It is necessary that we follow this epistemology to its logical end.  The idea that the kingdom is here now but not fully materialized has lots of baggage.  The first issue is that there is clearly a hermeneutical problem with the interpretation of passages.  This hermeneutical irregularity among emergxxx men is what is so alarming when fundamentalist blindly grab emergxxx methodologies and run wild.  There is a theology behind their methods.  Biblical fundamentalist theology and emergxxx mixes like oil and water. 

        What is the will of God for the believer in this age?  The will of God for the believer is found in Romans 8:28-29 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; The Holy Spirit is using the word of God in the life of the believer to conform him more into the image of Jesus Christ.  That is what is known as progressive sanctification.  The will of God for the local church is found in 1 Corinthians 1:10  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.  In addition to that the local church has the same will of God as the Body of Christ which is Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  In Vintage Church by Mark Driscoll he makes the point in his chapter on the missional church that the church is to be carrying out the great commission which entails: making disciples, evangelizing, and planting the churches that reproduce.  Well as Fundamentalist we would agree on that. 

        Ray Anderson says that when the church prays “thy kingdom come” it reveals that its nature is open to the coming of the kingdom and thus is a witness to the reality of the kingdom already manifest through the Holy Spirit.  He goes on to say that the church must be willing to be divested of cultural forms and practices in order to be an authentic missional community.[3] The problem is that the disciples’ prayer is in the dispensation of the law looking forward to the kingdom not the church age.  The withdraw of the kingdom offer takes place after teh rejectionof the kingdom and its king and the first mention of the church is in Matt 16:18.  Furthermore the push to have an emphasis on changing the church, continual improving of society, and need for cultural authentication is not a cry for better methodology which no biblical fundamentalist would depose; but a calculated shift away from biblical ecclesiology. 

        In closing people drinking from the emergxxx streams will quickly find themselves drinking from fire hydrants.  The “conversation” is quickly fleeing from the doctrine of the local church, which in their case had a sandy foundation at best, to this kingdom theology that now has a vehicle to take it to a place that we have not seen before.  The desire for cultural authentication will soon lead to the transformation of emergxxx churches into nothing more than socio economic improvement societies.  Their push to bring in the kingdom will lead to more of an already lackluster evangelism and exegesis to more and more “experience” of the good life of the kingdom. 

[2] Rob Bell, “Velvet Elvis” Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 2005, 109-110.

[3] Ray Anderson, “Emergent Theology for Emergent Churches” Downers Groves; IVP 2006 99.

Substance Meaning Content

Form

         When people grab a methodology and begin to run with it they never stop to think about the substance, meaning, and content that is the driving force behind their new approach.  It is important to interject here that I have no problem with new methods this is just a warning that you should determine why this method is being used.  

          1 Timothy 4:16 (ESV) “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” This verse teaches that we are to practice our doctrine.  A doctrine that is not lived out is truly not what a person believes. If a person claims to believe in the imminent return of Christ but is constantly looking for signs that Christ is coming he does not really believe in the imminent return.  It is not what a person says they believe or writes down on their doctrinal statement it is what they practice.  A person’s practice is their doctrinal statement.  In light of that last comment Titus 2:1 (NASB95) “But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.”  As the children’s song says be careful little eyes what you see, be careful little ministries what you adopt. 

[1]  The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

[2]  New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

“The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not to argue about it or to spend time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it.” D.L. Moody.  The doctrine of the local church is laid out for us in the New Testament.  Pauline literature contains most of this truth considering the fact that he was the minister of the mystery of church.  The issue that we want to address today that leaders will face when they leave Bible College is that there are churches in this country that claim to be Baptist but yet practice elder rule or Presbyterian Church government.  Rather than spending our time here arguing about why elder rule is wrong we will allow truth to expose error light to expose darkness. 

