind of gathered my opinions into 3 likelihoods or scenarios that could very easily come to pass at any time. For preparedness reasons, I list these in order of how likely I believe they are to happen. Of course any combination of these three scenarios (or a thousand others) could also be what actually happens:

The internal collapse theory. Modeled on the collapse of the Soviet Union (although I think that that collapse was/is a planned deception). Amerika, embroiled in foreign wars it cannot win and with an economy and social system coming apart at the seams at home, suffers a catastrophic economic and social collapse. The dollar implodes, the credit system collapses, the housing and mortgage bubble bursts, fuel and other “necessities” become too expensive to afford. The banks call the loans, and then collapse themselves when foreign banks foreclose on US debt. Rampant unemployment, massive displacement of people, and general unrest ensues. Amerika balkanizes and breaks into a thousand pieces, many of them warring factions, and becomes like Europe in the dark ages. Here we see the rise and reinstatement of the temporal power of the Antichrist Pope over many of the resultant fiefdoms. The Vatican and the UN become the ubiquitous powers in the land. This is the main theory (with some combination with the others) that I use in my planned book The Last Pilgrims

The internal combustion theory. Internal strife, class and racial warfare, and general dissatisfaction result in Amerika coming apart at the seams. Economic riots and exploding crime and terrorism cause various secession and independence movements to proceed, most of which prove to be colossal failures and turn out to be twice as tyrannical than what they replaced. Amerika begins to resemble Central and South America with a dozen banana republics, run by misguided and violent “patriot” movements (socialist, fascist, anarchic), each believing that they are the heirs to the American Revolution.

The foreign invasion theory. Amerika, having alienated the rest of the world with her ham-fisted foreign policy, and weakened by her consumerist and debt-based economic policy, grows weaker and weaker. She is a paper tiger, and soon enough, her enemies (led by Russia and China) decide to teach her a lesson. The results of this (after the smoke clears) is similar to that in theories #1 and #2, only Amerika has now been robbed of her natural resources and energy facilities, which have either been destroyed during the war, or taken over by foreign interests” (Michael Bunker “Scatter Q&A”).

Ok, so those are the three main theories I have proposed, and as I said, I expect the first to be the principle one, which may or may not include all or some of the elements mentioned in options the other options. Now, as part of several other discussions, both online and offline, I have discussed why a deflationary period might precede a period of massive inflation, or... interestingly, how a collapse may just involve massive deflation with no real period of inflation.

Ok, so here is how it works. Gas prices skyrocketed over the last year. I have a post on BiblicalAgrarianism.com where there was an article in December of last year speculating wildly that Gas might hit $3.75 a gallon in 6 months. Many people dismissed that kind of talk as ridiculous. Well, in June and July of 2008, 6-7 months later, I paid over $4 a gallon for gasoline. There were many reasons for this price escalation:

Massive manipulation of the oil markets by the monied interests and by forces in the U.S. and other governments. Hundreds of billions were siphoned directly out of the economy in just a few months if you'll refer back to profit estimations made at the time.

Lot's of scared money was leaving the dollar (which was dropping) and was being invested in oil stocks, oil futures, etc. This drove the price of oil ever higher.

There were problems (mostly manipulated and purposeful) with refining capacity, so, in short, demand outstripped supply.

Ok, so as the price continued to rise, more and more speculative money was being thrown into oil stocks which compounded the price problem.

Now we see prices dropping drastically. There can be several reasons for this, and some of it may be a combination of all the reasons:

Political manipulation leading up to the election. It has become quite common for politicians and power-brokers to pressure oil companies to drop prices prior to an election. Unsatisfied worldlings do not always act predictably when they are very angry.

Simultaneously, we are told that several new refineries and more refining capacity came online. Automobile usage decreased at the same time.

As prices dropped, the “scared money” from the markets began to try to figure out where they could put their money in order for it to be safe. Just as this was happening, the banking and mortgage crisis (that I talked about 17 months ago) hit. The stock market plummeted, everyone got scared. Most of the people who were speculating on oil stocks and futures pulled out. Hello price drop.

As the drops intensified, it became apparent that the whole fabric of the economy was coming unglued. This means that a whole new bunch of questions were coming up which made investing in oil and stocks even more speculative. What happens if the whole economy collapses and no one is buying gas (see point #5), or no one can afford to operate a vehicle? What happens if money becomes worthless? Some people have all this money from the boom times but now there is nowhere safe to put it.

As folks start feeling the crunch from all quarters, people stop buying, stop spending, limit their traveling. Some people sold their gas guzzlers when the price hit $4 a gallon. Some lost their jobs when their businesses could not operate with gas prices that high. Trucking companies went out of business in July and August because of $4 a gallon gas, and now are gone when the price is now $1.70. Now there are FAR fewer customers, and those customers that are left are not buying much gas.

Ok, so now what you have is a massive deflationary period. This could (and might) effect all of the economy. A bunch of businesses are sitting on really big inventories and people are not buying like they were. Everyone is a bit frightened and a lot of people just don't have any money. Others have money, but nowhere safe to put it... I mean, would you trust all of your retirement money or your other cash in a bank? How about in the stock market? How about under your mattress? If people are not spending, you have very few dollars chasing a whole lot of goods. Prices drop dramatically. This is price deflation.

Now, here is where I speculate. There are a couple of different ways this can go.

In one scenario this deflation period continues for a time, then escalates. The prices drop precipitously and businesses begin dumping inventories. At some point, prices will be so cheap that the collective conscience of the consumer system trips and everyone goes out on a buying binge. They begin to spend their money, not on trinkets and toys, but on goods they were not previously able to afford. This could mean automobiles, or it could mean food andsupplies, or it could mean Ipods and plasma screen TVs. We don't know. When this happens, and shortly after it, we could hit a period of maximum scarcity. After this, there won't be much money out there, and there won't be many goods to buy. Prices may remain low, but there just isn't any money out there with which to buy things. When you were young, did you ever stare at the penny candy and really, really want some... but you didn't have a penny? In this scenario prices don't skyrocket because almost nobody has money. As business failures increase, this process accelerates until we reach a point where most people just do not have the ability to buy many products at all. Of course most businesses will go out of business, and even if prices stay low in the businesses that stick around, not many people will have money.

In another, more likely scenario, as the deflation period escalates, we hit the point of the buying binge, and this time the producers who are left try to keep up with the demand. Prices do indeed skyrocket as consumers compete for the products that slowly become available. In this scenario the government, which has gone deeper and deeper into debt in order to stave off the collapse, has continued printing money and is either using it in massive bailouts, or is giving it away (in massive social welfare spending and projects like in the New Deal- call it the Obama Shiny Newer Deal) in order to keep cash flowing. Sugar Daddy Obama gives everyone thousands of dollars in tax relief, even if they never paid taxes. Literally trillions of digital or printed dollars are pumped into the economy... The dollar collapses, foreign governments call in their debts, or just pull out of the dollar, and now it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can have wheelbarrows full of it, because you can't afford anything at all that does become available. In this scenario, you may get in line for bread that is priced at $100 a loaf, and you may have $300 in your pocket, but by the time you get to the front of the line the bread is now priced at $500 a loaf. This is what happened in Germany in the Weimar Republic in the early 1920's:

This young woman is burning German Marks because the paper burned longer than the wood you could buy with the money. This is what happened in the Mexican and Russian currency devaluations in my lifetime. In 1992 the Russian inflation rate hit 2520%. In Zimbabwe right now (2008), prices are doubling every 15.6 hours which equals an inflation rate of 12.95 QUADRILLION percent.

So, any or all of these scenarios are possible.

I have constantly said that I believe we will see an economic collapse as I mentioned before, and that this economic collapse could be the trigger event for any number of scenarios that might follow. None of us knows what will happen, and there is the possibility that the powers that be figure out how to plug all the holes and the system limps on for many more years. I don't know. In our community, we plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Many worldlings are seeing the collapse of gas prices as a great sign of the soon return of prosperity. I wouldn't bet on it.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Where Attacks Come From

2010-07-21T15:45:00.002-07:00

** an old-timey favorite from back in February of '08

Michael,

I have only recently begun to receive some persecution or attacks (which one? I don't know. It's hard to know. Are all attacks persecution?) for being obedient and for separating from my ungodly friends and family. I have watched you handle such attacks for 6 years, and I have learned a lot about persecution for righteousness sake from that. Family members and old friends are generally the people who are the first to attack me, although often they attack you or what you teach because they know they will never have to directly challenge you to your face. I also noticed that there is a “agrarian” blogger who was recently attacking you, saying the same things my parents say, so I thought I'd throw them at you here in the Q&A to see how you deal with them, and maybe I can learn a bit on how to handle such attacks. So here are the questions: 1. Do you believe there is only salvation in your group, and everyone else who is not with you is “pagan” or is lost? 2. Do you believe that people who leave your group are “lost” or damned? 3. Why do you receive donations when Paul and the other apostles worked jobs?

Thanks for your questions and for the opportunity to answer some things which are generally at the root of most of the mindless and baseless attacks on any true ministry. I say they are mindless or baseless because the attacker can never, ever, ever point to anything I have every done or said which would lead them to the conclusions they come to. Always remember, they are working backward. They don't hear something I say that is unbiblical, then confront me in a systematic way. Instead, they get offended that they feel I am condemning them. Then they decide they don't like me, and they deduce things about me that aren't true in order to make themselves feel better about how they live their lives. A fair question, concern, or even attack is one based (even loosely) on some fundamental truth or some actual thing the teacher has said. For example, here is how the situation ought to work. First, we make a presupposition. We say, “Any group, denomination, or entity which claims or infers that salvation is not solely of and by Jesus Christ and according to His Word alone, but instead claims that salvation is only possible in their group or by some arbitrary extra-biblical standard of which they are the final arbiter, is a cult and is false”. Ok, so that is our presupposition, and it is a good one. Now, having clearly laid out a presupposition, we would find a group or entity that fits within the parameters of the presupposition, and who is guilty of violating the presupposition. For example, we could say that most of the Charismatic movement insists that a person born-again by the Spirit MUST speak in tongues. If you do not speak in tongues, they say you are not saved (or at least that you are not “baptized in the spirit”). This is the perfect example of an extra-biblical requirement for salvation, and an assertion that only people in their “group” can be saved. Here is another example... say... ummmm... the Catholic Church. We would look to the writings and documents of the Catholic Church and say, “Is there anywhere where we can find that the leaders or officers of this body of people has claimed or inferred that salvation is only possible in or through their group or denomination?”. If we can find such documentation (and we easily can, since the Catholic Church has taught this for many centuries), then we must determine if such a claim is unbiblical or contrary to the teaching of the whole Bible. The Catholic assertion that salvation is only found inside the Catholic Church is patently unbiblical and silly. Again, the Catholic Church is guilty, so now we have ourselves a legitimate charge. NOW, and only now would it be legitimate and righteous for us to point our fingers at the cult in view and challenge them to answer for a crime. If we don't have any proof for our assertion, then we are merely participating in slander, libel, and/or defamation. There ought to be evidence for any such serious assertion.

Unhappily, this is not how it goes in today's society with the mindless goons and Bible-less automatons being spewed out of the bowels of the modernist apostate “church”. Let me tell you a story. Back in the 60's, LBJ was having a particular problem with a particular reporter who seemed to always be giving him trouble. One day, having had enough of this particular reporter, LBJ turned to one of his assistants and said “I have had enough of so-and-so. I want you to put out the word to the rest of the press corps that he is a closet homosexual and a pervert”. The assistant said, “But... he's not a closet homosexual and a pervert. I know him and he is a happily married man with children”. LBJ said, “I didn't say he was a homosexual and a pervert, I told you tell the rest of the press corps that he is... and get him to deny it. Go out and make him deny it. If he has to deny it enough, then it doesn't really matter if he is or he isn't because everyone will assume he is.” The real fact is that most people will not even take the time or effort to ask the question. Most people will believe the report merely because someone they like or care about has made the assertion, even if there is no evidence for it. So if someone says, “Michael Bunker beats his dog and hates women”, most people will just take that at face value because they already don't like the things I am saying, even if there is no proof at all that the assertions are true. This is the hallmark of a devil inspired attack. The devil is a slanderer, and it doesn't matter if there is any evidence at all for a crime, because the devil believes he wins BY the attack.

My position is that first, the slanderer, libeler or defamer ought to be identified. They are generally cowards. As you said, your family will not come up to me and say these things or ask these questions, because they are cowards. You ought to identify them. Maybe you say to them. “Ok, that is a serious accusation that you have made, why don't you and I go visit or call Michael Bunker and we'll let you make your accusation in person? Clearly you wouldn't make an accusation of which you have no evidence... right?” Now, in the case you mentioned, unless there is another blogger out there lying about me (and I have no doubt there is), I would say that the blogger you mentioned is the Charismatic - apostate - liar who blogs under the name of Northern Farmer. I think his real name is Tom Scepeniak. First things first. Tom doesn't like the fact that I reject his brand of “christianity” (modernist, Arminian and charismatic). He is offended that I have called it what it is, which is APOSTASY. I have preached and taught against his false christianity for many years very particularly, although I have never mentioned or even spoken of or to him personally. I wrote a book with all the specific heresies of the Arminian/Charismatic movement. My book provides quotes, direct statements, and historical evidence of the heresies of this movement. My books, blogs, sermons, etc. attack Arminian/Charismatic “christianity” based on EVIDENCE, not on baseless accusations. I disprove the Arminian/Charismatic viewpoint and false theology from the Bible, and not from my own opinion. He doesn't like the fact that I proved that the founder and fountainhead of his movement (The Topeka and later Azusa Street heresies) was a known pervert and nutter who was arrested in Texas for sodomy. Now, those are known facts. Provable assertions. He doesn't like the fact that his basically new religion has a track record and a paper trail and anyone in the world who cares to do the research can follow it right back to Rome. I have proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that Arminianism (free-will theism) is the product of the Roman Catholic Church and the Counter-Reformation, and that both Arminianism and the Charismatic movement were products of (if not creations of) the Jesuit Order. I proved all of that without ever having heard of Tom Scepeniak. Ol' Northern Farmer doesn't like that my Christianity has roots that go back further than 150 years. He doesn't like that I reject his industrial farming just as much as I reject his industrial religion. He celebrates John Wesley who famously had to publicly apologize for his lies about the life and death of Augustus Toplady (the Godly man who wrote “Rock of Ages”); Wesley was the apostate who systematized Jesuit Arminianism, and who was known all over England and Europe as a notorious liar. He celebrates Billy Sunday, a rich charlatan who wasn't able to evangelize his own children (all were reprobates, and one killed himself), and in fact gave them over to be raised by nannies and proxies because he was making over $800 a day selling the corporate Jesus back when the average wage in America was $800 a year. He doesn't care that Billy Sunday gave “decision cards” (find those in the Bible) to the Unitarian Church, the Catholic Church, and to other apostates. You see, Tom Scepeniak doesn't like little things called FACTS. His theology comes from the Roman Catholic Church's Council of Trent (and I can prove it), and yet he accuses me of saying that there is no salvation outside of my “group”, or that if you leave our “group” you are lost. Poppycock. He cannot provide one bit of evidence for such an assertion. He cannot provide one quote, one single attributable statement, not one fact to prove that I have ever said or believed such junk. I challenge him today, publicly, to produce one single public statement or provide witnesses for any private statements I have ever made... EVER... to lead anyone to believe that I believe such a thing. In fact, I can point to dozens of plain statements where I have stated the exact opposite. Many times I have been asked these questions, and have answered them very publicly, on all my blogs and websites. I have taught very specifically that only a cult would ever make such an assertion, and I have taught very publicly that one of the hallmarks of a cult is the claim that salvation can only be found in any group or entity outside of Jesus Christ alone. I have taught the Doctrines of Grace very publicly, have shown their historicity and have proven them from the Bible alone, and have debated publicly those who deny them, and one of the very foundations of the Doctrines of Grace is that Salvation is of Grace Alone (Sola Gratia), through Faith Alone (Sola Fide), by Christ alone (Sola Christus), to God's glory alone (Soli Deo Gloria). These are the foundation of my belief system and of the Reformed faith, and they are anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church and by worldly Arminians like Tom Scepeniak everywhere in the world. So I challenge this liar to produce any statement from me that implies or teaches other than salvation through Jesus Christ alone. By contrast, the few times I have visited his minuscule and forgettable blog (generally because someone emails me some of the rot this dude writes), I have heard him consistently and continuously damning everyone to hell who does not agree with him. In fact, for those of you Agrarian bloggers (even you Herrick Kimball) who may be shocked to hear me talk about this, Tom Scepeniak in a recent blog from December, claims that anyone who even links to my blog from their own blog is going straight to hell! Wow. Out of one side of his mouth he lies and declares that I say that anyone not in my group is going to hell (which, of course, I have never said or even implied) and in the same blog, he claims that many of you are going to hell merely for linking to my blog. Wow. Brilliant logic. Here is the deal. Tom Scepeniak would never say any of this to me because he is a coward. And if he chooses to say anything to me now it is only because he has been called out publicly as a coward. His site gets a handful of hits a day, and he is a jealous old industrial farmer with a completely false gospel. And he writes horribly. I could write his blog for him in about five seconds. It is easy. I will give you a handbook on how to write like Tom. This will also be a handbook on how to decipher his blogs, so I am doing him a service. First, when writing like Tom, you put on a folksy ol' way of talking – not real country, but that fake country you hear when Yankees try to sound country. You want to talk like Mark Twain must have talked when Mark Twain was pretending not to be a very adept writer and master of the English language. You want to say things like “ol' timey” and “old ways” all the time so people think you are an expert on what things used to be like. Now me, I am a historian first and a teacher second, so I know how things were in the old days. And I know how silly it looks when you are ignorant and pretending to know what things were like back then. Second, you have to play the martyr. You have to make people think that you are the ultimate brave soul, the only and last ol' timey farmer standing against the brunt of new timey ways. Everyone who disagrees with you is damned and going straight to hell, and you are the last and best hope for a return to ol' timey America.

Next, and this is important, you automatically assume that whatever was happening between 1901 and 1949 is the only authentic and real thing. If you are Tom Scepeniak, anything that happened between 1901 and 1949 is the “old ways” and the “old paths”. You don't know anything that happened BEFORE 1901, and anything that happened after about 1949 is the “newfangled ways”. Whatever apostasy was happening between 1901 and 1949 is the true “old-timey” religion, and whatever industrial farming techniques were mastered between those years is the “old-timey” farming. Forget for a minute that the mainstream “church” had already apostatized long before 1901, and forget that 1901 was many, many decades into the industrial revolution. Apostasy in Agrarianism and in Reglion was on very firm footing by 1901. Forget for a minute that the true old-time religion had been abandoned long before that. Forget for a minute that Tom Scepeniak's religion was considered heresy by the Pilgrim's and Puritans that colonized the North American continent. Forget for a minute that the true Agrarian way of farming and agriculture had been violently overthrown by Northern industrial interests by 1865, and that the Industrial farming that replaced it is what is responsible for almost all of the ills of modern society.

As a last lesson in Scepeniakism or Scepeniak writing, you must constantly have your Bible with you. You must thump it and caress it, just so long as you never read it or quote from it. Here's a tip, talk about the Bible for years and decry and damn those who don't live by it, then admit after many years that you finally got around to reading “the whole thing” just this past year. Still, never ever quote from it. Only mention it a lot.

Ok, now that you have a foundation in Scepeniakism, I can write one of his blogs for you, are you ready?

