The Effect of Leaving Out Just a Couple of Words of Scripture

Proponents of.modern English versions of the Bible very often talk about the minimal or negligible effect of word differences between the received text and the modern critical text of the New Testament.  These men might show a side by side of either of the two texts and their translation to show how few changes appear.   They very often say that few doctrines change or no doctrine is lost.  Do the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Novum Testamentum Graece matter?

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I’m not going to tell you what that means about preservation.  I’ve written about it already and it’s also self-evident.  Instead, I want you to go down to Matthew 5:43, really the same context of 5:18:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Jesus here talks about what the Pharisees did and that He found from religious leaders in their tradition.  In 5:44, Jesus continues:  “But I say unto you.”

The “but” is a strong adversative, a strong contrast.  The Pharisees did something, but Jesus did not and would not.  He did not come to destroy the law like they would have done.  The Pharisees did change the meaning of scripture and they also did that by changing a few words.  Look back at 5:43 above.  What did they change?

The Subtraction of Two Words

The Pharisees subtracted just two words.  Those two words would not have stood out in the comparison of a proponent of the modern critical text.  “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” quotes Leviticus 19:18, which says:  “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”  What two words did they subtract?

The Pharisees in their tradition left out the words, “as thyself.”  Perhaps you remember what Jesus taught in Luke 10, defining neighbor.  They changed the meaning of neighbor that permitted them not to love their neighbor.

The strategy or technique of the Pharisees was reduction or minimization.  They reduced God’s Word to something they could keep on their own.  Part of how they did that obviously was the removal of few words, like two of them from Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus promised that not even letters would pass from the law, but two words is what textual critics might call a small amount.  One way to reduce what God said was leaving words out.  Today modern textual critics will say something like only two percent difference between the Nestles-Aland and the Textus Receptus.

“As thyself” wasn’t teaching, “Love thyself.”  No, everyone already loves himself or least knows how he wants treated.  Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:28, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.”  No one wants reduction of the love for himself, so that descriptor maximizes love, gets it to where it is actual love.  This is very similar to all the other illustrations that Jesus uses in verses 21 to 48 to explain righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees (5:20).

Two Words Do Matter

If two words don’t matter, then “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” is probably good enough.  However, those two words do matter, because they bring the love to something exceeding that of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees could easily reduce love to their own understanding of it without those two words.

Let’s say that we start by saying that the very Words of God are perfect Words.  Subtracting words matter if the very words are perfection.  Even if only “the message” matters or “all the doctrines” matter, two words will matter to God.

Supreme Court and the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights

I was listening briefly today to the Louisiana Solicitor General argue before the Supreme Court for a proper interpretation of the United States Constitution on the freedom of speech.  His particular case was new.  No one had argued about freedom of speech regarding censorship of social media.  This Solicitor General told the nine justices he was a free speech absolutist and a free speech purist.

Freedom of speech in the United States comes down to two words really, “abridging the.”  The next three words are “freedom of speech.”  The government cannot abridge the freedom of speech and maybe they did that by coercing or encouraging social media companies to censor.  Did that violate that right in the Bill of Rights?  Not much language exists on that right, so one or two words is important.

Jesus Himself made the point of the importance and effect of two words with their subtraction in Matthew 5:43.

The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Four)

Part One     Part Two     Part Three

If the church fathers are not the church fathers, then who are the church fathers?  Can we even know?  If we know, then how do we know who they are?  If the church fathers are not the church fathers, how did that occur, that they became the church fathers?

Two Possible Paths or Trajectories — One True and the Other False

The history of the church takes one of two possible paths or one of two possible trajectories.  One route says the true or right path is a very broad one that travels through Roman Catholicism, then Eastern Orthodoxy, after that the Protestant Reformation, and then it splinters into many different denominations and even cults.  This first possible way has offered or given a state church or state churches, religious wars, allegorical interpretation, inquisitions, popes, mysticism, layers of lies, and the Dark Ages.

The other way, a very different and straight one, moves to and through the cross of Jesus Christ, yes, a trail of blood, the suffering church, a persecuted church.  It travels always separate of and in contrast with a state church.  It is known by different names:  On April 8, 1860, C. H. Spurgeon in a sermon at the New Park Street Chapel in London said these words:

Remember your forefathers, not merely your Christian forefathers, but those who are your progenitors in the faith as Baptists. . . . Think of the snows of the Alps, and call to mind the Waldenses, and the Albigenses, your great forerunners.