The doctrine of the local church that is found in the New Testament only has qualifications for two church offices that of a pastor and a deacon.  In the list of qualifications it gives also the duties that the pastor is to carryout in his ministry as the shepherd.  The duties that he is to carry out are: ruling, guarding the truth, general oversight, and teaching. Those are the duties that are listed but his ministry will consist of preaching, teaching, and evangelism.  

The one major characteristic that differentiates between people who know the Bible and people who know about the Bible is whether they use the Bible as a whole or isolate scripture to prove a point.  When we examine these verses they all give the qualifications for one office.  They also list the duties for one office.  The first duty we will look at will be ruling.  1 Timothy 5:17 (ESV) 17 let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. In this verse it states that they are worthy of honor those who rule and teach.  1 Timothy 3:5 (ESV) 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? This verse says that his ability to rule his house is an indicator of his ability to rule the church.  1 Peter 5:2-3 (ESV) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.  In I Tim 3:2 it says that he must be apt to teach.  In these verses as we are given qualifications for Pastors it says they rule and teach.  

When we continue in I Timothy 3 starting in verse 8 we find the qualifications for a deacon.  The issue in these verses here is that the only difference in the two offices is that the deacon does not have to teach.  Deacons still must be blameless and have their house in order but they do not need to teach.  One may argue then that the deacons contain the qualifications then for the ruling elder if that were the case then you would still have only two church offices not three.

Satan is not just the personification of evil as some religions and some cults believe.  Satan is a reality.  He is a fallen angel and a person with intellect (2Cor 11:3) emotion (Rev 12:17 LK 22:31) and will (Isa 14:12-14; 2Tim 2:26) (Ryrie 157).  Satan is a Cherub as described in Ezekiel 1.  He has four faces one as a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle.  He has feet like a calf’s feet like unto burnished brass.  He has four wings under which are man’s hands.  His appearance is like unto that of burning coals of fire and he moves about where his spirit goes on a gyroscope type of wheel.  This is not the description of a creature that you want to meet in a dark alley. 

The work of Satan has several realms of relation.  Satan is at work deceiving the nations (Rev 20:3).  We know from Daniel 10:13 that demons help in the control of nations.  In relation to Satan’s attack on God Satan is constantly trying to counterfeit the work of God.  He will do this by promoting a form of godliness while denying the power (2Tim 3:5).  He teaches a doctrinal system of demons that promotes asceticism and unbridled license (1 Tim 4:1-3) (Ryrie 168).  Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4) and he steals the gospel seed out of their hearts because he is the prince of the power of the air ( Eph 2:2).  He is an accuser and tempter of the brethren and he seeks about whom he may destroy.  He can inflict physical disease and control the elements.  Jesus taught us that he can communicate with the human spirit Mt 13:19 (Martin 392).   

        As the English philosopher Jagger said, “I hope you guessed my name.”  Now that we have a view from thirty thousand feet let us begin our descent for our landing. In the seven letters to the churches in Asia Jesus says several last things about Satan that is the actual focus of this article.  The first letter I want to take note of is the letter to the church at Smyrna.  Jesus says there are blasphemers that say they are Jews but belong to the synagogue of Satan.  Jesus tells them to not to fear any of the things they shall suffer because of them.  The next letter that is written to the church at Pergamos says they dwell where Satan’s seat is… where Satan dwells (Rev 2:13). 

These letters teach us something we should have already put together and maybe many of you already have.  Satan is not omnipresent.  He can only be in one place at a time.  He uses his demons in strategic places all over the world but Satan himself must have a base of operation.  The scary thing to consider is where is his base of operation?  The context in Revelation gives us an idea of how he may contemplate his mobile command center.  Revelation was written around 90 A.D.  Paul had been planting churches in this area 30 years earlier and his team was still working in this region.  Satan works where God has been working.  When we read the New Testament we see the kind of work Paul was doing planting churches, training pastors, edifying saints, training missionaries, and equipping saints with doctrine.  This is the area in which Satan sets up his seat.  Satan and his demons are not hard at work in bar rooms and rock concerts those people are no threat, they are going to hell.  Satan’s army is where the battle is raging and that my friend is where the people of God are preparing to launch an offensive.  Not an offensive to where we go looking for demons but where we go plant churches and teach doctrine that is what threatens the kingdom of darkness the most. 