“I was sittin' up on my 'ol tractor the other day and I was thinkin' how far our society has fallen from the ol' ways. Now, here at our farm, we still do things the 'ol ways. We have the 'ol timey tractors and the 'ol timey grid electricity to run our huge industrial freezers. We manage our 200 head of cattle the 'ol timey way, and we sell them at the old cattle auction or direct to customers just like they did back in the 1990's. Anyway, I was sittin' up on my ol' tractor and I was thinking about the ol' time religion and how modern folk just never do give God credit or even pray or give their lives to him. You don't see any of the old tent revivals and the old come to Jesus preachin' of the Wesley brothers or Billy Sunday anymore. We ain't got much of that old time religion left, but I'm holdin' on to it... yes sir. I'm the last of the old breed, and me and Cyrus Scofield will hold on to the truth come hell or high water. Now some might say that there was 1900 years of Christian history prior to the ol' timey days I'm talking about, but those folks are just talkin' heads. They're all goin' straight to the pit. Everyone knows there weren't no real religion until them happy folks out in Topeka and then Azusa Street started talkin' in tongues and fryin' on the ground like bacon. Well, all these newfangled folks can just take a divin' leap into hell because that's where they're all going anyway. Now there are these newfangled folks talkin' about “Christian Agrarianism”. I'm not much into “isms” because we all know that “isms” are all from hell. Except Baptism... that one is good. But racism is a bad one, and any of those folk who talk about “election” (a doctrine of hades if I ever did hear one) must be racists. Why, I'm not braggin' but I could beat any of these folks in a debate with this here Bible I rub constantly. I don't need no theologistical training to know that there ain't no “election” in the Bible. In fact, that word “election” ain't even in the Bible. I looked. It's a damnable lie to say it is. And if you showed me it was in there, it would still be a lie because my Bible says 'ya got to make choices, and if there is any choices then their cain't be no “election” or predestination. Nope. Too many newfangled folks out there who are all goin' to hell want to make Christianity about God having all the power and the might and the sovereignty and gettin' all the glory, when we know God is just a powerless ol' man who wants to be loved freely by free will. God ain't no cosmic rapist. If we ain't got free will, we are all a bunch of robots, and that's what Azusa street was all about. It was an anti-robot, fire from heaven, holy ghost revival! Hallelujah! Anybody who disagrees must be a racist and I could beat them in a debate with only my Bible. So I was wonderin' the other day how long our ol' timey way of life out here on the farm was going to last. And I said to myself, I said “Self, don't you be worryin' none about that stuff. God is in charge (except over salvation, that is our own free will choice), and God ain't gonna allow this foolishness to go on forever. So we'll just keep livin' by the ol' timey ways and worshippin' Jesus with all our hearts and tongues, and everyone else can just go straight to hell”.

See, I just wrote a Scepeniak blog post. All you have to do is follow the guidelines and it is easy to interpret.

Ok, so I think I answered your first two questions, but just in case some of you missed it all through all the sarcasm and irony, and just so LBJ will be satisfied that I am being forced once again to deny the obvious, here are my answers to the first two questions:

Do you believe there is only salvation in your group, and everyone else who is not with you is “pagan” or is lost?
NO. In fact, I believe that it is improbable that every single person in our group is saved. I believe God alone is sovereign over salvation, and that he is saving people from every tribe and tongue and nation and people, according to His own will, by His own power, and by Sovereign Election as taught in the Holy Bible.
Do you believe that people who leave your group are “lost” or damned?
I do not at all believe that leaving our or any group has anything to do with causing someone's salvation or loss of salvation. If salvation is of God (and it is), then participation in any particular group or fellowship may be fruit of salvation, but can never be the cause of it. Salvation is by the will of God alone. Arminians like Tom Scepeniak believe that salvation can be lost, but we believe that salvation is eternal, and that all those who are and were in Christ Jesus from the foundation of the world will be finally and eternally saved by Him alone, as the scriptures plainly teach.

Ok, for the third question, and these three questions don't even begin to chip away at the lies often told about me – especially by the likes of Tom Scepeniak and others whom the devil uses.

Why do you receive donations when Paul and the other apostles worked jobs?

First of all, there is an erroneous presupposition in the question... in fact, there are several false presuppositions in the question. Paul received donations AND worked other jobs. He plainly stated and taught that scripturally he was to be provided for by the brethren who were taught of him, but, because of the immaturity of those who were being taught, and because he was being attacked by the Jews who wanted him to fail, he chose to work as a tentmaker in a few places and at certain times in order to make an example of himself.

Second, I am not Paul. I have never, ever, ever, gotten this accusation from someone who didn't go to a church where the pastor was paid. So, they have a double standard, and it is a grotesque one. For example, Tom Scepeniak accuses me of profiting from the gospel (which is not true, as anyone who knows me can attest), yet he goes to a 501c-3 state-sponsored church with a paid preacher. He believes HIS preacher should be paid, but that I should not. Why? Because he does not like what I teach. The fact is that I rejected any type of salary a long time ago as unbibiblical and manipulative. The fact is that I used to just list my needs on my public websites and blogs, which I find to be biblical, but now I don't do that either – and I haven't for several years. I have a private email list and only those who ask to be on my list will ever even know about any needs of myself or the ministry. I don't post needs on any of my websites or blogs and I haven't for a few years. Not that there was anything wrong with posting needs on those sites, but I grew tired of hypocrites and liars like Tom Scepeniak using those posts to attack me and the ministry. My family provides much of our own food and support by the work of our hands. I also write books and other materials which people can buy if they choose to. Only those who feel convicted to help in our ministerial work are ever added to my email list, and only those people will ever receive an email listing any needs of the ministry. I am completely authorized by the Bible to require that those who learn from me support me in the ministry of the Word, but I do not do so. I am completely authorized to live off of the offerings sent to the ministry. The ministry of Jesus Christ through us here in Central Texas reaches the lives of many, many times more people than ever went to my old church (back when I was in one), yet we operate on less money than our old church took in in ONE OFFERING on ONE SUNDAY! These things are all open to any who would check them out and research them, and we understand that liars and slanderers do not care one whit for the truth.

Ok, now that the devil-ghost of LBJ has been exorcised once again, we'll get on with the business at hand. Everyone should know by now that the agents of false religion and of industrial farming and of worldliness do not like me or what we are doing out here. Shallow minded nits are always going to be swarming around and biting at those who dare to speak out against their idols. I don't care. Bring the lions.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Where Attacks Come From

2010-07-21T15:45:00.001-07:00

** an old-timey favorite from back in February of '08

Michael,

Ok, now that you have a foundation in Scepeniakism, I can write one of his blogs for you, are you ready?

“I was sittin' up on my 'ol tractor the other day and I was thinkin' how far our society has fallen from the ol' ways. Now, here at our farm, we still do things the 'ol ways. We have the 'ol timey tractors and the 'ol timey grid electricity to run our huge industrial freezers. We manage our 200 head of cattle the 'ol timey way, and we sell them at the old cattle auction or direct to customers just like they did back in the 1990's. Anyway, I was sittin' up on my ol' tractor and I was thinking about the ol' time religion and how modern folk just never do give God credit or even pray or give their lives to him. You don't see any of the old tent revivals and the old come to Jesus preachin' of the Wesley brothers or Billy Sunday anymore. We ain't got much of that old time religion left, but I'm holdin' on to it... yes sir. I'm the last of the old breed, and me and Cyrus Scofield will hold on to the truth come hell or high water. Now some might say that there was 1900 years of Christian history prior to the ol' timey days I'm talking about, but those folks are just talkin' heads. They're all goin' straight to the pit. Everyone knows there weren't no real religion until them happy folks out in Topeka and then Azusa Street started talkin' in tongues and fryin' on the ground like bacon. Well, all these newfangled folks can just take a divin' leap into hell because that's where they're all going anyway. Now there are these newfangled folks talkin' about “Christian Agrarianism”. I'm not much into “isms” because we all know that “isms” are all from hell. Except Baptism... that one is good. But racism is a bad one, and any of those folk who talk about “election” (a doctrine of hades if I ever did hear one) must be racists. Why, I'm not braggin' but I could beat any of these folks in a debate with this here Bible I rub constantly. I don't need no theologistical training to know that there ain't no “election” in the Bible. In fact, that word “election” ain't even in the Bible. I looked. It's a damnable lie to say it is. And if you showed me it was in there, it would still be a lie because my Bible says 'ya got to make choices, and if there is any choices then their cain't be no “election” or predestination. Nope. Too many newfangled folks out there who are all goin' to hell want to make Christianity about God having all the power and the might and the sovereignty and gettin' all the glory, when we know God is just a powerless ol' man who wants to be loved freely by free will. God ain't no cosmic rapist. If we ain't got free will, we are all a bunch of robots, and that's what Azusa street was all about. It was an anti-robot, fire from heaven, holy ghost revival! Hallelujah! Anybody who disagrees must be a racist and I could beat them in a debate with only my Bible. So I was wonderin' the other day how long our ol' timey way of life out here on the farm was going to last. And I said to myself, I said “Self, don't you be worryin' none about that stuff. God is in charge (except over salvation, that is our own free will choice), and God ain't gonna allow this foolishness to go on forever. So we'll just keep livin' by the ol' timey ways and worshippin' Jesus with all our hearts and tongues, and everyone else can just go straight to hell”.

See, I just wrote a Scepeniak blog post. All you have to do is follow the guidelines and it is easy to interpret.

Do you believe there is only salvation in your group, and everyone else who is not with you is “pagan” or is lost?
NO. In fact, I believe that it is improbable that every single person in our group is saved. I believe God alone is sovereign over salvation, and that he is saving people from every tribe and tongue and nation and people, according to His own will, by His own power, and by Sovereign Election as taught in the Holy Bible.
Do you believe that people who leave your group are “lost” or damned?
I do not at all believe that leaving our or any group has anything to do with causing someone's salvation or loss of salvation. If salvation is of God (and it is), then participation in any particular group or fellowship may be fruit of salvation, but can never be the cause of it. Salvation is by the will of God alone. Arminians like Tom Scepeniak believe that salvation can be lost, but we believe that salvation is eternal, and that all those who are and were in Christ Jesus from the foundation of the world will be finally and eternally saved by Him alone, as the scriptures plainly teach.

Ok, for the third question, and these three questions don't even begin to chip away at the lies often told about me – especially by the likes of Tom Scepeniak and others whom the devil uses.

Why do you receive donations when Paul and the other apostles worked jobs?

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Where Attacks Come From

2010-07-21T15:45:00.000-07:00

** an old-timey favorite from back in February of '08

Michael,

Ok, now that you have a foundation in Scepeniakism, I can write one of his blogs for you, are you ready?

“I was sittin' up on my 'ol tractor the other day and I was thinkin' how far our society has fallen from the ol' ways. Now, here at our farm, we still do things the 'ol ways. We have the 'ol timey tractors and the 'ol timey grid electricity to run our huge industrial freezers. We manage our 200 head of cattle the 'ol timey way, and we sell them at the old cattle auction or direct to customers just like they did back in the 1990's. Anyway, I was sittin' up on my ol' tractor and I was thinking about the ol' time religion and how modern folk just never do give God credit or even pray or give their lives to him. You don't see any of the old tent revivals and the old come to Jesus preachin' of the Wesley brothers or Billy Sunday anymore. We ain't got much of that old time religion left, but I'm holdin' on to it... yes sir. I'm the last of the old breed, and me and Cyrus Scofield will hold on to the truth come hell or high water. Now some might say that there was 1900 years of Christian history prior to the ol' timey days I'm talking about, but those folks are just talkin' heads. They're all goin' straight to the pit. Everyone knows there weren't no real religion until them happy folks out in Topeka and then Azusa Street started talkin' in tongues and fryin' on the ground like bacon. Well, all these newfangled folks can just take a divin' leap into hell because that's where they're all going anyway. Now there are these newfangled folks talkin' about “Christian Agrarianism”. I'm not much into “isms” because we all know that “isms” are all from hell. Except Baptism... that one is good. But racism is a bad one, and any of those folk who talk about “election” (a doctrine of hades if I ever did hear one) must be racists. Why, I'm not braggin' but I could beat any of these folks in a debate with this here Bible I rub constantly. I don't need no theologistical training to know that there ain't no “election” in the Bible. In fact, that word “election” ain't even in the Bible. I looked. It's a damnable lie to say it is. And if you showed me it was in there, it would still be a lie because my Bible says 'ya got to make choices, and if there is any choices then their cain't be no “election” or predestination. Nope. Too many newfangled folks out there who are all goin' to hell want to make Christianity about God having all the power and the might and the sovereignty and gettin' all the glory, when we know God is just a powerless ol' man who wants to be loved freely by free will. God ain't no cosmic rapist. If we ain't got free will, we are all a bunch of robots, and that's what Azusa street was all about. It was an anti-robot, fire from heaven, holy ghost revival! Hallelujah! Anybody who disagrees must be a racist and I could beat them in a debate with only my Bible. So I was wonderin' the other day how long our ol' timey way of life out here on the farm was going to last. And I said to myself, I said “Self, don't you be worryin' none about that stuff. God is in charge (except over salvation, that is our own free will choice), and God ain't gonna allow this foolishness to go on forever. So we'll just keep livin' by the ol' timey ways and worshippin' Jesus with all our hearts and tongues, and everyone else can just go straight to hell”.

See, I just wrote a Scepeniak blog post. All you have to do is follow the guidelines and it is easy to interpret.

Do you believe there is only salvation in your group, and everyone else who is not with you is “pagan” or is lost?
NO. In fact, I believe that it is improbable that every single person in our group is saved. I believe God alone is sovereign over salvation, and that he is saving people from every tribe and tongue and nation and people, according to His own will, by His own power, and by Sovereign Election as taught in the Holy Bible.
Do you believe that people who leave your group are “lost” or damned?
I do not at all believe that leaving our or any group has anything to do with causing someone's salvation or loss of salvation. If salvation is of God (and it is), then participation in any particular group or fellowship may be fruit of salvation, but can never be the cause of it. Salvation is by the will of God alone. Arminians like Tom Scepeniak believe that salvation can be lost, but we believe that salvation is eternal, and that all those who are and were in Christ Jesus from the foundation of the world will be finally and eternally saved by Him alone, as the scriptures plainly teach.

Ok, for the third question, and these three questions don't even begin to chip away at the lies often told about me – especially by the likes of Tom Scepeniak and others whom the devil uses.

Why do you receive donations when Paul and the other apostles worked jobs?

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

The Dangerous Leaven of Antinomianism, Part I

2010-07-17T05:36:00.000-07:00

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:15-21).

February 12, 2005 – It is judgment indeed upon a wicked and perverse people that they leave one of the most plain and specific warnings ever to come from the mouth of God on earth ignored and unheeded. In these scriptures in the Gospel of Matthew we have the words of Jesus Christ warning us about a specific kind of people that will never enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven:

1. They wear sheep’s clothing. They profess to hold to the best doctrine, and to be of Christ’s own flock. They take upon themselves the name of “Christian” and expect to be ushered into heaven.

2. They say, “Lord, Lord” as if Jesus Christ belongs to them, and they to Him.

3. They are corrupt trees and foul vines. They bring forth fruit, but it is not the fruit the Bible requires. They produce anti-fruit: thorns and thistles.

4. They are clothed in the attire of the Christian, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. A wolf consumes sheep, and these particular wolves consume sheep by replicating themselves. They cannot stand to see true fruit produced, because true fruit condemns them. True Christians are fruit bearers. Revelation 14:13 says that True Christians rest from their works only after they are dead, “and their works do follow them”.

Paul teaches us in Romans that in these analogies “fruit” and “works” are synonymous. Sin is the fruit of the works of the carnal man, and the curse of serving the law through the works of the carnal man was death:

“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death” (Romans 7:5).

The works of service done by the unregenerate flesh while still in sin did bring forth fruit unto death. But what of the regenerate man? The new man, being delivered from the curse of the law as a covenant of works, having died to that form of dead service, would be renewed in the spirit to serve and keep the moral law by spirit and not by letter:

“But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Romans 7:6)

Paul goes on to explain that the law of God is spiritual, and could never have been properly served by the carnal man. The law of God, which is good, served to kill the carnal man so that the spiritual man could rise and serve God and keep His commandments in newness of spirit. Christ warned that there would come dangerous and wicked wolves, calling themselves Christians, and that these wolves would never produce any good fruit. Paul claims that true spiritual works (fruit) would only ever be produced by those who had been revived by the Spirit of God to serve God in spirit and truth.

In our ministry we are constantly warning against the two soul murderers named Legalism and Antinomianism. The ignorance and comfort of modern “christians” makes them prey for the latter more than the former, so we will take a close look at Antinomianism and the wicked leaven contained therein.

“The Gospel, like its blessed Master, is always crucified between two thieves -- legalist of all sorts on the one hand andAntinomians on the other; the former robbing the Saviour of the glory of his work for us, and the other robbing him of the glory of his work within us." - James Henley Thornwell

The first and most wicked heresy to strike the early colonies on this continent was the famous attack of the Antinomians. The true Church of Jesus Christ had just been established in the untamed frontier of the New World (having fled from the rage of the religious beasts in Europe) when they learned firsthand that, although they had fled from great dangers at the hand of the legalist Church of England back home, they were to be in perils in the wilderness as well. Here we have one of the greatest historical examples of the works of the devil in attempting to crucify true Christianity between these two thieves. Charles Spurgeon said:

"The black devil of antinomianism is just as wicked and destructive as the white devil of legalism."

Having fled from the face of the white devil in England, the black devil was quick to try to overcome the Church in New England. As soon as the peace and tranquility of the Puritan Church was established in the wilderness, the devil raised up a siren song from amidst the newly formed Church. The devil in this case did not take on the form of the serpent in the Garden, but put on the dress and clothing of a zealous and arrogant woman named Anne Hutchinson.

It is important that we get a proper historical view of the Antinomian controversy in early New England because the voices of heresy in modern education (feminists, Unitarians, lesbians and other such rebels) have had centuries to canonize Mrs. Hutchinson as a dissenting hero and as an martyr to theological tyranny, while at the same time slandering and demonizing the faithful Puritans who exposed and banished her.

Anne Hutchinson arrived in Boston with her husband in the autumn of 1634. She and her husband were avid fans and supporters of the Puritan preacher John Cotton. Mrs. Hutchinson, a woman of “masculine understanding and fiery zeal”, had embraced Mr. Cotton’s teachings on predestination, election and the freedom from the curse of the law. From this teaching, in her own mind, she extrapolated out that since true Christians were freed from the law as a covenant of works towards their salvation, then any attempt to obey the law or commands of God at all was a form of legalism and a denial of the finished work of Christ. To Anne Hutchinson, all who taught self-examination, Sabbath keeping, the perennial nature of the moral law, mortification of sin, etc., were “legal men” who were Pharisees and ignorant of the New Covenant.

