Conservative, Not Fundamentalist

Fundamentalists will not admit that it is possible to be conservative
on the  Bible without being a fundamentalists.  Like so many people
in the world who operate more on appearance than reality, they
claim to be the only conservatives; yet with their “pick and chose”
Bible interpretation method, they are only conservative on what they
“pick”, quite liberal in what they chose to ignore, especially on the
current realities of the Falling Away.  Since it is difficult to
simultaneously claim to have all the answers, as the fundamentalists
do, they ignore the parts of the Bible that teach that the Falling Away
must happen before the Second Coming. Listen, do you not hear
them on the Second Coming, and you do not hear them on the
Falling Away.  This silence on the Falling Away is within itself proof
of the Falling Away. If you think about it for a while, you will realize
that one of the most outstanding characteristics of the Falling Away,
besides as sin abounds the love of many waxes cold from Jesus, is
the intolerance toward sound doctrine.  There is no more intolerance
of sound doctrine than to leave it out completely as if it were not
part of the Bible itself.  You see, what they do is to pick what is
convenient for them to preach, and ignore what does not serve their
purpose. A case could be made that this kind of pick and chose
method of interpretation is worse than liberalism.

Here I should remind fundamentalists that “all scripture is given by
inspiration of God and is profitable”; and to ignore part of is to cheat
church members and to overlook “every Word that comes out of the
mouth of  God.”        The time has already “come when they {the
“they” in II Timothy 4 is obviously church members and other
believers, but in the “tares” category} will not endure sound doctrine”,
yet any Bible teacher can  not ignore certain sound doctrines
because they are not profitable to him or her personally or not
profitable to the organization that he or she represents.        YOU
DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURES.  {By the way the soundest
doctrine of all is the kind of respect for all persons that must include
the least in the kingdom, and the sound doctrine of giving them a
drink of water.  What is truly being said by the example of the life of
Jesus, and the teachings of Jesus, is that our treatment and
graciousness toward the least brethren in the kingdom really is the
evidence of our right to be among the sheep at the Final Gathering.}

Even  the  “proof  text”  method  of  Bible  interpretation  and
teaching that they often practice is frought with the “pick and chose”
method when  a verse or passage is not considered in the total
context of the text.   This is the age old principle of hermeneutics
called “exogesis” versus “isogesis”:  exegesis is to read the meaning
out of the Bible, while isogesis is to come to the passage with some
pre-conceived meaning or motivation to read meaning into it.        A
case in point is the pastor of a large fundamentalist church and
seminary in Memphis, Tennessee who wanted to preach an
applicable message on the first Sunday of the year 2000, and he
wanted that message to have some sense of urgency about end
time.  So in his passage from one of the Gospels was the simple
sentence that “after  six days Jesus and the disciples went” some
certain place.  Yes, you got it this fundamentalists spun and
spiritualized the six days to be the equivalent of the last days on this
earth.  There was no need for this: there is Matthew 24 on
eschatology, the book of Revelation, the teachings of Peter on the
earth will melt with fervent heat, and Paul‛s book of II Thessalonians
with the end time teachings that include the Falling Away, revelation
of the man of sin, and the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the
earth, with the clarity that these things must happen before Christ
comes again. Is he worse than a liberal?        I think so, because he
is preaching and teaching something under the guise of from the
scripture, it is not in that passage at all.

Can a person talk about Christ, God, and the Bible, be in the church
or be a church leader, and still not be “wheat”? Yes, that is the gist of
the Parable of Tares that was told by Jesus.  You see we have
isolated our concepts of church membership from the realities of the
Bible,  The Bible, time and again, faces up to the reality that many
can be in the churches, denominations, or even claim kingdom
membership, who have not learned Christ. Paul looked at the
Gentiles in Ephesus and the church members at the Ephesus
church:  then he noted that he did not see any differences.  The
behavior of the church members was the same as other Gentiles in
Ephesus.  Paul wrote in Ephesians, “This is not the way you learned
Christ, if indeed you heard Him and were taught of Him.”

Wow, did you miss that in reading the book of Ephesians.        I am
sure that you did not hear it from your fundamentalists preacher;  
for  in this time of the Falling Away, the preachers that survive in
their positions do so primarily by:  (1) convincing their congregation
or audience that they are the elect of God; (2) that by joining in with
them you are engaged in the real work of God; and (3) that they
have “THE SOLUTION”, and that if you join them, with or without
the new birth, you are part of the solution.  Later in the book we will
deal with what it means “to hear Jesus” and “be taught by Him”.  Let
me say now, however, that it is the opposite of the famous
instantaneous new birth {or born again} concept of the
fundamentalists.  It is amazing how these evangelists can take the
analogy of Jesus between physical and spiritual birth with the
obvious statement “you must be born again”; then fail to realize that
the new birth may take the same 9 months or longer as does
physical birth. Does that make sense to you?  That is it takes at
least 9 months to be physical born, or in that ball park for a normal
birth, then it must take some period of time for the spiritual birth,
eliminating many who claim to experience an instanteous new birth.
{You see another case of pick and choice from the fundamentalists.}
In the parable of the seed and the farmer that was told by Jesus, the
individuals who were compared to the seed sown among thorns
instantly received it with joy, but later as time passed the cares of
this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and other things choked it
out.        Now, you know in most churches during revival and in any
assembly if a person were noted to instantly received the Word of
God with joy, that person would be labeled as “saved” without
waiting to see if the 9 month new birth would be completed. There
actually are some very large churches who would assist the new
convert with their examples and messages to accept the “things” of
the cares of this world to the extent that their messages actually
serve to choke out the Word. This in the old fashion jargon was
called “putting a live bitty under a dead hen”.  What has changed now
is that while the “dead hen” generally in the past was considered to
be some lithurgic church members, now in this time of the Falling
Away it is the Bible teachers and preachers that are the dead hens.
And they are very good at it. They talk about Christ, God, and the
Bible so how can they be a bad example.  Remember it is what is
not said that is as important as what is said; and it is the thrust of the
message more than key words.  Does their influence exert itself in
the direction of the cares of this world for personal gain and
prosperity, for the deceitfulness of riches, or other things?