In closing spiritual warfare is going on all around us.  We may never know when an attack is coming or when the forces of Satan have arisn against us.  I give a word to encourage whether it be on a mission field or in your church when those rise up against you of the synagogue of Satan.  Revelation 3:19 (KJV) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Bibliography

Martin, Walter. Kingdom of the Occult. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

These words have been spoken by many volunteers and draftees in the United States Armed Forces.  Since the founding of the Continental Army in 1775, the United States military has drawn on people of every race, cultural heritage, religion, and sex to serve the nation in providing for the “common defense.”  As Christians we too are enlisted to serve our commander God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  We have our orders the Word of God and we are to follow them.    

The Apostle Paul tells us in II Tim 2:3, Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  As a Soldier of Jesus Christ we are to earnestly contend for the faith or for the doctrine Jude 3.  We are to take heed to ourselves and to the doctrine to continue in them for in doing so we will not only save ourselves but those who hear us I Tim 4:16.  As Soldiers we defend our Church members, disciples, students, and even family from the teaching and practice of error.  There are enemies within and those from without.  “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” Rom 13:1.  The Apostles taught us in the book of Acts that it is better to obey God rather than man Acts 5:29.  So we are subject to the higher powers until they go against the word of God.  The Word warns that you be not many masters knowing that you shall receive the greater condemnation Js 3:1.    

The history of faith is full of dark hours at which time men of God stood in opposition to those that are contrary to the doctrine.  This stand undoubtedly yielded broken hearts to those men, who sacrificed all, yet they knew the outcome rested in the hands of the Almighty.  The sons of Levi stood and turned their curse into a blessing when they killed their brothers.  Phinehas stood and stayed the wrath of God and received the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.  Daniel refused to eat from the kings table.  Ezekiel preached thus saith the Lord God whether they will hear or whether they will forbear Eze 3:11.  At times I am sure these men of God felt like they stood alone but they did not.

When the Men of God stand against sin they do not stand alone.  They stand with two thirds of the Heavenly host.  They stand bold in the power of throne of heaven. “On the other hand I am filled with power— With the Spirit of the Lord— And with justice and courage To make known to Jacob his rebellious act, Even to Israel his sin” Micah 3:8. As Men of God stand they must stand filled with the Spirit.  It is the duty of all soldiers to stand united and exercise our gifts in a time of need gifts of encouragement, exhortation, faith, mercy, giving, and many others as has been measured to all saints according to the grace of God. As God’s sons and daughters stand united in doctrine and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ they should not be allowed to stand alone and as time marches on they should take comfort in the knowledge that they do not stand alone.    

        The question that arises is since OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit how could they have been regenerated.  My question is where does it say that the Holy Spirit must indwell you to regenerate you?  “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” (Ephesians 2:4-5, KJV).  This verse says clearly that God the Father regenerates.  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” (James 1:17-18, KJV) “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8, KJV)  The first two verses show that God the Father regenerates the last verse that it is the spirit that does the work.  Christ also says in this verse that you can see the fruit of regeneration there is evidence of a changed life.  What is being made alive when this life is imparted is the spirit of man which died when Adam ate of the fruit Gen 2:7. 

        So to recap a person believes in God and is justified by faith and is regenerated.  That is what the Bible teaches.  What prevents that from taking place in the OT?  We are accused as dispensationalist of teaching works salvation in the OT but we do not there has always been only one way of salvation that is by grace through faith.  So if OT saints did not work their way to heaven they must have been regenerated when they believed God.  “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (James 2:23, KJV). If he believed and was counted righteous why would he have not been regenerated? 