As in most cases of heresy, Mrs. Hutchinson’s heresy started in the darkness of her own heart and was exploded outward by her pride and vanity. When she first arrived in Boston, she was highly esteemed by many of the leaders of the Massachusetts colony (including its Governor), and she was highly lauded at the time by Mr. John Cotton, her favorite minister and teacher. Unsatisfied with being the meek, humble and silent student of Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hutchinson decided to start a women’s meeting, supposedly to obey the command that the elder women teach the younger women. Because of her fame in the colony and because of the fact that she had studied under Mr. Cotton, Hutchinson soon drew 60-80 at each of her teaching sessions. At first she purposed to “explain” the teachings of Mr. Cotton, but soon her vanity and pride took over and she was teaching on her own, extrapolating and inferring things from his teaching that he later had to publicly condemn and reject. Soon, the Antinomian teachings of Mrs. Hutchinson had garnered a large following, and many prominent men and even some Church leaders were turned aside to her false teachings. The foul doctrine of Antinomianism was said to be poisonous “physicke” (medicine) secretly administered to unsuspecting seekers in"stronger & stronger potions, as they found the Patient able to beare." (Thomas Weld, quoted in John Winthrop's 1644 Short Story of the Rise, reign, and ruine of the Antinomians)

The principle teacher to rise up and combat the growing Antinomian forces was the great Puritan preacher Thomas Shepard. In Shepard’s biography we find a list of the wicked beliefs taught by the Antinomians:

“The fundamental position which she assumed, and maintained with fierce enthusiasm, was, that a Christian should not look to any Christian graces, or to any conditional promises made to faith or sanctification, as evidence of God’s special grace and love toward him, -- this being a way of works, -- but, without the appearance of any grace, faith, holiness, or change in himself, must rest upon an absolute promise made in an immediate revelation to his soul. In connection with this doctrine, and as the legitimate results of it, she taught that the Holy Ghost dwells personally in a justified person; that the command to work out our salvation with fear and trembling is addressed to none but such as are under a covenant of works; that personal holiness is not to be regarded as a sign of a justified state; that there is no such thing as inherent righteousness; that immediate revelations respecting future events are to be expected by believers, and should be received as equally authoritative and infallible with the Scriptures; together with many other absurd and foolish notions, which it would seem that none but persons extremely ignorant, or partially insane, could possible believe.” (Life of Thomas Shepard, Works Volume 1)

When Mr. Cotton came to understand the fullness of the error preached by the Antinomians, and that his name was being attached to that error for authority, he renounced and rebuked the opinions of the Antinomians and made plain statements in support of the orthodox party. This, of course, caused the Antinomians to be very angry with their former teacher, and to reproach him bitterly and to renounce him as a coward, a “blind guide” and a false teacher.

“Hypocrites, indeed, may grow in hypocrisy, Pharisees in self-righteousness, Arminians in fleshly presumption, self-deceivers in delusion, and the untried and unexercised in vain confidence. But the dead never grow in the divine life, for “the root of the matter” is not in them (Job 19:29).” (J.C. Philpot, Winter Afore Harvest)

The most important mark of the Antinomian is his lawlessness. The Antinomian everywhere preaches against the law, or spiritualizes it out of existence, -- anything to minimize its condemning effect on the conscience and its mortifying effect on the carnal man. The Antinomian must preach that the law is abrogated (either in fact or effect) because the perpetual moral law shows forth the lack of fruit in the wicked. The Antinomian has no evidences of a work of grace, because no work of grace has been wrought in him. So he teaches against “evidences” as acts of legalism. Anne Hutchinson wanted to be a teacher, and wanted to be highly respected and esteemed; but she never would have been able to conjure up any semblance of true fruit, so she eventually had to go off on her own and condemn fruit as the product of the legalistic heart.

“And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it”(Mark 11:12-14).

When Jesus becomes hungry, and desires to see the fruit and product of His orchard, He comes and examines the tree. Note that:

a.) Christ was hungry. He had a desire, and that desire would be satiated by good fruit coming from a good tree.

b.) It is a fig tree. It is designed to produce fruit. It is designed to satiate the hunger of the husbandman.

c.) He saw the fig tree afar off. He knew from a distance what the tree professed to be. From a distance, one cannot know whether a certain tree is producing fruit, but quite often the assumption is made that since it is a fig tree, it will produce good figs. This is a dangerous assumption.

d.) Christ may come at any time, and it is right that he expect fruit and not abundance of leaves from His trees. At the time of visitation of this tree, “the time of figs was not yet”; but Christ does away with these excuses and demands fruit or will curse the tree to be withered away.

THE GHOSTS OF ANNE HUTCHINSON

Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomians, along with their modern counterparts, reject the necessity of fruit as evidence of graces among God’s elect. Rod Jordan, modern High Priest of the Antinomians, argues that the commandments are abrogated because Christ kept (or became) each commandment for His elect. The natural result of this theology is that you may steal freely, because Christ has perfectly kept the commandment in Exodus 20:15 that a man shalt not steal. A man may freely murder or covet or commit adultery since Christ has perfectly kept those commandments for His elect. Antinomians believe that the Christian is freed from observance of the moral law when God’s grace is active. Mr. Jordan preaches this:

“Folks, let no man judge you because you do not keep a carnal Sabbath... The truth is, that it is now Christ, our great Redeemer, who has become our true Sabbath rest. It's cut and dried. he has NOT done away with the "Keep the Sabbath" commandment, but rather He, our Lord Jesus Christ, has become the final fulfillment of THE SABBATH TYPOLOGY.”

To the Antinomian, the moral law is “typology”. Anne Hutchinson could argue that the law was not abrogated, but fulfilled in Christ – therefore it was no more binding on the Christian. Just as Anne Hutchinson quoted freely from John Cotton (even though he rejected and rebuked her teaching) Rod Jordan, Bob George and other Antinomians love to quote freely from Grace Preachers in support of their aberrant views. Rod Jordan quotes incessantly from A.W. Pink, even though Pink wrote many of the best and most effective works ever written against Antinomianism. Here is what A.W. Pink has to say about Antinomians like Rod Jordan:

“It has been said that every unregenerate sinner has the heart of a Pharisee. This is true; and it is equally true that every unregenerate sinner has the heart of an Antinomian. This is the character which is expressly given to the carnal mind: it is "enmity against God"; and the proof of this is, that "it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7). Should we be surprised, then, if we find the underlying principles of Phariseeism and Antinomianism uniting in the same mind? Surely not. There is no more real opposition between these apparently opposing principles, than there is between enmity and pride. Many a slothful servant has hated his master and his service, and yet had he pride and presumption enough to demand his wages. Phariseeism and Antinomianism unite, like Herod and Pilate did, against the Truth.

The term Antinomian signifies one who is against the Law, hence, when we declare that ours is an age of lawlessness, it is only another way of saying that it is an age characterized by Antinomianism. There is little need for us to pause and offer proof that this is an age of lawlessness. In every sphere of life the sad fact confronts us. In the well-nigh total absence of any real discipline in the majority of the churches, we see the principle exemplified. Not more than two generations ago, thousands, tens of thousands, of the loose-living members whose names are now retained on the membership rolls, would have been dis-fellowshipped. It is the same in the great majority of our homes. With comparatively rare exceptions, wives are no longer in subjection to their husbands (Eph. 5:22,24); and as for obeying them (1 Pet. 3:1,2,5,6), why, the majority of women demand that such a hateful word be stricken from the marriage ceremony. So it is with the children - how could it be otherwise? Obedience to parents is almost entirely a thing of the past. And what of conditions in the world? The abounding marital unfaithfulness, Sunday trading, banditry, lynchings, strikes, and a dozen other things that might be mentioned, all bear witness to the frightful wave of lawlessness which is flowing over the country.

What, we may well inquire, is the cause of the lawlessness which now so widely obtains? For every effect there is a cause, and the character of the effect usually intimates the nature of the cause. We are assured that the present wide-spread contempt for human law is the inevitable outgrowth of disrespect for Divine Law. Where there is no fear of God, we must not expect there will be much fear of man. And why is it that there is so much disrespect for Divine Law? This, in turn, is but the effect of an antecedent cause. Nor is this hard to find. Do not the utterances of Christian teachers during the last twenty-five years go far to explain the situation which now confronts us? (A.W. Pink, The Law and the Saint)

The Antinomian will make hay by calling everyone who isn’t an Antinomian a “self-righteous Pharisee”. The Pharisee label is pinned on anyone who believes in the fullness of the Gospel which consists of both our freedom and our responsibility. The corruption and wickedness of lawlessness fruit deniers are made obvious when you come to that tree for fruit and find nothing but leaves. Christ came and found a promising tree, that spoke well of itself, but that could not produce fruit.

“For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great” (Luke 6:43-49).

Christ asks His disciples to do what he says. Christ says “do”. The Christian keeps the moral law out of love and duty towards Jesus Christ who was obedient to the cross for him. So the true Christian says “do, because Christ has done”. The Antinomian says, “Do not because Christ has done”. But the one who obeys the commandments of God, and who does those things which the Lord commands, is likened to a house built on the foundation of solid rock. When the flood rises; when the stream beats vehemently upon the house, it cannot be shaken. But you will notice that the Antinomian cannot leave the world and obey the commandments of God. When the stream rises, the Antinomian is carried away with the stream. The world beats vehemently for professing Christians to do as the world does. The world cannot keep the Sabbath of God, so the light professor cannot keep it either. The Antinomian must say he obeys the commandments only “spiritually”, because he refuses to keep them obediently. The Antinomian cannot bend the man to the law, so he bends the law to fit the man. Rather than convict himself for his inability to obey God, he convicts the law and changes the law so that he can keep it and satiate his seared conscience. Let us look again at the Sabbath:

“This Commandment makes it clear that God is to be worshipped in the home, which, of course, inculcates the practice of family worship. It is addressed more specifically than any of the other nine Commandments to heads of households and to employers, because God requires them to see to it that all under their charge shall observe the Sabbath. To them, more immediately, God says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." It is to be strictly set apart to the honor of the thrice holy God, spent in the exercises of holy contemplation, meditation, and adoration. Because it is the day which He has made (Ps. 118:24), we must do nothing to unmake it. This Commandment forbids the omission of any duties required, a careless performing of the same, or a weariness in them. The more faithfully we keep this Commandment, the better prepared shall we be to obey the other nine.” (A.W. Pink - The Ten Commandments)

Anne Hutchinson loved John Cotton until John Cotton reproved and rejected her. Strangely enough, she held on to her twisted views of his teaching and quoted him profusely, as if his words were hers, although she hated, slandered and bitterly rejected the man. Rod Jordan places daily Spurgeon quotes, prayers and devotionals on his website. Look what Spurgeon had to say about Sabbath-rejecters and Antinomians:

“How is the Sabbath to be sanctified? A. The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days (Le 23:3), and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship (Ps 92:1,2 Isa 58:13,14), except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy (Mt 12:11,12).” (Spurgeon’s Catechism).

Spurgeon said,

“...the reason why people become Hyper-Calvinists and Antinomians, is because some, who profess to be Calvinists, often keep back part of the truth, and do not, as Paul did, "declare all the counsel of God"; they select certain parts of Scripture, where their own particular views are taught, and pass by other aspects of God's truth. Such preachers as John Newton, and in later times, your own Christmas Evans, were men who preached the whole truth of God; they kept back nothing that God has revealed; and, as the result of their preaching, Antinomianism could not find a foot-hold anywhere." (Charles Spurgeon, Gospel of Sovereign Grace).

The Antinomian Rod Jordan considers that Charles Spurgeon and A.W. Pink (the very preachers he incessantly quotes and heralds) were “hung up on dead works”, saying that any teacher who makes “an important thing out of keeping a carnal Sabbath” is nothing but a “modern Pharisee” who is “devoid of the Holy Spirit and true Agape love” (Quotes from Rod Jordan – Keeping the True Sabbath).

We really can learn a lot from history. Some tactics of the devil never change. The ghosts of Anne Hutchinson walk the land. Here is the some more from Thomas Shepard’s biography concerning the Antinomian controversy:

“Absurd, licentious, and destructive as those opinions were, they spread among the people with astonishing rapidity; and wherever they took root they produced the bitter fruits of alienation, hatred and slander. The converts to the new opinions were, as Shepard justly called them, “the scourges of the land, and the most subtle enemies of the power of godliness.” By their clamor, “the ancient and received truths came to be darkened, God’s name to be blasphemed, the church’s glory diminished, many godly persons grieved, many wretches hardened, deceiving and being deceived, growing worse and worse.” They labored to destroy the reputation of all those ministers who held the commonly-received doctrines, stigmatizing them as legal preachers who were under a covenant of works, who never knew Christ themselves, and who could not be the instruments of bringing men into the light and liberty of the gospel.” (Life of Thomas Shepard, Works volume I).

Why is this issue so important today?

There is nothing new under the sun. When the black devil of Antinomianism lifted his head to consume the Church in the middle 1600’s, God saw fit to have many brave, Godly, prepared Puritan ministers who were ready and able to combat him. The battle was joined by Mr. Shepard and the other Massachusetts Puritans who defended the flock of Jesus Christ against ignorance, error and prideful lawlessness. Where are the great warriors of today? Oh Lord, we need them! We live in very perilous times, because, rather than being attacked by a small sect of zealots led by a woman, Antinomianism today has infected the entire professing Church, and that black devil even intends to try to infect the remnant as well. The people, like the Antinomian leaders, are too ignorant, lazy and comfortable to put up a meaningful resistance. Only a very few will be spared the dangerous leaven of Antinomianism today. What are the stakes? Let us look to an un-attributed story told by a contemporary historian. This story can be found in the History of Cambridge, at www.harvardsquarelibrary.org.

The story is the story of a man landing in New England for the first time, anxious and hoping to “finde the powerful presence of Christ in the preaching of the word”. The fiery and effective preaching of the New England Puritans had become legendary around the world, and many people fled the continent of Europe, not to avoid persecution and imprisonment, but to have their hearts lifted and their souls stirred to duty by the wonderful and searching preaching of the Puritans. This person was met, immediately upon landing and disembarking his ship, by “some of Mrs. Hutchinson’s disciples, who were zealous to proselyte him to their doctrine”. He found this new teaching to be “every man’s discourse” and, himself, being unable to understand or embrace the doctrines, he decided to flee for some peace and quiet. He found a narrow Indian path that led him into the wilderness, and here among the rocks and trees he attempted to understand and have his heart eased of the things he had heard. He finally decided not to be committed to an opinion, but instead decided to find a town or village where he might hear one of the able ministers of New England preach. He prayed that the Lord would let him hear the truth clearly before he would be called upon to make up his mind or get back on a ship returning home again. Deciding thus, he again began his walk along the path to the next town. As he entered the town, he heard the beating of a drum. Curious, he enquired of a local man what the meaning of the drumbeat was. The townsman replied that since they had as yet no bell to call the men to meeting, they were using a drum instead. The man asked, “Who lectures at this town?” The reply came, “I see you are a stranger, new come over, since you know not the man. It is one Mr. Shepard.”

“I am new come over,” said the stranger, “and have been told since I came, that most of your ministers are legall preachers, onely if I mistake not they told me this man preached a finer covenant of works than the other. However, I shall make what haste I can to hear him. Fare you well.” Hastening to the place, he pressed through the thickest crowd into the church, “where having stayed while the glasse was turned up twice, the man was metamorphosed.” He was frequently melted into tears, during the service, and overwhelmed with gratitude to God, whose “blessed spirit caused the speech of a poore weake pale complectioned man to take such impression in his soul.” The preacher “applied to the word so aptly, as if hee had been his privy counseller; cleering Christs worke of grace in the soule from all those false doctrines, which the erronious party had afrighted him withall.” Finding that there was here not only a zeal “for the truth of the discipline, but also of the doctrine,” of the gospel, “he now resolves (the Lord willing) to live and die with the ministers of New England.”(The History of Cambridge, Years of Thomas Shepard).

True repentance; true conviction and compunction for our sins; true conversion from sins; these things are rejected in the Antinomian theological view. Since the Antinomian (by act and by inference, if not by direct statement) teaches that the Law has been abrogated, the Law cannot work death in the man, and therefore no Grace and fruit can be made evident.

A.W. Pink again,

“But some may ask, ‘Has not the Law been fully abrogated by the coming of Christ into the world? Would you bring us under that heavy yoke of bondage which none has ever been able to bear? Does not the New Testament expressly declare that we are not under the Law, but under Grace; that Christ was made under the Law to free His people therefrom? Is not an attempt to overawe men’s conscience by the authority of the Decalogue (ten commandments) a legalistic imposition, altogether at variance with that Christian liberty which the Savior has brought in by His obedience unto death?’ We answer thus: So far from the Law being abolished by the coming of Christ into this world, He Himself emphatically stated, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets (the enforcers thereof): I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17, 18) . True, the Christian is not under the Law as a Covenant of Works nor as a ministration of condemnation, but he is under it as a rule of life and a means of sanctification.” (A.W. Pink - The Ten Commandments)

“Cleering Christ’s worke of grace in the soule from all of those false doctrines” is the work of the Gospel preacher. Christ warned that false teachers would come, wearing sheep’s clothing, even though inside they are ravening wolves. He warned that there would be many who would proclaim Him as Lord and King, while rejecting His commands and refusing to do what He ordered them to do. Jesus said that only those who do the will of His Father would enter into the Kingdom.

Would you, as Christ has commanded, enter into the Kingdom?

I will endeavor in Part II of this teaching, to expose to the light of the truth the main tool used by today’s wicked Antinomians to bar seekers from being converted and from entering into the Kingdom of God. The Antinomians teach that because Christ kept the commandments perfectly, and (according to them) Christ became our Sabbath’s rest, then we are not responsible for obeying the commandment of God if we have entered into what they call “The True Sabbath”. We will examine their arguments in light of scripture and in the end we will find out if there is, like the stranger in New England, a remnant left on this continent with “a zeal for the truth of the discipline, but also of the doctrine of the gospel”.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Contentment

2010-05-30T09:42:00.002-07:00

Contentment

A Sermon,

Preached on the Lord's Day

in

SANTA ANNA, Texas, September 17, 2007

But godliness with contentment is great gain (1 Tim. 6:6)

Godliness and contentment are found here in perfect concert and harmony, because God will not allow one to exist without the other. The two are inseparable in the mind of God, and so the exhortation that we are to live our lives contented demands that we do so with Godliness. Likewise the command that we live a life of Godliness demands that we are content to do so. As we all know, just because God requires something of man – rarely means that man is able to obey him. There is much talk of contentment today, but it seems that so few people even have a concept of what it really means. To understand what Biblical contentment is, we must first understand what it is not.

Contentment is satisfaction, but this satisfaction must be with Godliness.

Contentment is not satisfaction with disobedience.

Contentment is not satisfaction with ignorance.

Contentment is not satisfaction with worldliness.

Contentment is not satisfaction in serving two masters.

Contentment is not satisfaction in the abrogation of law.

Contentment is fulfillment, but this fulfillment must be with Godliness.

Contentment is not fulfillment with syncretism and without separatism.

Contentment is not fulfillment with rebellion.

Contentment is not fulfillment with anarchy.

Contentment is not self-fulfillment, self-esteem, self-satisfaction, or self-aggrandizement.

We will find that contentment is directly linked in the scripture to right action and right doctrine. It is only when we live rightly and obediently, and when we live rightly according to right doctrine (which is here called Godliness), that we are to be content. Contentment with less than Godliness is a monster and is abominable in the sight of God. We may live in a Godly way and not be content, and that is a sin, akin to covetousness. This is common to Godly men, and it is something a good man or woman will pray about and work on all of their lives. But if we live contentedly in an ungodly way, that is a greater sin – and encompasses all the greatest sins against God.

Let us look at the literary and historical context of our text today, and we will see what God would have us know about this topic:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. (1Ti 6:3-8)

Now, someone was going around teaching a doctrine or doctrine contrary to Godliness, and here Paul confronts that false teaching with all of his authority as a messenger of the Most High. What, in particular, were these false teachers teaching? Let's go up a few more verses:

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort (1Ti 6:1-2).

In the previous chapter, in verse 17, Paul had been exhorting the brethren to take care of and to provide for their elders, particularly those who rule and rule well (called a “ruling elder”):

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses (1Ti 5:17-19).