        Christ tells Nicodemus that he must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.  Nicodemus wants to know how a man can be born again when he is old.  Christ says you must be born of water (the word of God JN 15:3 Eph 5:26) and the Spirit.  Nicodemus says how can these things be?  Christ’s response is sarcastic you are a master and Israel and knowest not these things.  Forget for a second about the organization of the cannon for a second and think dispensationally.  What dispensation is this whole scene taking place in? The Law.  The church did not start until Pentecost the law was not fulfilled until the cross.  Now if regeneration is solely a church age act of the Holy Spirit Christ is being a little unreasonable to expect Nicodemus not only to be born again before it is even possible but gives him a barb for not even knowing what he was talking about.  The reason Christ told Nicodemus he must be born again is because Nicodemus was not Justified he was lost, unconverted he was trying to justify himself through Pharisaical externalism and Christ said no it is by faith it has always been by faith. 

Final thought if there was no regeneration if the dead spirit caused by the fall was not made alive in the OT how did the people in the blessed side of paradise get there?  Because OT saints will be in the Kingdom right they are the guests of the Bride groom at the marriage supper which is an earthly event taking place in the 75 day interval after the second coming and before the beginning of the millennial kingdom (Fruchtenbaum 370).  Christ said you must be born again to see the kingdom Jn 3:8. 

Bibliography

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Teh Footsteps of the Messiah. Tustin: Ariel, 2003.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology:An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grqand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Pittman, Steve. “Evangelism Classroom Notes Fall 08.” Winston Salem: Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate School, 2008.

Ryrie, Charles. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Thiessen, Henery C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

                Why should a person worry about these buzz words that seem to appear in more and more places?  The reason is what do these ministries actually espouse? Many leaders are beginning to use this phraseology as tag lines for new ministries. Many are probably ignorant to what they are making themselves look like on the other  hand there are those that are in full working knowledge of the theological implications of the use of these seemingly innocent words.  The jest of what I am getting at is this is all the invasion of emergent/emerging (emergxxx) theology into our churches and institutions.  The emergxxx movement is a church movement that seeks to minister in a post-modern world.  There is nothing wrong with trying to minister in a post-modern world but how is it that you are going about that?  “The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth.[i]” 

                This above quote sums up this situation very well and allows me to demonstrate this for you using Shaffer’s line of despair.

Experience Subjectivity Spirituality images outward feelings 

­­­­­­­­­                          Bible    Truth

They have taken the elements that belong in the downstairs and elevated them to a position in the upstairs and by doing this have knocked the Bible into the downstairs and removed the only absolute given to us by God on which we are to base our lives and decisions.  If the intention is to reach men with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ that has changed this authors life and the lives of men like Saul of Tarsus who was an enemy to the church of God and then became the apostle to the Gentiles they are going to fail.  God has told us in Ps 119:89; 138:2 “That his word is forever settled in heaven and that he has exalted his word above even his own name.”  God’s Word is powerful and it is not our stories or experiences that change lives but His Word. 

                The Church is moving into a very dangerous time in its history.  Yesteryears saw a great attack on God’s word by liberalism.  “The Almighty God did not let the attack upon His Word go unchallenged. Multitudes of valiant warriors of the cross arose to do battle with the hosts of darkness.”[ii]  It may seem extreme to say that this is an attack against the Word of God but the emergxxx church is attacking.  They may seem to be trying to do their own thing off to the side but at the root of their hellish doctrine is a drastic hermeneutical shift that has launched an attack against the Bible.  The desire of  Soren Kierkegaard to “create difficulties everywhere[iii]” has come to fruition.  His religious existentialism is really at the root of this current epidemic that is infecting churches across this land.  It is worship if I experience something.  The doctrine is relevant if I so choose to apply it to my life.  The fellowship is authentic if it meets my needs and desires of what I desire to experience. The Bible is living if we all talk about it and deside what we accept as truth.  The very descriptions of their activities scream the fact that they have elevated humanistic thought and removed the absolute authority of the Bible. I’m not saying it is wrong to change our approach of evangelism or outreach but the Bible still remains the authority. However I do not think that a suitable substitute for Christian service is working the beer truck at the rock concert in the name of Jesus. 