So particularly, Paul is dealing with right behavior in the body. We should obey them that are in authority over us, and provide for those who work spiritually on our behalf – doubly so those who work and labor “in the word and doctrine”. The point is that God has appointed some men to certain positions and conditions, and we are to not only obey and honor God's decision, but we are to gladly and happily support them. Now, we go over into the 6^th chapter, and Paul is exhorting the brethren to obey their earthly masters, especially those who are Christians, in the same manner that you would obey a spiritual authority. Unhappily, a rebel is a rebel. An anarchist is an anarchist, and we can be sure that a man who does not recognize and obey spiritual authority (and all that God has to say about them) will not rightly treat his earthly master either. So, there were some men who were teaching men that they ought not be content to be servants and to be lower on the social or cultural rung, but they ought to be social climbers, wealth seekers, seeking after riches and authority and power. Here is where it gets interesting. Paul is rebuking this whole concept, and he compares the honor and reverence that is due an earthly boss or magistrate, with the honor and reverence that is due an elder in the Church. Well, today that wouldn't be much, but let me tell you that back then Godly people highly reverenced and honored the servant of God. Now, especially if your master is a Christian, you ought to recognize that God has placed him in his place and station, and you should honor and reverence him, and recognize that God has put them in that place for your good, and for the good of His kingdom. For those who labor under a master who may not be a Christian, you are required to honor and reverence and obey him, because if you do not, you blaspheme the name of God and his doctrine! So the exhortation is to honor and reverence authorities, and to not seek earthly gain and riches – but to be content in Godliness, because in the long scheme of things, this (and this only) is great gain.

One of the great cavils or accusations made against the doctrines Predestination, Election, and the Doctrines of Grace – is that these doctrines are responsible for abuse, tyranny, and for a complete lack of motivation, desire, and ambition in people. The Arminian and the Papist will hypocritically claim that what they call “Calvinism” is responsible for slavery and for the darkest evils of the dark ages. Of course they never tell you that what they call “Calvinism” was the trumpet blast that ended the dark ages, and that Popery and the doctrines thereof (the same salvation doctrines believed by Arminians) were responsible for the murders, tyrannies and ungodliness of the dark ages. The reformation of right doctrine in the Church put an end to the dark ages of medieval tyranny, oppression, and murder. It is laughable that any Arminian, or any man who knows anything about history, would accuse “Calvinism” of fostering tyranny. However, since they brought up the issue, we ought to look at what they are really saying. What is it that Arminians and Papists are saying when they accuse what they call “Calvinism” of encouraging a lack of ambition? Are they not really saying that no man should ever have to be under a yoke? And if he is, aren't they arguing that such a pitiful creature ought not to honor his master? Aren't they teaching that men ought not be in servitude, but rather they out to seek greater gain, since they must believe that gain is godliness? What does Paul have to say to such people, and to right Christians who know them?

It is a wicked teaching that tells men to advance themselves for worldly gain. It is a perverse and evil teaching that convinces men to seek social, cultural, or economic advancement – and to consider it Godly to do so. Paul says that these men are proud, knowing nothing. He says that the teachings they push bring forth envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth. Paul and Christ taught me to be satisfied and content with Godliness, in whatever station God has provided for them. This does not say that men ought to be satisfied in their worldliness, if they are currently in the world. This does not say that men ought to stay in some worldly job or employment, when God has provided us with a better way to live. This does not say that we ought to be content in our condition, if our condition is not in line with right doctrine, the commandments of God, and with Godliness. Someone who says, “God has me in this place, so I am just being content in it” had better look around and see what place he is in. If he is in Sodom, he may just be a Sodomite. If he is in Egypt, he may just be an Egyptian. Too many men fool themselves by saying they are Lot, even though no angel ever comes to take them from Sodom. Being satisfied in an ungodly situation is just ungodliness, it is not contentment. A lie that is told earnestly and vigorously to ourselves, is no less a lie.

Contentment is satisfaction and fulfillment in our place, condition, and position – provided that it is a Godly one. So long as our doctrine and our situation is Godly, we are to be content in it. There are no social climbing Christians. There are no upwardly mobile Christians. A complete and contextual reading of scripture does not allow for most of the ways in which people who call themselves “christians” live.

Now, it is not impossible for a rich man to get into the Kingdom, though it is more possible that a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The reason why this is so, is because the actions that lead to riches (especially in this modern world) are almost completely based on violations of the commandments and requirements of God. The way a man must live in order to become rich (and especially to stay that way), almost universally must damn him: And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:23). It is possible, though not likely, that God might allow a Christian to grow rich ("If riches increase, set NOT your heart upon them" (Psalm 62:10), but there are great warnings and threatenings for those very, very, very few who may do so, and there are specific instructions as to what they are to do with any wealth they may accumulate:

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life (1Ti 6:17-19).

Now, there are two ways that the false professor handles riches if they come:

First, they just refuse to consider themselves wealthy. If they merely compare themselves to other, more wealthy people, then they can say that they are not wealthy, and they are not then subject to the law of God concerning their condition.

Second, if they do admit that they are wealthy, they right off a check or two, expecting a tax write off or some other temporal gain, and expect that they have done God service. God teaches that they are to take their wealth, and with it THEY are to distribute to those who are in the faith who are needy, and THEY are supposed to communicate (which means to give monetarily) to the elders and leaders in the Church. This exhortation to rich men is in the same chapter as our primary text! It is the culmination of Paul's preaching on the topic of contentment. The Bible primarily speaks to the poor, and has almost nothing (outside of very stark warnings) to those who are rich.

"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in Faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?" (James 2:5).

If you were warned that the most poisonous serpent in the world was in your tent, you would probably avoid that tent at all cost. Well, the most poisonous sin of all is covetousness, and it is covetousness that is both the initial cause, and the ultimate end of a lack of contentment.

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Hebrews 13:5).

We mentioned recently that a lack of meekness is atheism and unbelief. Likewise, a lack of contentment for Christians is a product of atheism and unbelief. God has said that He will never leave us or forsake us, so why should we not be content in our condition? To be sure, we are to change those things in our lives that are ungodly. If we are living in an ungodly way, we are commanded to repent and change. If we are rich, we are to heed the warnings in scripture, because it would be utter foolishness to believe that when Jesus says “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! “, that he just wasn't talking about us. The best way to avoid the dangers of riches and wealth, is to follow the prescription set forth by Paul and Jesus. Paul said that we should give liberally to the needy, and provide for those who are in authority in an abundant way. Jesus said to a rich, young man, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22). Sounds like a pretty simple prescription, but how few will follow it?

Before we close, let us look at the one other time we find the word translated as “contentment” here in the Bible. The first place is in our text here in 1 Tim. 6:6. The second place is in 2 Corinthians, where again Paul is exhorting the brethren to liberality in giving:

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;) Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God” (2 Co 9:7-11).

The aside in these verses (where Paul says “it is written”) is a quote from Psalm 112:9, where a description is given of a righteous man. Here Paul teaches that a righteous man, is one who is content in giving (ministering) to those who sow, knowing that the sower (meaning the minister of God) multiplies the seed in:

a) Providing spiritual food to the one who gives,

b) Multiplying the seed that is sown by the giver, thereby increasing the fruit which is born to the account of the one who gives, and, as an added bonus:

The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish (Psa 112:10).

Let us close by continuing with the text that immediately follows our verse on contentment:

“For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses” (1Ti 6:7-12).

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

The Principle Fruit Displayed

2010-04-19T14:37:00.000-07:00

What does Christianity look like? Odds are your "church" has it all wrong...

Gelassenheit, Part 1

Listen

Download

Gelassenheit, Part 2

Listen

Download

Gelassenheit, Part 3	Listen	Download

Making an Emergency Drip Water Filter

2010-04-07T05:36:00.001-07:00

1/16/08 - 4th Day - After Breakfast. We use a British Berkefeld "Big Berky" water filter for all of our drinking and cooking water here at the ranch. For those of you who are new to the blog, we live in an off-grid Christian community in the center of Texas. We live in a small (less than 500 sq. ft.)cabin. We personally have about 37 acres of land, with 2 small tanks (ponds) that usually hold water pretty much year around, unless we have a big drought. There is a seasonal (run off) creek running through the property, but it is dry most of the winter. There is one well in the community, and we are thankful for it, but it is a low producing well and the water is heavy in minerals and gypsum. This water is generally only used for purposes where it will not be consumed by humans. All of our drinking water comes from our "catchwater" system which captures rainwater that hits our small cabin and funnels it into a 2500 gallon tank. This rainwater is then purified in our Big Berky for drinking and cooking. We have been using our Big Berkey for close to 9 years, and it works well for us and we would recommend it.

As part of the Cold Weather Camping and Survival course that I have been teaching to the men in the community, I was intending to teach them how to make a field drip water filter during phase two of the course. Well, we had to cancel phase two because of high winds and the fire danger (burn ban), so I had part 1 of the water filtering and purifying class here on the land for the men and anyone else in the community who wanted to attend. We captured the class on video, so I will be attaching it here in this blog. I made a passive drip water filter which works similar to the Berky - and I made it out of materials that were readily available on the land. The main purpose was to teach principles, so that the actual filtering could be adapted according to whatever materials are at hand or available in an emergency situation. ***Disclaimer - I am NOT a water professional, and I am not guaranteeing anything that you might do. This is provided for informational purposes to show how WE did it, and what I would do in an emergency. You are responsible for yourself****

Notes: I hadn't done this in awhile, and usually you have to change and adapt things as you make the filter based on what materials you have, etc. Sometimes you have to experiment a little to make it work, if you aren't getting good flow, etc. However, this filter worked on the first try, which was a blessing. The one "mistake" I made was that I took the creek gravel directly from being boiled and put it in the filter while it was wet. This meant that it had quite a bit of water soaked in it, and this was the water that came out first during the exhibition. Since we had boiled the gravel in well water, which is real "gypy", the first runnings tasted a bit mineral rich. This wasn't a problem, because it was clean and sterile having been boiled, and the amount of water ran through pretty quickly, so after pouring out about 8 ozs. the water ran clear and pure like from the Berky.

Check out the movie:

Here is a picture of the filter, made from two large Gatorade bottles, along with the pure and clear water that passed through it. This water started as VERY murky pond water.

This next pic is from a smaller water filter that Jennifer made. She was excited about the whole project and made her own after watching me. Hers turned out great:

Ok, this is the end of part 1. I will (Lord Willing) be making a part 2 soon.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael "Salty" Bunker

***PS - the filter is still working fine three days later. I have changed the coffee filter three times. The main change I would make is that I would use better "silica" sand (instead of "play" sand) or no sand at all. The sand we used is very powdery and blocks the coffee filter within less than half a gallon. I would add more gravel, a bit less charcoal, and better sand or none at all. That aside, we have run several gallons of pond water through the filter and it has performed admirably. Jennifer's little filter works great too!

Read more: http://www.michaelbunker.com/2008/01/making-emergency-drip-water-filter.html#ixzz0kPvhyQG0

Separatism as a Biblical Principle, Part 1B

2010-03-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

The “Great Commission”?

Let me start this section by making a few points. I include this discussion within the larger discussion of Separatism, because "missionary evangelism" is a topic used as the primary argument against the right doctrine of Separatism (as if the two are contradictory or exclusive, which they are not). I find the argument to be tiresome for a couple reasons:

1. Generally (or most often, in my experience) the person who uses the “missionary evangelism” argument against the doctrine of Separatism does no evangelism himself. For example, I have traveled somewhere around 3 million miles, and preached to literally hundreds of thousands of people on 3 continents (as a Predestinationist Separatist!) in the last 7 years. These numbers do not include the millions who have heard the gospel on our websites, or the thousands of people a day who either read or listen to my audio sermons. I do not say this to pump up myself or the ministry - or to take credit for anything that God alone has done. I only mention it to illustrate a point... I am the product of what I believe to be true. But most of those who I have engaged
in debate on Separatism, and who have used the “Great Commission” as an argument for Syncretism – have not gone on missions on any real scope, preached or evangelized at all! A few may have, but most have not. So the point is that there is a very high probability that the person who is using missionary evangelism as a "trump card" against separatism, is neither a missionary, nor an evangelist.

2. In the same way, the advocates of modern missionary evangelism (and Syncretism) rarely consider the product of their worldview, nor do they themselves examine which Gospel is being preached.

In a recent letter challenging my teaching on Separatism, a writer alternately charged us with worldliness (for going to stores, for having an internet site and for evangelizing) and at the same time he accused us of some wicked, cultic form of separatism which denies Christians the opportunity to evangelize the world. It seems that any stick is good enough to beat true Christians! Even when those sticks are contradictory. It is usually a good sign (as Christians)
when you are being crucified between two thieves. This is an important issue, and it is one that needs to be handled very precisely. One of the great mantras within professing Christianity is called "The Great Commission". The commission is indeed great, but if it is handled improperly, it is a great commission of evil and source of befuddlement for God's true church. Just look how this blunt instrument is now being used against the doctrine we have just illustrated (Separatism), a great commandment of God.

We want to start out by saying that we DO believe that God raises up some (but few) individuals; and we believe He can and does send these individuals “out” with the Gospel of peace. We would never deny the great works done through people like George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson and Hudson Taylor. What we intend to examine here is the modern idea of “The Great Commission” and how Missionary Evangelism has corrupted the true gospel.

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

Applying this verse recklessly to the whole Body of Christ has been one of the great victories of the modern apostate religious system. Please note before we start that I AM NOT SAYING that the gospel should not be preached to every creature. Nor am I claiming that any particular Christian does not have the obligation to preach the gospel, or that we ourselves are not obligated to hear the Gospel and obey it. What I am trying to do, is properly understand this verse in light of what God would have us look like and how He would have us act today. In short, What is our duty?

Let's take a look at the preceding verse:

"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen" (Mark 16:14).

Note that this great commission is given specifically to the "eleven", and it is specifically given because of their unbelief. The resurrected Jesus Christ appears to his eleven remaining disciples and the primary purpose for his appearance before them is to “upbraid” (or strongly rebuke or scold) them for their unbelief! Read verses 9-11. Mary Magdalene goes and tells the eleven disciples that Jesus lives, but they refuse to believe her. Then, in verse 12 he appears personally to two of the "eleven" and these two go (in verse 13) to tell the other nine (the residue) and these nine also refuse to believe.

Remember that Jesus Christ had told these eleven men personally that he would be resurrected, and every one of these eleven men had claimed to believe Him. So Jesus was dealing in this section of scripture with a rampant issue of unbelief among those who He had personally picked... those who had been "with Him" (verse 10). But why, we must ask, did they not believe? Had they not walked with Christ? Had they not talked with Him? Had they not witnessed his many and manifold miracles? Why would they refuse to believe? Well, as we well should well know, belief is not within the power of man. Belief is a gift of God (Phil. 1:29, John 6:29). It was not yet given unto these disciples to believe, and it is evident that the gift of belief had been
temporarily withheld from them for God's own glory. No one can believe in God (and all that He says about Himself) without belief being given from God. The Holy Spirit needs to reside with us, helping us to believe. So Jesus sends out these particular eleven hard-hearted disciples, with the specific injunction that they are to go to the entire known world at that time and preach the "good news". Then, because of their unbelief, and knowing that no one would naturally believe them, He gives these "eleven" signposts so they can know when someone has truly believed:

1) They that are spiritually regenerated (born-again) by the baptism of the Holy Spirit will be the saved.

2) And those that are not given the gift of belief shall be the damned. Now we know that the following verses, apply to the eleven only – because in verse 20 it says "and they went forth". Who are "they" who went forth? It must be the specific "eleven" to whom He is speaking. And it is confirmed to us plainly that they (the eleven) fulfilled this scripture by "preaching every where". And it is confirmed that verses 18 and 19 refer to the "eleven", because here in verse 20 it says that God "was working with them" to confirm the signs of their apostleship with the signs and miracles that He had promised. So this section of scripture is a treatise on UNBELIEF and not on evangelism. God sent broken and unbelieving vessels out to preach His gospel, so that when the gospel was spread about, HE would get all the glory. He confirmed His message in them particularly and fulfilled this scripture before the eyes of the world. It was necessary that Christianity was to spread far and wide quickly so that it could not be stamped out by persecution; and it was also necessary that it grow organically and not organizationally, so that it could not be wiped out by the Romans or corrupted by the Jews.

So we have proved our point "positively", in that we have shown in context that it was written specifically to the "eleven". Next, I will prove our point "negatively", in that I will show that it could not have been written to the whole church.

So now let us look at this section of verses "negatively". Can it be that this verse is supposed to apply to the "whole church", as in every Christian that ever lived? I believe that it cannot, because the context does not allow that meaning, and because that interpretation would contradict the plain teaching of scriptures elsewhere. If I (according to the opinion of modern “christianity”) am to apply this scripture to my life, then I must ask myself why I am currently
sitting at my home? (and why are you?) I still live and breathe, and I have not been martyred or taken home to heaven, so why am I not physically going forth to every country preaching the gospel to every creature? The acts of “preaching” and “teaching” are used synonymously in most of the Bible. Our primary verse in this study is Mark 16:15 which commands the eleven to “preach the gospel”. The exact parallel verse in Matthew 28:19 commands the eleven to “teach all nations”. So in our context here, preaching and teaching are synonymous. So why would James say, “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers or preachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1)? It doesn’t make much sense to tell people not to be teachers, if Jesus is contradicting this exhortation by commanding EVERY CHRISTIAN to
“teach all nations”. And, of course, Paul asks in 1 Corinthians the 12th Chapter “Are all… teachers?” The answer is… OF COURSE NOT. We are all (all believers) placed in the body with different and important gifts, to be employed on God's behalf for the edification and the growing of the body. So we must ask. If the Bible commands us in Mark chapter 16 to personally travel and evangelize, then why does the Bible openly encourage some people to stay home and live peaceably and to do good? If this scripture is meant to apply to every Christian, then almost every Christian that has ever lived has failed miserably in fulfilling it. And despite what the charismatics say, I can personally tell you that every “so-called” manifestation of miracles that I have seen from those who claim to be Christians has come from practical religious athiests who have convinced themselves that emotion and manipulation is the fountainhead of the miraculous. And, after all, if this is a universal verse, then all who believe are also to take up serpents and to drink poison (Mark 16:18).

Why, I ask, when the apostles themselves gathered together in Acts the 15th chapter to consider everything that is commanded of those who believe in Christ, do they command this: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Why did the Jerusalem council not reaffirm the Great Commission, having specifically considered all that was to be required of Christians? Why are we commanded by Paul and all the other apostles to keep God's commandments, the moral commandments and particularly his Royal commandments (to love God and to love our neighbor) as the fulfillment of our total duty to God? Why is "missionary" evangelism absent from the Decalogue? And why is it not shadowed forth in the Old Testament? In the Old Testament, we do not see God sending Israelites out to evangelize and convert the surrounding heathen, in fact, in most places in the Bible they are encouraged to stay as separate as possible from them. However, we do see in the Old Testament where God sent specific, chosen vessels (whether they be angels or men) to gather His elect together out of the heathenish peoples. God scatters and re-gathers His elect according to His own glorious and supernatural power. He utilizes a very few, very select, very chosen vessels in which to accomplish His tasks.

Modern corporate “Christianity” (whether purposely or not, we shall eventually see) has totally missed what true Christian evangelism is. We are commanded by God to be Christians (to live our lives as Christ commanded). That one act is our fundamental duty. We are commanded to live Christian lives by grace and to work Christian works by faith. This, alone, is our duty to God and to man. Modernist evangelistic “christianity” has become so wrapped up in “preaching
the gospel”, while simultaneously rejecting the pure and true Gospel of Sovereign Grace completely. It is as if they were to say, “We care not what food we feed to the poor and the downtrodden. If it is a poisonous and deadly meal, we care not. But we must give them more of it, or they will never have their hunger satiated”.

So here is the main point:

THE GOSPEL IS NOT FOR UNREGENERATE UNBELIEVERS! IT IS FOR THE CHURCH!

The Gospel exists for this reason: "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Colossians 1:10-13).

The Gospel is for the CONVERSION of the elect, not for the REGENERATION of sinners. Only the power of God through the quickening of the Holy Spirit can regenerate a lost sinner. The Gospel is to convert to Christianity and to right-mindedness those whom the Spirit has already regenerated.

Note that Paul says this in Romans: “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Romans 1:15).