Where are the Fundamentalist?  Men like C.I. Scofield, A.T. Pierson, A.C. Gaebelein these men had their faults but they stood up and fought against the liberalism of their day. Where are those that will stand and fight not for petty preferences but for the Word of Almighty God?  

The first thing that we will look at is why is dispensationalism so different from all the other systems of theology?  The reason why it’s different is the way in which the system comes to be.  All other systems of theology are developed by men and then laid on top of the text of scripture.  The interpreter of the text must then adjust there hermeneutic to bring the text into accordance with their theological system.  An example of this can very clearly be seen in Progressive Dispensationalism, which is quite different from normal or classical dispensationalism.  In PDism they have to deviate from the consistent application of a normal, plain hermeneutic to implement what they call a complimentary hermeneutic to reconcile having Christ reigning on David’s throne now, and remaining loyal to their Eschatology which believes in a literal thousand year earthly reign.  In Covenant Theology, they spiritualize the text to bring the text into alignment with their belief in the Covenant of Redemption, in which you find all redeemed throughout time belonging.  This hermeneutic departure is also necessary to maintain the extreme Calvinistic views that results from said belief in the Covenant of Redemption.  Whatever the theological system it requires a hermeneutical shift to bring the text into conformity with the theological system. 

The difference in Dispensationalism is that it is not a system of theology in the same way that the others are. It is not developed and brought to the text but, rises out of the text.  A person that holds to dispensationalism arrives at this position due to the consistent application of a normal, plain, ordinary, “literal” hermeneutic.  The interpreter will interpret scripture in the way he would any other thing read at face value.  By consistently applying this hermeneutic all will arrive at a dispensational system of theology.  The reason this is true is that hermeneutics is, by definition, the science of interpretation.  These other systems use hermeneutics not as science, but apply them in a philosophical manner by actually developing a private interpretation, which is in violation of the scripture itself (2 Pet 1:20).  Hermeneutics being a science must yield the same answer no matter who is applying the rules.  It is like math, 1+1=2 no matter where you are. If 1+1= 3 all of a sudden it is obvious that the person who applied the rules, has violated them.  That is why dispensationalism is so unique. Even before dispensationalism was systematized, you see the evidence of dispensational elements in people’s writings because they used a consistently applied, normal hermeneutic. The most notable person’s writing that this evidence appears in is the apostle Paul’s. 

The reason that dispensationalism is so unpopular in the current age is if a normal hermeneutic is consistently applied then you will arrive at a dispensational theology, which contains the doctrine of separation. Separation is cross dispensational. It is seen in every age.  This is a hot bed in the Christian world today.  Many Christians will claim to be Fundamentalist when actually they are “evangelicals” because they do not practice separation.  The reason there is an increasing number of people who hold to Premillennial Eschatology and shy away from five point Calvinism, but desire to depart from normal dispensationalism is that they are not willing to practice the doctrine of separation.  I Tim 4:16 says that we are to take heed unto ourselves, and unto the doctrine and to continue in them. Doctrine is something you live and practice, not something you write on a piece of paper. 

Final Thought

How you tell people what your theology is, is by what you live out, not by what you write down.  If you are not going to practice separation, or any other doctrine, you must eventually adjust your system of theology to fit that which you practice.  This is done in many areas, by many people, and not just in the matter of separation, but also in several doctrines.  The result is that we change our hermeneutic from a scientific one, to a philosophical one in order that we can bring scripture in line with our lives instead of our lives in line with God’s Word.  

The first question that was asked is if you say Israel is the wife of Jehovah when did she become Jehovah’s wife?  When ever a statement is made it must be defended but if you ask questions it makes the others have to answer I was recently told so lets give it a try.  Would it be safe to say that she became Jehovah’s wife when the Abrahamic covenant was made?  Would that make the marriage of Israel unconditional?  If that is the case how then was God able later to write a bill of divorcement to his wife? 

Eze 16:7-8 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I swore unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. 

Would not the context of this passage seem to indicate that the writer is referring to the Mosiac Covenant?The language here is also very similar to that of Ruth 3:9 where Boaz spreads his skirt over Ruth.  Did not Jehovah multiply Israel after they came out of Epypt?  In Deut 5:1-3, Deut 6:10-15, Deut 7:6-11 God speaks extensively about his choosing of Israel, his jealousy towards them, and his desire for their obedience to him.  Now I would ask that you consider those three things choosing, jealousy, and desire for obedience there are those that would say that you could describe Deuteronomy as the marriage contract now is that far off base?

The next question that arises is didn’t God divorce his wife?  Why would God divorce his wife?  If God would divorce his wife Israel does that call into question the eternal security of the believer?  Didn’t Israel split into two?  Where they both his wife?  Does that mean that God not only believes in divorce but that he is a polygamist as well? 

 Jer 3:6-10 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. (7) And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.  And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. (9) And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. (10) And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

 Eze 37:16-19 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: (17) And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? (19) Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

 Isa 62:4-5 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. (5) For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Jer 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.         

In this article I will just scratch the surface of the problem of the acceptance of the Bible in Africa.  The first question that would need to be answered is the problems that are so apparent in Africa in the church are they do a hermeneutical problem or are they do to a insufficient understanding of Bibliology.  The answer to that question is that it is both.  The first problem that I will address is the problem that stems from the improper view of Bibliology.  Hermeneutics is the key to interpretation but  have chosen to address these separately due to the fact each answers will cover a great deal of information and that each departure from truth brings about unique problems. 

The problem that is p[predominate in Africa in regards to Bibliology is inspiration of scripture.  This is not prevalent in the way one may think. There is a great deal of conservative main line denominations in Africa that are more conservative than their Northern counterparts.  Anglicans in Africa would say that Americans do not hold to inspiration of scripture due to the ordaining of homosexuals and women into the office of priest here in the states and in parts of Europe.  They are exactly correct those who practice the ordination of such people do not have a proper Bibliology or they would not be ordaining women and gays. 

The way this seems to manifest itself in Africa is in the same manner they do not have the problem of gay priest but they do have a large number of women who are pastors.  This writer in the Airport in Hamburg Germany on my way to Uganda was asked by a women why I was going their and I told here that I was going to help train Ugandan nationals in the word of God and she quickly told me that she was a pastor of a church in Uganda.  Now the Bible clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men so how do women think that they can be pastors.  The answer does not come from a hermeneutical shift but from the answer that they do not believe in inspiration they feel that Paul’s word’s in I Timothy and Titus where just not as inspired as the rest of the Bible. 

What does the Bible say about Inspiration?

2 Peter 3:15-16 (NKJV)

and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught people twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of the scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16(NJKV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:19-21(NKJV)

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts knowing first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 22:19(NKJV)

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from things which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:6(NKJV)

Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 12:32(NKJV)

Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

The text is clear here as to the fact that Paul’s writtings are scripture.  It speaks of adding and taking away and the fact that men twist the word to their destruction and that the scripture is open to no private interpreatation.  This clearly destroys their argument that women should be allowed to preach on the premise they give. 

In the beginging of this article I mentioned that their problem is a problem with inspration of scripture that is what they would claim but if you were to walk one of these people through these verses they would finally answer that they just don’t see it that way. It took some time and space but what you will realize if you try to argue with a person like this is they do not have a problem with the Bible being inspired they trust it in places where it tells of the substitionary death of Christ so why the problem here?  The problem is hermeneutics.  They apply what I have begun calling a “post-modern” heremeneutic.  In this ”post-modern hermeneutic” you only have to accept the truth that is truth for you.  We at first glance would not think that a country like Uganda is being effected by post-modernism but it is.