So Paul says he is ready to preach the Gospel in Rome to "you" that are there. Who is the "you" he is talking to? Let's look: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7).

Interesting don’t you think?

But, some might argue, just look at verse 16 of that chapter. It says that the Gospel is "it is the power of God unto salvation". This is the principle memory verse of many Gospel salvationists. But read the next half of the verse, where it says "to every one that believeth".

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes! It does not say that they are saved by the Gospel; it says that the inward work of regeneration is shown forth as salvation through their belief. They were given belief first!

Here is an even greater proof:

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Paul specifically states here that gospel does not save (as in eternal salvation/regeneration). The applying by the Holy Spirit of the benefits of the Cross to the elect of God is what saves eternally. Paul does not "baptize" or "quicken" eternally. He preaches the Gospel. Let's look at the next verse: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18). To those who ARE SAVED, the Gospel is the power of God. It brings about conversion of the mind. Now when we preach, we do not know who is regenerated, and who remains in an unregenerate state. So if we are called to preach, we preach the fullness of the true Gospel to all creatures. But to those who are perishing without grace, the preaching will be foolishness. It will have no eternal effect. But to those which are the elect of God, this same preaching will bring forth out from them the internal work of salvation, which must have previously been wrought by the Holy Spirit in them. The next objection will usually come out of the book of Romans: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:14-17)

Because of the sometimes confusing structure of this section of scripture, it is often used to preach "gospel salvation". Let's take it really slowly and examine those parts of the verses that can be easily confused. First, the average reader will be unaware of what is referred to when it says "Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" Let's look: Isaiah 53:1 says: "Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of Jehovah revealed?" And of course this is a good encapsulation of our question. We know that the "arm of Jehovah" is Jesus Christ. So to whom
has Jesus Christ been REVEALED? John speaks of this same section of Isaiah when he says: "so that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, 'Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them'” (John 12:38-40). John here tells us that ISAIAH is saying that only those to whom the Lord is revealed, can BELIEVE on Him. So, knowing that scripture does not disagree with scripture - let's look at Romans again. Romans chapter 10 says that hearing is a necessary prerequisite for believing, and we wholeheartedly agree. But how can they hear, so that they can believe? This is the question that this section Romans addresses. So our scriptures say, "How can they hear without a preacher". Which is to say, How can they hear on their own? Don't they need a messenger? The word "preacher" here, means "herald" or "messenger". Every "herald" or "messenger" must be sent. The preacher issue will end up pretty moot, because Paul will tell us in verse 15 that many who have had the Gospel preached unto them do not believe it. This, at last, is the whole point of these scriptures! Paul is saying, how do people hear the gospel? The tension builds… HOW DOES THIS ALL TAKE PLACE?

It is at this point that Paul brings in the story of Isaiah, who proves that God must reveal His Son to those who He has not personally hardened and blinded. He must cause those to see who previously could not see, and He must cause those to hear who could not hear. How does He do that? Well, (Paul says) “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God”. We must keep this in mind, because here is where much of the confusion comes in. In verse 15, Paul admits openly that many preachers are sent to preach the Gospel. But there is a problem. In verse 16 he admits that many who hear the Gospel do not believe it. They do not obey what they
hear. So regular "hearing" (through the ears) is not the cause of faith, and it is not what brings about salvation. So Paul asks the question that Isaiah asked... "Who shall believe our report?" Well, I will tell you who will believe it. All those to whom the Arm of the Lord is revealed will certainly hear it and believe it. So, knowing this, we can know that faith comes by hearing. Not the hearing that is mere "listening" through the ear canals. But faith comes by spiritually being allowed to hear the Gospel. How does this happen? It can only happen by the Word of God! But this word "Word" is not speaking of the written word (The Bible) at all. This word "Word" is the Greek word “rhema”, which means - the spoken word, or a direct command So now it all clicks. It all starts to come together. Faith comes by hearing, but we can only hear by the direct command from God. God says to me particularly, "you will hear" and then I hear. When Jesus Christ is revealed to me I will hear Him and believe Him. Now first I must be enabled to hear, so later when a preacher or teacher declares Christ to me, I can hear him preach the Gospel and say, "WOW, I BELIEVE THAT!" Now I can believe in Christ. Now I can receive the gift of faith so that my belief in Christ will not be merely a superficial form of mental ascension, but it will be a saving faith in Christ.

So Paul says:

1) Not everyone can hear.
2) The Lord must be revealed FIRST, before He can be believed upon.
3) Hearing comes from the direct command of God, and that command is not universal, but is particular to whom God will reveal His Son.
4) The Gospel can only be "heard" if God, through His spoken command concerning us particularly, allows us to Hear it.

This is what we have always said. And this is what we teach.

So we do not believe in "Gospel Salvation" or "Gospel Regeneration". We do believe in Holy Spirit Regeneration, and Gospel Conversion. Let us look at another objection. To the Corinthians, Paul says this:"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preachedunto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).

Some will say that these verses teach that we are saved by the Gospel. But that is not what these verses say at all. We must remember that our Bible has been translated into the English tongue from another language which has differing speech patterns. Paul is dealing in this chapter with those who deny the resurrection of Christ (verse 12). He specifically mentions that those who are saved are those who have believed the gospel "which I preached unto you". There is now another gospel which is being preached, and that gospel denies the resurrection of Christ. Paul says that if we stand fast and firm in HIS Gospel (that of the truth of the resurrection) we are saved. So if we stand in this truth, then we are saved and we have not believed in vain. So this is another verse that cannot be used to prove Gospel salvation. These verses give us a deeper understanding of what the Gospel is for: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

As the Doctrines of Grace openly proclaim, the unregenerate cannot receive the Gospel, nor can they hear it. Only the regenerate mind/heart can hear the Gospel and believe it. We know that the Gospel has been truly, spiritually heard when it is obeyed. The Gospel is a means of CONVERSION, and it was designed to make lost sheep into found sheep. It was never designed to turn goats into sheep, which is impossible. Paul calls the Gospel a "mystery" (Ephesians 6:19), and it accepted by all those who believe in the power and glory of God that "mysteries" must be unveiled to the spirit by the Holy Spirit of God. It is evident that the Gospel has been hard locked away from billions of people who have lived and died on this planet, having never had the Gospel preached unto them. Arminians believe that the Gospel must be preached to "every creature" so that they can stand or fall in judgment based on whether or not they "believed
the gospel". But the Arminian has no explanation as to why God would keep the Gospel from millions and millions of humans, who perished without ever hearing the good news of Christ at all. The Arminian must, then, believe that there are billions in hell who are there because mankind failed to preach the gospel to them. The Arminian is therefore logically to deduce that (since he always assumes he is saved) he personally will be in heaven because of LUCK or CHANCE. He just happened to be born in a time and place where the gospel (or, shall we say, "a" gospel) is preached everywhere all the time. So it is CHANCE + GOSPEL + WORKS + The Work of Christ = SALVATION for the Arminian.

They may deny it, but it is the logical conclusion that can be drawn from what they believe. Now, sadly, many who believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace also have fallen for this same error.
So let me say regarding evangelism that we DO preach the Gospel. But the true Gospel is not what most modernist “christians” think it is. The true Gospel is the Gospel of God’s Sovereignty and His Grace and Mercy towards His sheep. We preach the Gospel, not by pushing a decisionist gospel on the whole world without any consideration of the truth. We preach the Gospel by living live that are set apart and holy unto God. We preach the Gospel by having a right worldview and by rejecting false gospels and false worldly ways. We preach the Gospel by being Christians, and by declaring the truth to those who ask us about the hope that is in us.

Does God have evangelists today? Of course He does.

Is everyone an evangelist? Of course not.

I absolutely believe that the true Gospel should be preached. God knows that there are elect of God out there who have never heard it, and it is the power and means of their conversion and it shows forth their salvation, if indeed they are the saved. Many millions have been converted by the preaching of the Gospel. Many lost sheep are brought back into the fold by means of the Gospel, so preach it we must. But let us examine two very different ways in which evangelism can be viewed:

1) The Sovereign Grace method - which was utilized by the Reformers, the Puritans and the early church in America. This was the evangelism which made parts of the American continent a paradise on earth. Evangelize your family, and submit your own ways unto God. Keep His commandments; be a peculiar people. Separate from the world and all worldliness, and be Holy unto God. Invite ALL to come unto Christ, but make sure the Christ that is lifted up is the real Jesus Christ of the Bible, for He says "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me." (John 12:32) Christ draws men unto Himself. Christ saves men, and he saves them before they ever hear the Gospel - as Paul himself can attest from personal experience.

2) The Pharisaical method, which is nowadays called "missionary evangelism". This form is based on the false idea that if WE do not evangelize, men will not be saved. This method denies that God has manifold and wonderful ways to save souls, and does not need men in order to do it. Jesus said this: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than
yourselves." (Matthew 23:15).

God does raise up evangelists and missionaries. There is no doubt that He does. But the true ones (like George Whitefield) will be known by the Gospel that they preach. I challenge you to find more than a handful of missionaries or evangelists who preach the true Gospel in the world today. Instead, hordes of Americanized missionaries preach the devilish gospel of Arminianism,
swarming foreign shores - consuming the people and leading them into error. These lands are not benefited by Christianity, but the churches and ministry boards are benefited greatly by the huge sums of money they can raise by emotionally manipulating fat, dumb American "christians" to fulfill the "great commission" by paying large sums of money (with only a small portion) to be
used to send someone else bastardize the gospel. I say we evangelize best by being Christians, and by learning the true Gospel and by living it every day. We will see what true evangelism is when we live what we say we believe. We will see it in a most powerful way. Then we will see the power of true evangelism. Agrarian friend Franklin Sanders pointed out the great conversion story of Lieutenant-General Ewell during the war for Southern Independence. I include the story here, most ably presented by the Reverend William Jones, a Southern Chaplain from Northern Virginia:

“At a council of war, one night, Jackson had listened very attentively to the views of his subordinates, and asked until the next morning to present his own. As they came away, A. P. Hill laughingly said to Ewell, "Well! I suppose Jackson wants time to pray over it." Having occasion to return to his quarters again a short time after, Ewell found Jackson on his knees and heard his ejaculatory prayers for God's guidance in the perplexing movements then before him. The sturdy veteran Ewell was so deeply impressed by this incident and by Jackson's general religious character, that he said: "If that is religion, I must have it;" and in making a profession of faith not long afterwards he attributed his conviction to the influence of Jackson's piety.”

While this story is often used to illustrate powerful prayer, piety and character – I would like to point out the most obvious (but obviously overlooked) element of the story. Stonewall Jackson was in his tent... by himself! God used this time of supplication and prayer to call one of His children to Himself, and He didn't need a missionary board to do it. Nor was Stonewall found proselytizing on a street-corner or in a feed store. Separatism works, and evangelism is most properly a Christian life lived.

So let us address the real question, and focus on the real answer.

Preaching missionary evangelism is really a dodge for the incorporated church system. When someone throws up missionary evangelism as a challenge to Separatism, it is not usually because they themselves evangelize; nor is it because they desire that 99 percent of Christians (or even 5 or 10 percent) engage in evangelism. The last thing most churches and pastors want is everyone in their church heading out to the mission field. What they want is for 99% of the people to pay for corporate or denominational evangelistic efforts – no matter how eternally successful they really are. Missionary evangelism is a cash cow, and it successfully takes the focus away from the real issue. Before we send our “christianity” abroad, we should first examine our Christianity. Most people do not want to examine their own lives to see if there is real fruit borne of their professed faith. When I say that evangelism is primarily “being Christians” I mean that our time and efforts should first be spent in assuring that we are in the faith. Christian, evangelize thyself!
While most Christians refuse to heed the scriptures concerning separation and personal holiness, they concern themselves with obligations that they do not even understand, and seek to obey commands that were not even given to them. It is not that they cannot practice Biblical Christianity, it is that they will not. It is not that most Christians are overwhelmed with a conscience that demands that they evangelize; it is that they are pressed hard and weighed down by a conscience that demands that they be Christians. In order to avoid the latter, they must focus on the former; and since they usually will not “go” themselves, they feel better when they give money to missions, and thus the seared conscience is salved.

Evangelism starts at home. When you are satisfied that you are in full obedience to what is required of you by the Gospel; when you are separated from religious whores and all papists mythologies; when you are certain that your family is evangelized and your house is properly ordered; when your worship aligns with the Word of God; and when your worldview is consistently Biblical throughout; THEN should you concern yourself with missionary evangelism. But you will find that, for the most part, if you have done all these things well, you will have little need to evangelize… because your Christian walk will have alienated and scattered all the goats and wolves, while the sheep (both lost and found) will have been powerfully evangelized by your life and behavior.

I cannot emphasize enough that our earthly success as missionaries and as ambassadors depends upon a right view of both the Sovereignty of God, and the obedience that is required of us in the scriptures. As a last point I want to examine the idea that Christians are supposed to
“leaven” the rest of the world. This is where some true Christians can find areas of conflict, and I pray that all sides of the issue are considered calmly and objectively. I agree with this quote from our friend Franklin Sanders concerning some errors in modern Christian behavior:

“...feckless Evangelicalism... withdraws from confronting the world because underneath it fears that Christianity has no answer. This is what John Milton sneered at as a "fugitive & cloistered virtue" in "Areopagiticus." Therefore we have Chreestyun bookstores, and Chreestyun music and Chreestyun theme parks and Chreestyun radio and I don't know what all else, most of it functioning at the lowest possible aesthetic and intellectual level, utterly indistinguishable from
the world -- oh, the Chreestyun rockstars grab their thigh rather than their crotch, but differ in little else. Whatever happened to Rembrandt? The Christian university? Bach? Shakespeare?Christianity GAVE the world art, music, literature. It all belongs to God, and is impossible without him. The would-be artist that blasphemes God can only do it because he created light and colour. So what is Evangelicalism afraid of today? Can the gates of Hell hold out against Christ's saints and his Church?”

I agree completely and wholeheartedly with these sentiments. No true Christian, living the life of the Christian, believing the Gospel of Christ, obeying His commandments, should shrink from the marketplace of ideas or from the arena of battle with the enemies of Christ. But I question some
apparent presuppositions behind other sentiments voiced in conjunction with this passionate belief. I guess I have to wonder at the different view of the world I must have. I do not see professing “christianity” shrinking into ghettos or hiding in “christian only” forums. I see modern apostate “christianity” shoving their false art, music, literature, politics and worldview down the throat of the world. I see a “christian” king and his party of neo-con fascists parading their hologram of “christianity” before the whole world. With all due respect, I don't see professing “christians” hiding in cellars or slinking down alleys, I see them jamming fish symbols and yellow ribbons on anything that moves. It seems that anything and everything is “christian” today... which may have been part of Franklin's point. Maybe it is true Christianity that he fears is shrinking from the fight. But I cannot agree that true Christian separatism, holiness, sanctity is a huge problem today. I see terms like “hyper-separatism” being bandied about and wielded as a weapon, but against what? It seems that separatism is only good today if it can be used as an argument for worldliness and syncretism. Bad ideas succeed when a false dialectic can be offered to really lazy people. The fascist says, “anyone who is not with us is with the terrorists!” The communist says, “anyone who is not a communist is a fascist!” The statist says, “anyone who rejects us is unpatriotic!” Now, the syncretist can say, “anyone more separated from the world than me, is a hyper-separatist!” This is a dangerous and slipperly slope. Other more reasonable and rational (but I think un-biblical) arguments have been made for syncretism. So let us look at what the Bible has to say about contact between the holy and the unholy:

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, 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. 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. 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.” (Hag 2:11- 14)

A clean thing can not make the unclean clean. Your presence in Sodom, does not sanctify Sodom (God pulls the clean thing out before destroying Sodom). But the unclean thing CAN make everything that touches it unclean. The Pharisees were seen as avoiding every sinner, tax-collector, Samaritan and leper – so their actions are used as an argument against Separatism. But the Pharisees were not separatists, they were hypocrites. The Pharisees
desired to Lord it over the Lord's people. The Pharisees violated the law at their own whim, they rejected the commandments of God for themselves while they imposed them on everyone else. The Pharisees were NOT separatists, they were hypocritical theocrats. The argument is then made that by proper and diligent engagement, Christians can “leaven” their surroundings and wicked institutions (such as Mother Earth News). I have to strenuously object to this idea. Leaven is rarely used as a positive thing in scripture. Only in one place is leaven used (in parable) to represent the gospel of the Kingdom. This parable can be found in Luke 13 and in Matthew 13: “Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened”.

Now, Kingdom Now Presbyterians and other Dominionists (like Pat Robertson) have used this verse to say that the whole world is going to be leavened by the Gospel. But I think that these folks are missing the message here (along with the whole theme of Prophecy). Let's examine some facts:

1. The leaven is the Kingdom of Heaven (Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world")
2. The whole loaf is leavened by it.
3. The leaven is “hid”.

Examining Christ's other parables and the context of this very chapter, we know that these loaves are wheat loaves. It is wheat that is harvested by the angels in order to be the Kingdom (Matt. 3:12, 13:29-30). This very chapter explains to us that the tares are to be snatched up from the Lord's field and burned, the wheat is to be taken to the purging floor where every bit of chaff is removed and destroyed by fire, THEN is the wheat to be taken to the garner and used to make loaves. So the loaves here are wheat loaves. The wheat is Christians and only Christians. The Gospel of the Kingdom (as we have explained) leavens the elect and converts them to the Kingdom. The whole loaf (of wheat) is then leavened! We should be careful in using the Lord's parables in ways other than the way in which He used them. We Christians are not to pluck up the tares, and neither are we to go with them to the fire. We are to be gathered to the purging floor, and eventually to the Lord's garner to be made into His loaves.

Now let us look at the direct commandment of Separatism:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

It is not Mother Earth News that is going to be leavened by proper Biblical action, it is the elect of God who are evangelized when we are truly Christians. We are to represent our Lord, “For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26). I am not saying that we do not engage the world, or that we do not represent Christ or battle for the supremacy of Christian ideas – far from it. I am saying that we don't live among them, we don't slave in their factories or feed their machines. We should work towards total dependence on God, and stop depending on His enemies. We should stop trying to train goats to act like sheep, and start feeding the sheep – or better yet, stay in the sheepfold, look to the Good Shepherd and eat good grass. The last objection against Separatism generally comes from Jude, verse 19: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit”. Of course this weapon is generally used by those who do not know how to rightly handle God's Word:

Matthew Henry rightly identifies these ignorant men as sensualists:“He guards them against seducers by a further description of their odious character: These are those who separate, etc., Jud_1:19. Observe, (1.) Sensualists are the worst separatists. They separate themselves from God, and Christ, and his church, to the devil, the world, and the flesh, by their ungodly courses and vicious practices; and this is a great deal worse than separation from any particular branch of the visible church on account of opinions or modes and circumstances of external government or worship, though many can patiently bear with the former, while they are plentifully and almost perpetually railing at the latter, as if no sin were damnable but what they are pleased to call schism.”

The great commentator John Gill also rightly identifies this false separatism:

“ Jud 1:19 - These be they who separate themselves,.... Not from sinners openly profane; such a separation is commendable, being according to the will and word of God, to the mind and practice of Christ, and which tends to the good of men, and to the glory of God; but from the saints and people of God; it is possible that a child of God may for a time leave the fellowship of the saints, but an entire and total forsaking of them, and of assembling with them, looks with an ill aspect; nor did they separate themselves from superstition and will worship, and every false way of worship, which would have been right, but from the pure worship, ordinances, and discipline of God's house, by a perversion of them, and as being above them, or unwilling to be under any notice and government; not from errors and heresies, and persons that held them, with these they herded; but from the pure doctrines of the Gospel, and ministers of the word”.

Most specifically we should note that these separatists are those who are “mockers... who should walk after their own ungodly lusts”, which can hardly be said of true Biblical separatists. So, my purpose in this letter is to identify proper Separatism, defend it Biblically, and to make sure that good men don't ignorantly slander a commandment of God while earnestly trying to do good towards God's children and His Kingdom. I have not yet tied Biblical Separatism to Biblical Agrarianism, but I will soon if the Lord allows.

I remain your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Separatism as a Biblical Principle, Part 1A

2010-03-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

(This first article is long and will be divided into several "parts" for this blog)

In this first article I hope to explain some specifics of Christian Separatism, and to clarify some errors in thinking made by many good men and women who struggle with the concept of Separatism. First let's begin with a Biblical defense of the concept of separatism as it is opposed to the worldly view of syncretism or conformity.

At the outset we should state that the word “separate” is one with the word “holy”. Holiness is separate-ness. “Holy” means “special, set aside for a specific purpose”. In the Old Testament, the English word “separate” is used 24 times, almost unanimously with this connotation of a person, place, or thing being separated unto God for His own divine purposes. The word is used 8 times in the New Testament (and we will examine these) including the command of Separatism found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. Only one time in the NT is “separate” used as a negative chastisement (Jude 19), and the context of that verse clearly explains just who these people were, what they separated from, and exactly what was their specific error. Christian authors and commentators within God's true Church have always gone to great pains not to slander true Christian separatism by wrongly applying Jude 19. We will examine that verse later.

Separatism for God's people is a principle element and underlying truth found throughout all of Scripture and all of Prophecy. It exists in virtually every spiritual type and shadow given to us in the Bible.

God’s people shall dwell ALONE:

“The eternal God [is thy] refuge, and underneath [are] the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy [them]. Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob [shall be] upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew. Happy [art] thou, O Israel: who [is] like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who [is] the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:27-29)

Most people remember that the curse of Balaam against God’s people was turned into a blessing by God, but most people do not know - exactly what was the blessing that God conferred to Israel via Balaam? What was that blessing anyway?

“How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, [whom] the LORD hath not defied? For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:8-9)

Please take some time and study and pray over this fact. While it was the purpose of Balak to curse God's people, the very specific blessing conferred upon Israel was that they should dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations. The word “reckoned” is the Hebrew word chashab which literally means to “plait”, “braid” or “interpenetrate”. God blessed Israel through Balaam by promising them that they would dwell separately, and would not be intermixed with the world around them. We can determine, then, that the curse sought by Balak is that Israel would be “braided” into the surrounding culture.

The Divine purpose of Separation was unveiled beginning with Noah and Abraham. Also notice that separatism is always a corollary (or maybe a result) of finding grace with God. Noah was set apart when he found grace in the sight of God: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8).

Subsequent to receiving grace, Noah was ordered to be separate: “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Genesis 6:13). “But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee” (Genesis 6:18).

Abraham found grace with God. He dwelt alone and was separate:

1. Get thee out of thy country, etc.
2. I will MAKE OF THEE a great nation
3. “So Abraham departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him”

Isaac and Jacob dwelt alone… they were separate.

Joseph was separated for the fulfilling of God’s purpose, he was the progenitor of those who were forced into Egypt: “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren” (Gen. 49:26).

The repeated cycle of Israel being separated unto God (and being blessed thereby) is inevitably followed by their apostasy as they slowly return to their old ways of conformity and syncretism with the world. Throughout this series of cycles, we are introduced to different forces, spirits or personalities – some who encourage Israel to greater separatism and holiness (God's true prophets), and others who encourage Israel to greater conformity with the world around them (the world's prophets).

So just where do the prophets of conformity get their doctrines?

There are several different individuals or groups who (either purposefully or ignorantly) defend the concept of Christians remaining intermixed with the world. Some of these people are honestly deceived; some are generally right thinking but erroneously use the lexicon and illustrations from others who are deceived; and still others are prophets sent from the enemy (though they are allowed and given space for a time by God for His purposes) to deceive those who God would not have hear, and thus obey, the truth. I will not judge the motives of any particular person or group, I will only examine their arguments to see if any of them stand up to scrutiny.

Jesus Christ's High Priestly prayer, and “in the world, but not of it”

I should say here that much of what follows has been edited, rewritten or adapted from other articles I have written previously on the subject. All of this is from my unpublished book “The Process Driven Life”...

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty

God’s commanded will is that His people come out from among THEM and be separate. Specifically we will be known (outwardly to the rest of the world) as His sons and daughters if the Holy Spirit brings us out from among the wicked.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

Confusion is caused in many discussions like these because assumptions are made that should not be made. When people use the word “Christian” they often mean radically different things. There are only two ways given in scripture to know who is a Christian:

1. Their Doctrine (John 7:17, Acts 2:42, Rom. 6:17, 16:17)
2. Their Fruit (Matthew 7:16, 20, 13:23, and many other parallel verses)

It should be assumed that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. We will know the true Christians because they will be caused by the Spirit of God to be obedient to His declared will. Those that do the declared will of the Father in heaven are the ones who enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 7:21). Jesus said in the fifth chapter of John’s gospel that he never said or did anything unless the Father in heaven said it or did it. When Jesus commanded His children to come out from among them, then, it was because it is the declared will of the Father that all of His children will come out and be separate. This fact is also declared throughout the types and shadows in the Old Testament – which were given for our edification and for our instruction. Some of these points we have mentioned earlier, but let us review:

God’s Church (in Abraham) was commanded to get out of the former country and to go unto a land that God would show unto him… to live separate from his old kindred.

God’s Church was caused to come out from among the Egyptians and from their bondage.

God’s Church was commanded to dwell alone in the land and to not go to the world for assistance or protection.

God’s Church was commanded to go out from the wicked, and unto Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach.

God’s Church was commanded and caused to go out from Canaan before Jerusalem was destroyed.

God’s Church was caused to go out from Rome so that Rome could be judged.

God's Church was caused to flee from and separate from the established but apostate state churches of Rome and then of England.

God’s Church was caused to flee persecution in Europe and to flee to the desert where she was to dwell alone.

It is sad that the modernist “christian” system has succumbed to a religion of catchphrases and mantras, rather than a belief system based solely on the revealed and commanded Word of God. What follows is a conversation between myself (the Editor) and a man we will call Religious Worldling. The actual conversation is not fictional at all but is the conglomeration of many conversations I have had with pastors and preachers around the world who reject the Bible’s teaching on Separatism:

Mr. RW: I have read some of your writings on Christian Separatism, and I fear you are doing your readers a great disservice and are leading them into error on this point.

Editor: Well, I certainly would not want to lead anyone into error. Maybe you can help me then? I am always willing to be corrected by the contextual teaching of scripture. Where have you found me to be in error?

Mr. RW: Christian Separatism is not Biblical. The Bible teaches that Christians are to be “in the world, but not of it”. Teaching Christians to not be in the world is teaching them to violate the scripture. Extremism is the fountain of all error. There are two great errors that Christians have to avoid: Separatism on the one hand, and Syncretism on the other. Christians are not to be separate, but neither are we to be worldly. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Editor: I think I understand what you are saying. Could you show me where in the scripture you have found these exact words… to “be in the world, but not of it”? I would appreciate it if you would assist my feeble memory, but I have in front of me the King James Bible and would like to be able to read the context of that verse.

Mr. RW: Sure. I just taught a series on this at our Church. You can find those words in John the 17th Chapter, verses 14-16.

Editor: Actually, I cannot find those words in the Gospel of John, or in any other book of the Bible. The exact phrase “in the world, but not of it” is not in the Bible at all. That exact phrase is actually a Sufi Muslim saying that was picked up by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Anyone who is interested can do an internet search on the exact phrase and you will find that what I am saying is true. The one place you will not find that exact phrase, is in the Holy Bible.

Mr. RW: Ok, I understand what you are doing. Sure, the exact phrase is not in the Bible, but the teaching is right there in the 17th Chapter of John.

Editor: I will agree that the twisted version of worldliness being taught today has been violently wrenched out of the High Priestly prayer of Jesus in the 17th Chapter of John; but I will not agree for a second that Jesus is teaching (contrary to the teaching of the whole Bible) that Christians are to compromise between Separatism and Syncretism by rejecting Separatism and only partly embracing Syncretism. These words are mutually exclusive. The Bible teaches Separatism for God’s true Church from beginning to end, and only by rejecting thousands of other scriptures, both literally and in type, can one come to the conclusions that you have come to. Let us look at the context and teaching of the prayer of Jesus in the 17th Chapter of John and see if your Sufi saying holds water:

“I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:14-17).

First we must understand the word “world” in each context that it is used. The word “world” is translated from the Greek word “Kosmos”, and can have several different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. I will quote here from the teaching of the great writer and teacher A.W. Pink on the different meanings of the word “world” in the scripture, and I ask you to investigate each meaning in context. You will find Mr. Pink is correct in each case:

"Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth."

"Kosmos" is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., etc.- "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end." "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave
this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc.

"Kosmos" is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. - "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out"— compare Matt. 4:8 and I John 5:19, R. V.

"Kosmos" is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3: 19, etc.—"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

"Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12 etc. "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness." Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

"Kosmos" is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place. (A.W. Pink – The Meaning of Kosmos in John
3:16).

The term “kosmos” or “world” as it is used in the verses you have quoted from the 17th Chapter of John, ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean “the world culture” (which in every other place we are commanded to leave and flee), but it means “the universe as a whole”, or “the earth”. You will find this to be true because it is used that way in this very chapter, before and after the verses you have quoted. In verse 11, we find Jesus praying to the Father and instructing the disciples that He is going to leave the EARTH (17:4) and go to HEAVEN:

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11).

Jesus specifically states that He is going to leave the world (the earth), but that His disciples will be left behind on the earth, as He is going to the Holy Father.

In verse 24, we find Jesus praying to the Father that the ones given to Jesus by the Father will one day be with Him where He is going (so we see that this word 'world' is about location and not culture or society):

“Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

So we see that the word “world” in this chapter can absolutely NOT mean “the world culture” or “the unsaved world”, but it means “the created universe”, or, “the earth”. God has not chosen to take us off the planet and to Heaven while we are alive, but has chosen to leave us in His created universe for His glory; both for evangelism purposes (examined later), and so that we will stand as a divine rebuke to the world. The very same chapter teaches that:

1.) Jesus does not pray for the unsaved and wicked world (John 17:9).

2.) Jesus only prays for and loves the ones who either believe on Him now, or who will be caused to believe on Him through the teaching of the disciples, which is inclusive of the total sum of
those who are given to Christ by the Father (John 17:20, 17:6).

Jesus not only does not specifically teach us to be “in the world” as in the culture of the world; but He specifically teaches us the exact opposite:

1.) He teaches that we are not of the world (the world culture), just as He was not of the world culture, but lived separately from the world culture (John 17:14).

2.) He prays that the Father will sanctify (separate and purify) us from the world system (17:16-17)

3.) He prays that since He is leaving the created world, that the Father will protect and keep unified and separated from the world those whom the Father has given Him.

4.) He claims that while He was with His disciples in the created world, He protected them and separated them from the world systems (John 17:12).

5.) He promises that the world HATES His children, because they are not a part of the world culture (John 17:14).

Now you, and preachers like you, are teaching a compromise between Separatism (coming out and being separate from the world) and Syncretism (fully embracing the world system), but there can be no compromise between these two systems. The Bible teaches Separatism throughout, and ANY step at all in the direction of embracing the world culture is Syncretism and is an error. You cannot be halfway between these two teachings, by their very definitions.

Mr. RW: I can see why people are convinced by you, but our own experience and understanding of how the world works requires that Christians, in order to evangelize the world, be in the world.

Editor: I am not here to convince anyone. Declaring the truth will convince those who God chooses to know the truth; while it will cause the world to hate us, even as Christ has said. Now once again you confuse terms, while the very conversation we are having refutes your argument. Here I sit before you as a Separatist (which you yourself claim that I am). I am in the created universe, existing on this planet (which is what John 17 claims), yet I desire more than anything to be, and am continuously being, separated from the world culture into Christian Community. You admit this is true of me by calling me a Separatist. Yet, here I am before you evangelizing you. I am declaring the truth of the Bible to you; and this is the very heart of evangelism. I do not have to embrace and live in the world’s culture, the world’s cities, nor do I need to partake of the world’s dainties in order to evangelize. My LIFE is evangelism, and yet I am a Separatist. Merely separating from the worldly religious ilk is evangelism because the truth is manifest by Christians walking in the LIGHT of scripture. The LIGHT is the light of men. LIGHT is contrasted with darkness. Light which is mixed up with darkness loses it’s attribute of light-ness. Light is the most effective when it is gathered together in strength, where it stands as a rebuke to darkness. What you have taught is NOT what the Bible teaches, and pithy catchphrases cannot refute the entire teaching of God’s Word on the subject. You can rest assured that the Bible is a Separatist book. The very word “Holy” means SEPARATE, so the very front cover of my Bible declares "SEPARATE BIBLE" on it. There can be no holiness without separatism. There is only Separatism or Syncretism. One is true and one is false.

RW: I cannot agree with you. Experience denies it. The whole history of the Church is one of growing outward into the world evangelistically.

Editor: Respectfully, there you are wrong once again, and it seems you have now coupled ignorance of scripture with a profound ignorance of history. The History of the true Church is a history of Separatism.

Christ separated out His apostles from among men. They were to leave their jobs and lives and be dedicated to Him alone. Those who Christ evangelized were of two sorts… Christ saw a great multitude following Him and separated them by giving commandment that they should “depart to the other side” (Matthew 8:18). Some refused to follow and made excuses because they had pressing business in the world (even after claiming that they would follow Him “withersoever” He went!) Only His chosen disciples followed Him. This is separation. Out of the “great multitude” only His disciples followed Him.

God calls His true Church to separate and to live in community. It is their own fear and slavish wickedness that calls them back into the world before long. Remember that the same separated disciples (who Christ pulled out of the world) chose to return to their employments after the death of Christ (John 21:3). Christ went and retrieved them to His work. We see in history the pattern of God separating the Church, followed by a time of apostasy creeping in that causes them to join once again to the world.

When 3,000 believed during the day of Pentecost, they immediately separated from their old lives, sold their properties and began to live in community with the Christians in Jerusalem. When persecution began after the stoning of Stephen, the Christians separated from Jerusalem into Christian communities abroad. Christians eventually drifted back into Jerusalem and back into a life of Syncretism, but when the Romans began to surround Jerusalem, the Christians separated completely into a Christian community in Pella and the Decapolis. Once again Syncretism set in, and once again God brought persecution and death to the Church through the hand of the Caesars to separate out the real Christians from the mere professors. Christians again separated into Christian communities in the countryside and in the caves and catacombs. Those who were never a part of the Roman system (the Waldenses and others) lived separately in the Alps of Switzerland, France, and Italy and kept the apostolic belief system pure and untainted by the errors of Rome. Later, true Christians who had been enslaved by Rome were caused to flee syncretism with her and to separate from the Apostate Church during the Reformation. After the decrees of Conformity, Christians once again fled syncretism and separated into Puritan Christian communities. So, history teaches that Separatism is the work of God, and that Syncretism is the work of the devil. There IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

RW: I see that there is no reasoning with you, so I will leave you alone in your error.

Editor: I will be taught from the Bible, but if it is your reasoning alone that you require that I worship, I will of course refuse.

Obedience requires that we heed the commandments of God. Separation is not an option for God’s elect… it is a commandment. As the scriptures say, “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord”. Fear of freedom prevents most who believe that they are the called of God from ever separating from the world. Modernist lies and mantras, some based on Sufi sayings and catchphrases and not on the plain and contextual teaching of Scripture, have overwhelmed the professing “church”. Remember, it is the secular world that has made Separatism into a foul word, and they have done it for the same reason that Jesus said that they cannot love Him or His children. They hate separatism because they love death (Prov. 8:36) and they despise wisdom (Prov. 1:7). The world needs Christians to bow to it, but Christians definitely do not need the world. If we do not follow Christ in His commandment that we separate ourselves and live in loving Christian community, it is because we still love the world and because we are afraid of freedom. Repentance begins with the gift of believing the truth about ourselves; however, people do not obey because they lack faith. But Christ is the fountainhead of faith. All who truly desire to grow into maturity and perfection in Christ should pray as the disciples did, “Lord, increase our faith” (Luke 17:5). All others are mere professors, and they are known NOT by their words, but by their deeds.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Stay tuned for Part 1B

The True Gospel Delivered to a Post-Modern Pastor

2010-03-14T19:21:00.002-07:00

In 2005, in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, I was attacked in an email from a post-modern apostate "pastor" who condemned me (without knowing me, my history, my lifestyle, my work, or anything else about me) for writing negatively about the false gospel being spread by psuedo-evangelists in the area following the disaster. He invited me to come down there and "help", and since I had challenged the truth and validity of his Antinomian so-called "gospel", He asked me to tell him the Gospel. So I did. As you can expect, my invitation was revoked... Michael Bunker

-----------------------------------------

Joshua,

You have made two offers that I would like to accept. First, in a statement about ministering in the wake of disaster, you said:

"...or better yet, come here yourself. you have an official invitation."

Well, I officially accept your invitiation, provided that I get to minister... which means that, as pastor of a congregation, you will permit me to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in your Church. If that is agreeable, myself and at least one other brother will come down there at our own expense, work with you or for you in "ministering" to those affected by the disaster, and will allow you to take an offering at the service where I preach so that 100% of the money can go for the relief of those involved in the disaster.

Second offer. You said:

"i would love to hear the gospel... please enlighten me"

I take that offer very seriously, although I am unable to enlighten anyone - I pray Christ, through His true Gospel, will enlighten you and bring you to repentance. What follows is the Gospel. I apologize that it must be so long, but it is a sign of the times, your erroneous presuppositions being such that much labor must be engaged in correcting them. I started out by listing some scripture citations, but left off half way through when I recalled that Paul and the Apostles did not do this. If you need the added help, I will endeavor to finish citing the whole work... let me know. I do expect you to read it and send me your reactions, since I am not there to look you in the eye...

---------------------------------------------------

You asked for the Gospel, so I will endeavor to give it to you, though I suspect your asking was not out of a sincere desire to look into that great mystery of God, but rather was more of your post-modern, snide, winking and eye-rolling at the Holy things if God. However, since you have asked, I will not give you a serpent or a stone – but I will see that the bread and water of life is brought into view. You should beware though, because the false gospel you have heretofore believed and spread about is no gospel at all; and once you have heard the true Gospel, you are no more to be considered ignorant and foolish – but as a responsible party before the throne of God Almighty.

God Almighty... Not the weak and wimpy “god” you have produced before men - one who vainly hopes for the salvation of all men, and who is desperate for their love. Our God is an All-Mighty God, Omniscient (All knowing), Omnipotent (All powerful), Omnipresent (Everywhere present). After the fall and complete and total ruin of the race of man by the sin of Adam, this Almighty God called an elect people out of the wicked world (the sons of fallen Adam) for Himself (Matt. 13:33-35); He called that family (of righteous Abraham) to Himself, and created a special nation of faith FOR Himself (Exodus 19:5). The race of man at this time was completely spiritually separated from God (Isa. 59:2); unable to do any spiritual good (Isa. 64:6); unable to obey God or to seek their own spiritual well-being (John 5:40); there was no king in the land and each man did whatever was right in his own eyes. God's covenant of works, abhorred and violated by Adam, was now made with the nation made up of the seed of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. That covenant, though honestly offered, and sincerely honored in His part by God Almighty; was impossible for the wicked sons of Adam to keep (Heb 3:19) – they being separated from the Spirit of God (Eph 2:12) through Original Sin (Rom. 5:12), and completely ruined through their own depravity (Jer. 17:9). God intended and purposed this failure from before the foundation of the world (Isa. 14:26-27) (knowing all things and everything that could and would come to pass according to His own divine decrees from before the creation) so that His own perfect purposes in the creation would be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10) through the very Ecclesia (Assembly of Called-Out Ones - the Church) that He would create through, by, and for His only begotten eternal Son, Jesus Christ (God of very God, the 2nd Person of the Godhead).

This covenant of works being broken, violated, and rejected by the sin of fallen man, and being found faulty (Heb. 8:7) in that it could not bring any corrupt son of Adam back to Spiritual Life (Heb. 9:13-14) – God was pleased to unveil His eternal plan through the promise of Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman, in order to utilize His Life, Ministry, Obedience, Sacrificial and Propitiatory Death, Burial, and Resurrection, in order to call all of the elect of God from all time (going back to Creation and forward to the culmination of all things), give them the gift of the Spirit through regeneration (quickening), bring these now living ones to repentance so that they grieve for their sin and rebellion and turn from it, and spiritually seek a deliverer (physician/redeemer). He, through the Spirit, makes available the Gospel to those repentant saints so that their carnal minds and lives can be converted and brought into accord with the nature and reality of their redeemed state, whereby He sanctifies (separates) them unto Himself for His own divine purposes and for the fulfillment of His will, so that He alone will receive all glory in all the world and in all the creation for His marvelous and mighty works done by and for Himself.

Since no man is able, in and of himself, neither by the revealed works in the creation, nor by the divine light reflected in nature, to come to or love God at all, or to see their need for redemption and salvation – God provided for one single way for men to be be saved. That “way” is Jesus Christ. The sacrificial and propitiatory work of Jesus Christ on the Cross was a timeless act, sealed in eternity when as yet there was no creation. Only those for whom Christ died; whom the Father savingly called; whom the Holy Spirit of God quickens by the spiritual new birth; are then enabled to HEAR the Gospel, that they might HEED the commands therein and be saved.

It is evident both in history and in the Word of God, that the revelation of the Gospel unto sinners has been completely according to the Sovereign Will of God. The majority of men who have lived and died on this planet have neither heard of, nor obeyed the precepts and requirements of the Gospel. The very fact that the Gospel itself has been kept from the majority of men, and then only spiritually revealed to a very, very few of the descendants of Adam's sinful and rebellious race, is evidence that the “promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God” (LBCF 1689). As opposed to the post-modern (actually Papist) view that the Gospel is God's plea to the whole world, begging them to believe on Him, the Gospel, though honestly offered to the whole race of men, is only physically made known to a few, and only spiritually revealed to those who have had their stony hearts removed, and who have received a heart of flesh. This fact is neither capricious nor unfair; neither can any man who has in him the Seed of Spiritual Life, deny it, slander it, or defame Him for doing what He wills with what is His.

Just as it is true that there are “false Christ's”, “false brethren”, and “false Apostles”, it is also true that there are false gospels (Gal. 1:8). Prophecy teaches us that the predominate “gospel” in the last days will be a false gospel, and that the sign of those times will not be a great, worldwide revival – but a great, worldwide apostasy from the true faith. We are told that, even in the very earliest days of the Church, that this spirit of Antichrist was already gone out into the world, and that the Antichrist himself would soon rise from professing Christianity and would pervert the Gospel and corrupt the Temple by sitting in it, proclaiming Himself to be God. This Antichrist has been revealed to the whole Church as promised by the testimony of Scripture. He has been uniformly identified by the voice of the Father through the elect martyrs (millions upon millions of whom still cry out to God from beneath the altar of God); and he has been testified against by God's elect Church even unto this day. That Antichrist (the Pope of Rome and his false religion) has counterfeited the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and now has pushed that counterfeit down the throats even of the Protestant Churches, whose millions of martyrs died to unveil and identify him. The so-called “gospel” pushed by the post-modern puppets in the pulpits of the world is EXACTLY the gospel of the Antichrist made evident in his cursed Council of Trent.

For God so loved the world...

The world His creation, with His elect in it, for whom His Son was crucified even before the world was.

...that He gave His only begotten Son...

Not unto revilers, rebels, unbelievers, or sons of Satan, but for the specific ones who He loved from the foundation of the world; who He gave His life for, so that they could be brought by the Spirit to believe in Him, die to themselves, and follow Him.

...that whosoever believeth in Him...

Whosoever being a limiting term, disallowing most every man, since most cannot believe in Him, nor would they if they could. They must savingly believe in Him, which is only possible as a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit wrought in an elect child of God.

...should not perish...

Should not, could not, will not... for He hath purchased them with eternal life, having given them to eat of the Tree of Life.

...but have everlasting life...

Not temporal life, as if one moment they have it and the next they don't... but ETERNAL life, which was in Him from before time was, and was promised to the elect seed and brought to fruition through the work of the Godhead on their behalf.

The Council of Trent and the Roman Catholic Church (and modern "protestantism") declares:

God's love for the entire world of men, all men in all ages – (even those He has said He hates; even those who perished having never heard the gospel, or having lived in ages and nations where the gospel was not known or preached.)

God's sacrifice for all men – most of whom will never believe on Him or be saved - (They believe that Christ died for men who are in Hell, and loved them as He sent them to Hell, and that in their case... His sacrifice and blood was worthless.)

God's inability to save men – (who stubbornly refuse to be saved, though he “desperately” desires to save them.)

God's unwillingness to save men – (whom He evidently could save, if only He wanted to bad enough.

The inefficiency and limited power of the Blood of Christ – (which is unable to save men without their partnership and help; and that, though equally (they say) applied to all men, is only effectual for a very, very few.)

God's inability to keep men saved – (whom He evidently died for and sacrificed Himself for. His sheep are on their own, any man or devil may pluck them out of His hand – or they can jump out if they want to bad enough.)

God's Gospel declares:

God's love for His creation (which is one in His mind with His plan for it), and His special and saving love for those who He foreknew (loved before) from the foundation of the world.

God's unique love for His sheep – not for goats or tares, but for His sheep and His wheat which He will unfailingly gather unto Himself.

God's hatred for the wicked, the rebellious, the iniquitous.

God's anger at the wicked, and His patience in storing up His wrath for His day of judgment.

God's purpose in allowing wickedness for a season, so that His perfect wrath might be known to the whole creation... in order that His mercy towards His children will have meaning.

God's intention to glorify Himself by keeping His elect, according to His divine will, in order that His manifold wisdom may be known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly realms.

God's command that the whole world of fallen men repent and throw down the weapons of their warfare against Him.

God's willingness to save those who are enabled to believe on Him by faith, and his faithful promise to destroy those whose hearts He has hardened so that His righteous wrath and justice will also be made known.

These are two different gospels. One leads to eternal damnation for having believed a lie, the other leads to eternal life for having loved the truth.

Your “gospel” of a desperate, powerless “god” is a lie, and I can and will prove it so contextually out of the Bible any time you like.

The True Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of God's Kingdom, into which dogs, and sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie may not enter. I deliver this Gospel to you, for the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?

I remain your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Charity and Guile

2010-03-14T13:04:00.000-07:00

Welcome to part 2 of our first class in Christian Community Living. This class is entitled How to destroy Christian Community... and how not to, and this is the second part of the class. We hope you have had the opportunity to read the first part of this class, and that you have also had the opportunity to go through the prerequisites.

It is our opinion that the "christianity" that is marketed today is not only corrupt and apostate, but that it resembles not at all the Christianity of the Bible, or of the most successful periods of the Christian Church. We do not believe that God intended Christians to live as isolated islands (or as an archipelago), or that Christian fellowship consists of seeing some folks we kind of know a couple of times a week. We also disagree that community consists of waving at people at the post office, or seeing our neighbors once or twice a year over coffee. We believe that God intended His Body to live in Christian Agrarian Community, and that this is the only fertile ground in which the Church has historically thrived and succeeded. We do not impose this definition of Christianity on others, but we do insist and declare it to be true. So, we could say, it is not some of the things the modern "church" believes about life and living that we disagree with. We would say that almost everything the modern "church" believes about life and living we disagree with. While we may have some doctrinal disagreements with our Anabaptist Amish brethren, we agree with their mode and manner of living more than we do with the modern professing "christian" (reformed or not).

Now, the purpose of this part of the class is to properly define the basis and foundation of right acting and a right spirit in Christian Community. We will do so by properly defining the difference between Christian "charity" (which means God's selfless and giving love) and "guile" which for our purposes here we are using to contrast with the word "love" or "charity" used in the 13th Chapter of 1st Corinthians. In order to properly illustrate the truth and the contrast, I am going to take you all through an exercise that will guide us into a working knowledge of what "charity" means in this chapter. The Bible often illustrates the properties of a thing or concept by contrasting it with what would be considered it's opposite in that context. Light is known more perfectly by separating it from the darkness. Dry land is known more perfectly by separating it from the sea. Heat is known more perfectly by contrasting it with cold. A thing or concept is known more completely by the introduction of it's opposite or contrast. Therefore we find sin and death in the world so that God might more perfectly show forth His perfection, sinlessness, holiness, and life.

In the 13th Chapter of 1st Corinthians, we find a dissertation on "love" or "charity". Don't expect the traditional sermon here from me. I want to put some real shoe-leather on these verses, and I hope you will leave this part of the class with a firm knowledge of what it is to live as a Christian, and what it is to behave unseemly and in an un-Christian way. I will illustrate it in this way... First, I will break apart the critical verses which describe "charity" and I will define in as many words as necessary what the primary words mean. In that description I will offer a proper definition of the opposites (or antonyms) of these words or actions. Then, I will provide an "anti-verse" to the principle verses, so you can see how charity would NOT act in a certain situation. Hopefully, by doing this, we will come to a better understanding of how we should act and be in the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Guile is that motive that walks and works out of personal self interest and not out of love. Guile is the putting forth of a fake, or a false thing, it is cunning and crafty in its love of self. It pretends to operate Biblically and out of love, while in fact it seeks self, and acts contrarily to the divine command of love. Guile is craft; cunning; artifice; duplicity; deceit, and therefore is contrasted with the divine command of charity.

Charity and Guile

Charity suffereth long, and is kind;
charity envieth not;
charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own,
is not easily provoked,
thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Paul is here rebuking the Corinthian Church for disorder, unruly behavior, and acts of guile and uncharitable behavior. In order to teach the Corinthians how to act, he personifies "charity" (God's Agape Love) to show how a true Christian, operating by the power of the Holy Spirit, would act. He begins by telling them that the things that have gone on in the Church, which were types and shadows, prefiguring a more perfect time to come, will come to pass away. Rather then focus on gifts and miracles, he says, we ought to focus on being loving and charitable, because in these things we will find true Christianity, and only these things will last.

Charity "suffereth" long. "Suffereth" here means forebearing and patient. God's love does not exhibit a pharisaical or judgmental spirit. Not that it doesn't judge rightly, but it does so with patience, forebearance, and longsuffering. Right judgment would be orderly, patient, and would patiently follow established procedures, therefore we know that:

Guile is impatient, short-spirited, and bears nothing, and acts disorderly in order to serve itself quickly. Guile is pharisaical and substitutes the opinions and traditions of men for the Word of God.

Charity is "kind". This word "kind" means benevolent, and useful to others. God's love is a benevolent love. It seeks the good of others first. This is the primary picture of Gelassenheit which is our overall outward philosophy towards others.

Guile is hostile, aggressive, quickly angered, and malevolent. Guile's affection towards others is contingent on it getting it's way. Guile is wolfish, devours widows houses, and seeks to crush the weak or helpless.

Charity "envieth not". This phrase means "to have warmth of feeling for" or "does not covet that which belongs to others". Charity is glad that others succeed, or that they have much. It does not seek the property of others, nor does it secretly condemn them or hope the worst for them because it does not have that which it covets. Charity does not eye another's land, wife, oxen, power, authority, etc.

Guile wants what it does not have, works to secure that which belongs to others by any means necessary, and/or secretly wishes ill on others because of envy.

Charity "vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up". One puffs oneself up when one is not big enough naturally. Many men and women may be overflowing with the knowledge of verses and commentaries, and they can copy and paste from them to devastating effect, but knowledge without grace is unsanctified knowledge, and it puffeth up. Charity purposely does not use every tool in it's pouch just because it has them. Charity does not seek power over others, or to Lord it over God's heritage. Charity wields authority benignly and would never usurp authority not belonging to it. Charity does not sit in the best seats, just because it hopes to be seen as important.

Guile seeks to be bigger and more powerful than it is. It trumpets itself. It assumes authority it does not have, exhibits knowledge without grace or maturity, and utilizes more force than is necessary to accomplish a task. Guile will burn down the barn to kill a mouse, and or it will claim or steal the barn if it thinks the owner might be too humble to argue.

Charity "doth not behave itself unseemly". A good way to righty understand "seemly" and "unseemly" is to think of the homophone of "seem", which is the word "seam". When there is a "seam" in something, that means you can see where it has been put together where it did not naturally originate. "unseamly" then, would mean that a garment or cloth had a seam that did not look right or did not naturally flow when the eye looks at it. Likewise, the word "unseemly", means that Charity does not behave itself in a way that is inappropriate. They eye would not be able to discern poor behavior because seemly behavior is in accord with what is expected.

Guile behaves itself inappropriately when dealing with others or with the community. It does not do what is rightly expected of it. It acts "unseemly" or in a way that is rejected by the rest of the community, and which shows itself to be out of step or out of accord with accepted norms of behavior.

Charity "seeketh not her own". Charity plots not to enlarge or satisfy itself. Charity seeks others good first. Charity seeks to please the community and the individuals in it, and not itself. Charity acts in a way that is benevolent towards others, even if it costs itself dearly.

Guile plots to enlarge and satisfy itself. Guile seeks power, largesse, vengeance, and its own personal good, even to the detriment of peaceful community life and a Godly manner.

Charity "is not easily provoked". Charity is not stirred to anger easily or exasperated quickly. Love does not seek destruction, but benevolent construction and help.

Guile, burning with envy and seeking it's own, is easily provoked to intemperate actions. Guile bypasses proper form, but seeks cover for its brash behavior. It will scripture-twist to defend wrong actions. Guile lashes out at the weak and is angry when it's confrontations don't immediately succeed.

Charity "thinketh no evil". The phrase here is an accounting term. Some inferior Bibles translate this as "keeps no record of wrongs", and though they are inferior, they have captured a small portion of what this term means. Charity does not keep a journal of slights, insults, or exasperating behaviors. Charity does not develop harsh opinions on the lives and behaviors of others so it can codify those harsh opinions into perceived sins. Charity knows it's own sins and failures, and therefore is not quick to log the failures of others. Charity has received much mercy, and therefore is full of mercy - so it does not default into logging and noting the sins of others.

Guile keeps books. No offense, real or imagined, is ever forgotten. Guile keeps journals, mental or actual, for years. While others live their lives in peace and joy, doing their work and seeking peace with others, Guile is busy keeping records of perceived wrongs in case he ever gets the power, authority, or opportunity to burn down others. Guile is quick to rattle off these perceived slights, sins, or faults; enlarges and exaggerates them; never covers them; never forgives them; and never forgets them.

Charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth". Charity does not applaud moral failings or moral wrongfulness just because it provides an avenue for gossip. Charity does not say, "Oh! You should see what Mary wore today!" as if pleased to jump on the failings of others, or "Did you see Gary have a second glass of wine?", implying sin where there may be no sin at all. Iniquity here is not necessarily actual, since Guile perceives iniquity in others, often creating it out of nothing, while it is blind to it in himself. Charity celebrates when others walk in the truth, but it does not celebrate when others fail; nor does it "impute" failures because others don't live or act just like she thinks it should.

Guile revels in gossip and in crushing others. It is constantly slithering around, covering it's own sins while exposing perceived sins in others. Guile celebrates when others fall, even if it is privately - and is quick to impute sin based on opinion (or the God of "I think") rather than on actual truth. Guile deifies its own opinions and is pleased to find others who will worship it too. Guile often disguises gossip as "care", and slander as loving concern. Guile is never willing to say TO someone, what it says ABOUT someone.

Charity "beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things". All things that are to be born (or carried, or suffered, or endured), Charity bears. All things that are to be truly believed (meaning all good, right, true, and honest things), Charity believes. All things which ought to be hoped (meaning the good of others, the benefit of others, the salvation and success of others), Charity hopes. All things which ought to be endured and suffered (persecutions, attacks, failings, disappointments, trials, tribulations, etc.), Charity endures and suffers.

Guile will not bear with others, or suffer anything that it does not deem proper for the esteem it has for itself. Guile believes not the best in others, but naturally believes the worst. It believes what it wants to believe, and will not suffer contrary opinions. Guile will not believe that others operate out of a pure motive, because guile operates on impure motives; therefore Guile projects its own evil heart into others. If Guile would cheat in a certain instance, it believes others will all do the same. If Guile would attack and not forgive in a certain instance, it believes others must be attacking and unforgiving. Guile says, "I perceive a spirit of lust in her" because Guile has a spirit of lust. Guile does not hope for the best in others, and will not help others to that best. Guile secretly hopes others fail in order to enlarge itself. Guile will not endure or suffer any perceived injustice. It will fight or it will flee, but it will never suffer or endure. Guile turns its head and its tail and it runs if it doesn't win. It then puts on the face of Guile, the makeup of deception, to charm its next victim.

Guile is contrary to Community living, because it cannot die enough to self to ever seek the good of others. It will make excuses, and it will try its best to cover its sins, but it will always seek its own first. Guile lashes out, and if it does not win it runs. This is the divine lesson of this Chapter. Love is ever outward, and it is willing to die to itself for the service of others. Guile is ever inward, and it will move and slip and slide, never finding a true home until it can bury itself in a pit with others who are like itself. Community living, in order to succeed, requires selflessness, benevolence, patience, kindness, longsuffering. Community living takes a desire to see others succeed, and a willingness to cover perceived faults and to see the best in others, even when they do not act or do exactly as we would. Successful Community living requires a group of people who have been forgiven much sin, and who know where and who they would be if God did not extend them overwhelming, overpowering, and overreaching personal grace and mercy. If you would live in Christian community, you would do well to pray for Charity, and to pray that no Guile be found in you. If you would destroy Christian Community, you will operate by Guile, and reject the concept that you yourself have ever received mercy.
Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

http://michaelbunker.com

My own personal conversion to the Sabbath

2010-03-13T10:58:00.000-08:00

Although this letter is designed as a discussion of the Lord’s Sabbath, I do not plan (in this first section) on discussing which day should be set apart as the Sabbath (I find it far less important an issue), but, instead, I intend to note the mental processes that I went through in bringing this area of my life under the government of Christ Jesus.

When the Lord first began to really call me to Himself in a personal way, I was working several jobs. One of my jobs was as a part-time bartender at a very busy university bar. One of my primary (and most lucrative) shifts was Sunday afternoon for the Sunday football crowd. Although I had been nominally “raised a Christian”, I knew very little about the Bible at this time (I was reading through it for the first time), and I had absolutely no direction from any type of spiritual authority; but I just knew (in a somewhat spiritual way) that I was to keep holy what I thought was the Sabbath day. I went to my boss and told him that I could not work on Sunday any more because I wanted to keep the Sabbath holy. My boss (who was also a good friend of mine) not only understood, but he later told me it impressed him that I was so eager to please God.

As time went on, I never lost the spiritual "knowing" that I was to separate out the Sabbath day, although my immersion in "church" and other activities soon wore out my willingness to actually do what I knew I believed.

When I finally separated from the corrupt institutional church system, I gave up on the idea of the Sabbath completely, not in my conscience, but in my actual behavior. I also was so repulsed by the evil Judaizing of the modern Messianic movement that I (rightly, I believe) determined to make spiritual freedom from religious tyranny and legalism a hallmark of my ministry. I don't believe I was wrong in doing this, but I am certain that I overreacted to what were very real threats, by further searing my conscience and by grieving the Holy Spirit in regards to the Sabbath.

Through the years, I have said to my wife on many occasions "we really ought to make an effort to keep the Sabbath day holy"; although I was never really willing to do what I knew was the right thing to do. This is one of the few decisions in my ministry that I truly regret, because I am pretty well known for making hard decisions - and at some level, this failure must necessarily harm my credibility in other areas.

On several occasions over the last few years, I have been pressed (by friends and strangers alike) to speak on the issue - but I have always refused. On occasion I would throw out an offhand "Jesus is the Sabbath’s rest" line, just to get me out of the situation. But in my conscience, I knew that this was an issue in my life that needed to be brought under God's government.

When I began teaching the Doctrines of Grace in all their fullness, we were somewhat a "voice in the wilderness", and there was not a big Sovereignty movement going on at the time (almost none actually) like there seems to be now. Since then, as the new Reformation has gained steam, more Puritan and Reformed books have been made available to the public, and I have had the opportunity to really get in and study the issue more.

Recently, the issue came to a head with me when I began to really dig into the issue, and when I saw that my family was suffering from an irreverence and disrespect to spiritual authority and also when it came to things that should be considered "Holy". I could see the same irreverence in myself, and I could see it in my children. It is natural for those of us who escape religious tyranny to flee far beyond what is a safe position and, as a result, to become irreverent and presumptuous.

Recently I have been dealing with this issue in my house, with my family and with the others who live here. It has been a wonderful and rewarding experience...

“Let man only enter into God’s mind and tread in His footsteps, by resting every seventh day from his works, and he shall undoubtedly find it to his profit… What he may lose for the moment in productive employment, shall be amply compensated by the refreshment it will bring to his frame – by the enlargement and elevation of his soul – above all, by the spiritual fellowship and interest in God which becomes the abiding portion of those who follow Him in their ways, and perpetually return to Him as the supreme rest of their souls.” (1900, Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, pg. 259)

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. - Genesis 2:3

First note that God “blessed” the seventh day. He mentions that He sanctifies it as a separate issue. He not only sanctified it (set it apart), but he blessed it. Here we see that God actually blessed the day. He bestowed blessings upon it, not unto Himself (for we know that the Sabbath was not made for God, for God needs no rest). God rested on the Sabbath as a sign, a shadow or a “type”, as He could no further be refreshed or perfected than his eternal, unchangeable character demands. He specifically BLESSED the Sabbath day. God hid special blessings in store for those who would but receive those blessings by rest. In a special mystery, he planted into the fabric of the creation unalterable laws that work in the favor of those who will honestly and spiritually look to submitting themselves to God’s government and Sovereignty through the rest provided in the Sabbath. In a delicious sort of irony, no work can be more profitable than to endeavor to enter into this rest. That rest is not just spiritual, in that the Apostle says that we are to work to enter therein. An evident sign of our submission to God’s authority is in our humbly assuming His image and walking after Him. But how bountiful is the secret treasure stored up for those who will heed God’s commandments? Simply look into the treasure chest and you will see.

Second, God “sanctified” the Sabbath day. He set it apart for a specific and eternal purpose. He set His mark upon it and painted innumerable types and shadows in the reality of the former dispensations to show weary travelers where rest might be found. Fairbairn points out that man’s lot, indeed his destiny, was to be placed into a position whereby he must work, albeit he must work as a reasonable and rational being. The repose of the Sabbath was designed to be a signpost of the promise of eternal rest and redemption, in a dispensation when man must work for his increase by the sweat of his brow. But far from being a burdensome command, or even a distasteful one, the Sabbath gave great comfort to those who sorrowed in being separated by the veil from the presence of their God. Legalism crept in. Rationalism and human inventions corrupted the reality of God’s gift. Some began to despise even the word “Sabbath” for all the evil that had been done under its banner. But God has evidently “sanctified” the day, in that he placed it as a signpost for those who have eyes to see. How noticeable is it that the enemy has tried to rip down every signpost that leads to the special blessings of God? In ancient times, a “landmark” was a sign that instructed you where one property stopped and where another started. The landmark was also used to instruct travelers along the way where they might be welcomed and where they might find rest.

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28)

In future articles (Lord Willing = DV), I will lay out not only a case for the continuing responsibility towards the Sabbath, but I hope to more clearly make a case for why the blood-bought child of God should have a desire towards the Sabbath of God.

The Sabbath is a sign. It is a signpost to our final rest, and it is a sign to the world that we are different, and that we truly believe in God’s sovereignty. We don’t “believe” it in only an intellectual way, but we truly believe it in a real way. We believe that God has set apart (sanctified) this day by blessing it to those who will seek it in purity. This is not a salvation issue. This is a maturity issue. The GOSPEL is more specifically THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM. Being in the Kingdom is being under the government of Almighty God, and admitting it in our worldview and in our lives. Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel – which is to say, “Woe unto me if my life reflects not the Gospel”.

For me and my house, we have entered into an even closer walk with our Creator. We’ll let the simpletons, legalists and humanists argue about the exact, strict nature of its details. We’ll let the Judaizers and fable pushers gorge themselves on their own prideful fantasies regarding it. We’ll let the talkers (see Pilgrim’s Progress) and the worldly wise men debate its value. They question it, because they cannot (or will not) partake in it truly. The treasure of blessings is locked fast against them. It is really a work of God and it is wonderful to behold. My prayer has been this… “Lord, bring me under your government. Teach me your perfect way. Place me under your yoke and do not hide yourself from me. Soothe my damaged conscience by chastising your child, and let the world be damned if they don’t get it.” I ask God daily to make us a spectacle to the worldly, and a landmark to those weary travels who seek rest for their souls.

This is a family project and it is wonderful to behold.

The Sabbath and God’s Sovereignty

The virtual disappearance of practical godliness in our land must drive us to examine ourselves and our Christian lives, because if there is no fault or no cause behind the devastation and eradication of practical godliness, then God Himself could rightly be said to have brought about that which His law forbids, His nature abhors and His character denies; But we know that God is not the fountainhead of sin, and it is evident in scripture that it is sin that is the cause of practical ungodliness and it is sin that is a cancer to any nation. It is sin (generally allowed by, and proceeding from those who profess to be the children of God) that most certainly and inevitably brings destruction and judgment on a people.

It has always been my position, that our faithful actions out to spring from the certain knowledge that:

a) There is a God who is Lord and Sovereign over all of Creation. He is made evident to us by the light of nature, and by the Holy Scriptures; and He, being good, perfect, benevolent, loving, merciful and full of all grace, is the One and only object of our worship.

b) This One, perfect, Holy and Sovereign God of all Creation has spoken in an unmistakable way in the Holy Bible, through the revelation of Jesus Christ in due time, and in everything that God alone has created.

c) Having spoken in an unmistakable way, He is to be obeyed and worshipped only in those ways instituted by Himself, and in those ways He has commanded; and He is not to be disregarded or ignored in that which He has ordained and commanded by men who seek to worship Him according to the devices of their own minds, or in a manner that men concoct based on their own fallen reasoning.

d) To disobey God in those reasonable services that He has required of us brings curses and sufferings on any people whose fear of God has waned to the point that they are willing to trade the plain and simple blessings of an eternal God for the carnal and transient benefits of a perishing world.

Earlier in this article, I pointed out the many blessings that are promised in scripture for those who recognize and honor the Sabbath day. It is evident throughout history that those nations and peoples who have honored and kept the Sabbath day have prospered both physically and spiritually. It is also evident by a simple review of history that those who have forsaken this commandment of God, have soon passed from disobedience to practical ungodliness, from ungodliness to blatant rebellion and warfare against God, and from rebellion against God, to destruction.

There are primarily two views in the world today which have led to the almost unanimous “decision” by the world’s people not to honor the Sabbath day:

1) The position of the heathen (the unreligious or irreligious) that the Sabbath is only for religious extremists and can not be imposed upon them. (We agree with this position regarding the heathen. The Sabbath is not for them.)

2) The position of most religious people (particularly in America) that the Sabbath was part of the law that was done away with on the Cross, and is no longer binding on Christians. (With this opinion, we most strenuously object; but we sadly conclude that the Sabbath is likely not for them either.)

Based on this last argument, let us make a review of where these arguments fail, and in what category we should place them. Specifically regarding the moral law, there are two main views:

1.) Christ kept the law because I could not = Christianity

2.) Christ kept the law so I don't have to = Antinomianism (literally – “lawlessness”)

Regarding the purpose of the moral law, we look at the same two positions:

1.) According to Christianity, in the NT the Law is still a mirror that shows us our inability and requires of us our duty.

2.) According to Antinomianism, in the NT the mirror is removed, so our morality has no real concrete bounds outside of how we think we should act in certain situations (situational ethics).

Regarding the extent and application of the moral law, here are the two positions:

1.) According to Christianity, the moral law is an eternal exposition of God's character. It defines what is (and what is not) sin. It is eternally binding on all of God's children, and it is the binding nature of the law that shows us the necessity of salvation through Jesus Christ.

2.) According to Antinomianism, the moral law is completed (and therefore expunged) in Christ. It cannot be binding on us; because where there is no eternal punishment, there can be no eternal law. Since I can't lose my salvation, then I can sin all I want to and grace will abound.

Now most Antinomians won't come out and admit these things, but these are the inevitable end of their thinking and theology. They will call us legalists, although they must admit that grace cannot abound where there is no law. Without law, grace is irrelevant. The more lawless a man is in the inner man, the more he will obscure the law with obfuscation.

It is the antinomian who is the legalist, because he cannot allow any limits to his freedom - so necessarily his lawless freedom becomes a law that is binding on the minds and consciences of other men. If I tell a man that the moral law requires me to keep the Sabbath, his legalist mind must condemn me quickly before his conscience condemns him. He is locked into a defensive posture by his legalist misinterpretations of scripture. He cannot answer me a simple question:

If you can say, "I'm secure enough in my salvation not to keep the sabbath", why can I not say, "I'm secure enough in my salvation to kill you (commit murder)"?

Where, now, is his lawlessness? I have found that liars, coveters, homosexuals, adulterers and other antinomians require very strict laws when it comes to those who would murder them, but reject any strict laws that limit their own lawless behavior. So where, then, is the standard? I say the eternal standard is the moral law. It must be. This is the argument that cannot be refuted.

Jesus Christ enumerated the fullness of what was required of us when He was asked what the greatest commandment was in the law. A tempter, who desired to get Jesus to abdicate or toss out the moral law, was laying a trap for Jesus. Jesus said, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40).

This summation not only shut the mouths of the Pharisees (who could not now legitimately claim that Jesus was voiding the moral law), and gave to those of us who truly believe in Him, the firm answer that we need concerning the place of the moral law. A friend of ours put the answer plainly, “When you look at it, that is, when you look at the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), you will find that the first 4 commandments deal with our love of God, the next commandment, the 5th deals exclusively with family, that is our parents, and the last 5 deal with society at large, that is, our neighbor. Of course there is overlap in that we worship God when we don't steal, etc, but in general, this is how they are presented.”

When I endeavor to find out HOW to love God, I am left with His instruction to keep His commandments (John 14:15, 15:10); If I then ask,“which commandments”? I must either answer, “The Ten Commandments”, which actually instruct me how to love God, or I must do like the religious world does and answer, “the two commandments of Jesus”, which tells me TO love God, but not HOW TO love God. One way gives me my answer; the other way just loops back around to the question again. It is interesting to note that Jesus tells us, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”; and specifically within the listing of the Ten Commandments are the words, “…shewing mercy unto thousands that love me, and keep my commandments”.

So… how do I love God?

The first 4 commandments show me what I will be like when I truly love God:

“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:2-11).

When I love God, I will forsake all other “gods”, I will forsake idolatry (even the appearance of it), I will not take the LORD’s name in vain (many people have taken the LORD’s name in vain, because they call themselves CHRISTians, when they do not care to show they love Him by obeying Him), and I will keep the Sabbath day holy and separate unto Him.

The Purpose of the Moral Law

The moral law does not exist to justify me before God; (no act of man could do what only the righteousness and obedience of Christ could do), rather, the law exists to show me my true needful state, continuously, so that I remain mindful of that need, and in a worshipful state before God.

The moral law remains as a binding obligation for the benefit of man; not for his righteousness, but for his well-being. The Sabbath of God (a gift to man) stands as monument to God’s mercy and grace towards His people, while it simultaneously exists as a memorial to our inability to ever please God by our own works. So it is a mistake for anyone to conclude that we keep the Sabbath in order to please God. God is eternally pleased with His sheep, since He looks on us from His throne of Grace and sees the Sabbath as perfectly fulfilled and completed in the person of Jesus Christ as our federal representative. Most people miss the message of the Sabbath because they cannot see any other view other than man’s view Godward. They say, “If it isn’t to please God, who do it?” which is really a foolish argument, since only the righteous works of God Himself can please an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Man neglects to note that Christ kept every element of all the law on behalf of His sheep. He kept the commandment to not murder for me, and He kept the commandment to not covet for me. Does this free me to be murderous and covetous? Do I say, “Because Christ perfectly kept the law, I can now murder and covet”? Does Christ keeping the commandment against idolatry for me (specifically) free me to worship other Gods? Surely no true Christian would ever come to that conclusion… but we daily hear from people who are absolutely certain that since Jesus Christ became the fulfillment of the shadows and types provided by the Sabbath, that they are free to harm themselves by rejecting one of God’s commandments. These people miss the fact that that my well-being, my spiritual health, my proper God-view rests on my humility. Only by looking into the looking glass that is the law (James 1:23) do we see our true state, and by doing so, the true Christian keeps in mind his needful state, and has before his eyes his utter hopelessness without God’s grace and mercy. Just once begin to reject God’s moral commandment as something that does not apply to you and you become that man who looks into the looking glass, and walks away without remembering what sort of man he is.

I will end this section on the defense of the Sabbath with the question that I receive the most on this subject:

“But Jesus Christ IS the Sabbath, and the physical Sabbath is just a shadow."

My Answer: “And yet, marriage is a shadow, and that is all it is.”

I've taught that for 6 years – marriage is a shadow - but we don't seem to be in a hurry to put it away. Marriage is a beautiful shadow of Christ and His Church (when it is done right) and it serves as a show to society and our children what Christ and His Church is about. Marriage and the Sabbath are so intimately linked that they will occupy one chapter in my book on the subject. What is the difference between marriage and the Sabbath? Marriage is easy to start doing because our flesh wants it, but it is hard to keep doing if the man and the woman are not both governed by Christ. The Sabbath is hard to start doing because our flesh doesn't want to be governed by God, but it is easy to keep doing it if we are governed by Christ. The rest that is provided to us in marriage is so valuable, that it is accepted by all but the most heretical cults that marriage is fundamentally a building block of a Christian society. Marriage, as a shadow, was instituted for the benefit of man and not for God; it is a picture and a type of our eternal rest and satisfaction with God in heaven.

When the institute of Christian Marriage is obediently followed, it physiologically and spiritually serves our well being. Why would we throw out Marriage because it is abused by some, and because it is only a shadow? We wouldn’t. So let us not throw out those things that serve us and help us… like the Sabbath.

So, When is the Sabbath Anyway?

The question, “What day is the Sabbath?” has been an age old topic of discussion, debate, argument, warfare, and even the cause of disfellowship and schism in the Church. Why is that? It seems that once we decide that the Sabbath is (and ought to be) a perpetual obligation of every true Christian, the value gained by that wise and obedient revelation is then subverted in the subsequent argument about… WHEN?

The Apostles, the primitive church, and the Reformers were uniform in one aspect of the Sabbath… it was to be one day in seven, or “every seventh day”. Some believe (as I do) that the Bible defines and perpetually places the Sabbath day as the 7^th day, when God rested from His works. Some believe that since the Bible clearly teaches that the 1^st day of the week is the “Lord’s Day”, that these two appellations are really one in the same, therefore they believe that the Sabbath was changed to the 1^st day of the week after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is no doubt that competing camps can well defend their positions, and that they each have legitimate arguments for their position. Historically (outside of Scripture) we can find a basis for either position. It is evident from my reading that the very primitive church, up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., kept the Saturday Sabbath and celebrated the Lord’s resurrection on the first day of the week (the Lord’s Day). Since the bulk of the primitive church in that time was of Jewish heritage, they saw no problems with delineating in their minds between the Sabbath (which was a day of family rest and did not allow them to travel for communion and fellowship) and Sunday, which was a day of “meeting”, where they brethren met house to house to celebrate and worship.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, when the early church had to more seriously combat the evils and pernicious ways of the Jewish unregenerate “nominal christians”, most of the early churches (like that in Antioch under Theosophorus) then rejected the Saturday Sabbath as a tool of Judaizers, and instead chose to focus the time of worship and rest on Sunday.

I personally have no problem combating Judaistic teachings and still allowing the Sabbath to remain (as I believe the Bible teaches it to be) perennially on the 7^th day. And I believe that there is a mysterious shadow of these two weekly holy days, in the mystery of the first Passover:

“And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you” (Exodus 12:16).

Now we, as believers, live in the Lord’s Passover (Jesus Christ), and are being brought into our Sabbath’s rest (the Kingdom), so the shadow picture is complete, but I believe that the Apostle Paul removes all need for contention for us in his epistle to the Colossians:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17).

As we have said throughout this study, the Sabbath is a shadow, and should never become a legalistic ritual, or a reason to judge a brother as to which day (notice it says “Sabbath days”) he chooses to set aside for solemn rest and the worship of God. This is not the authorization that some seek to totally reject and eschew the Sabbath altogether, because the verses cannot be twisted to allow for that interpretation; rather, it says for us to not allow ourselves to be judged “in respect… of the Sabbath days”, which means in respect to which day we choose to celebrate the Lord’s Sabbath. I personally believe that the Sabbath is perpetually on Saturday (from Friday at sundown to Saturday sundown):

“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made”(Genesis 2:2-3).

and I believe that the seventh day is to be set aside for rest and family worship alone; but I also believe that the Lord has instituted for us in scripture “The Lord’s Day”, and this was the day when the primitive church met together (assembled):

“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembledfor fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (John 20:19).

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Act 20:7).

Now, I understand that in our modernist religious time this opinion (that both days are sacred and set aside for different purposes) seems like a unique one. But my conscience is captive to the Word of God, and I cannot see why it cannot be true (since it is so evident in scripture) that the Sabbath day (Saturday) was set aside for rest (no work) and family worship and instruction, while the Lord’s Day (Sunday) was set aside for communal service, assembly of the Saints and breaking of bread. Does setting these days aside for God and His service cost us anything? Well…. Yes it does; for if we choose to live the life that God has ordained for us, we will become a spectacle to the world and to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies. If we choose to regulate ourselves according to the Bible (by interpretation of the Holy Spirit alone) then we will suffer persecution from the world, the flesh, and the devil. And why shouldn’t the world hate us?

So we must recognize that:

1^st – the Sabbath is, and ought to be, a perpetual obligation (as a part of the moral law) for every Christian. It is for the Saint’s well-being and spiritual health, and is profitable far beyond what the physical eyes and ears can determine.

2^nd – The Sabbath is one day out of seven, being every seventh day, and should be set aside as a time apart from our normal work and worries, and should be a time where we protect our minds and spirits from the stress and tension of the modernist world, so that we can build ourselves up in the faith, forge stronger family ties and bonds, and focus our attention on our Redeemer and King.

3^rd – The Sabbath should not be a legalistic duty or burden, but should be both a joy and a respite from the pains and sorrows of this present world… it should be a sign of the work that we engage in to enter into our eternal rest (Heb. 4:11), and it should be a teaching tool for our families and future generations.

If we believe these things, then we will do them… blessed are those who both believe and do… AMEN.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com