He continued:

Your whole pedigree, from the beginning to the end, is stained with blood. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been made to suffer the violence of men.

Identifying the True Church and Its Fathers in History

The Suffering Church

After the completion of the New Testament, the earliest history of true churches traces to the persecution of the Roman Empire.  This divided the true from the false and sped along the false, the above first and broad path.  John T. Christian writes of the separating principles for a pure church in the first paragraph of the third chapter of his The History of Baptists:

Step by step some of the churches turned aside from the old paths and sought out many inventions.  Discipline became lax and persons of influence were permitted to follow a course of life which would not have been tolerated under the old discipline. . . . The dogma of baptismal regeneration was early accepted by many and men sought to have their sins washed away in water rather than in the blood of Christ.  Ministers became ambitious for power and trampled upon the independence of the churches.  The churches conformed to the customs of the world and the pleasures of society.

Earlier in chapter one he wrote:

[I]n every age since Jesus and the apostles there have been companies of believers, churches who have substantially held to the principles of the New Testament as now proclaimed by the Baptists.

Versus Pseudo History

He explains why there is little historical evidence for this true line of churches to begin his second chapter:

The period of the ancient churches AD 100-325 is much obscured.  Much of the material has been lost.  Much of it that remains has been interpolated by Mediæval Popish writers and translators and all of it has been involved in much controversy.  Caution must therefore be observed.

John T. Christian explains the first and false line of history.  It was one perpetuated and protected by Roman Catholicism.  The Roman Catholic Church made sure that it kept its own pseudo history as an authority for its own existence.

Perpetuity of True Churches

The basis of belief in the perpetuity of the true church with the true gospel are the promises of God.  He would preserve His churches.   God also promised to preserve His Word and His Words, which He did.  And those are the basis for identifying the true church and for a true evaluation of history.  Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Lord in His Word also promises that only some will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), not all.  Not until the total apostasy prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 will true churches disappear.  Based upon those presuppositions, believers look at history.  In company with the promises of scripture, enough evidence exists in history of the line of those true churches.

Baptists Through History Known by Different Names

Bernard Hisel in his Baptist History Notebook writes:

Baptists have been known by many different names in the past. They have been called by the name of the place in which they lived. They have been called by the name of the powerful leader among them. In was not until the time of the Reformation that they were called “Baptists.” If time stands, we may be called by another name.

John T. Christian writes:

The first protest in the way of separation from the growing corruptions of the times was the movement of the Montanist churches. This Montanus, the leader, was a Phrygian, who arose about the year A.D. 156. The most distinguished advocate of Montanism was Tertullian who espoused and defended their views.

A good online account of the Montanists as an early sample and explanation of Baptists, even against modern enemies, is the one by Bernard Hisel.

The Church Fathers

Then the Novations, the Donatists, the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Albigenses, and the Anabaptists among others bridge the historical gaps to form the line of a true church separate from a state church.  Much historical evidence exists for a true church since Christ known by different names.  The line of churches led to the Baptist churches.  It is the History of the Baptists.  Those are the church fathers and not the others, who are very often called “the church fathers,” but are not.

The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Three)

Part One     Part Two

Evangelicals and the Like Embrace the Church Fathers

Evangelicals and even fundamentalists very often associate themselves with those they call, “the church fathers.”  They treat these men as their fathers.  Even those today labeled, “conservative evangelicals,” affiliate themselves and their history with “the church fathers.”

Evangelical theologians, pastors, and preachers will use the church fathers as authority for the authorship of New Testament books.  They quote them for instance in support of Pauline authorship of his epistles and Mark’s authorship of the second gospel.  They say things like, “early church father Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he testified on Polycarp’s authority that John wrote the gospel.”

Cherry Picking Favored Quotes of the Church Fathers

The same subjects of the above paragraph also cherry pick quotes from the church fathers for the purpose of authenticating certain Christian doctrines.  If someone just chooses the statements of church fathers that support the doctrines he believes, that doesn’t prove the overall beliefs of these church fathers.  One could say that regarding doctrine, the church fathers “giveth and taketh away.”  One does not find the belief and practice of a church father by quoting where he agrees and not quoting where he disagrees.

Church fathers might represent the Trinity in a correct way and defend the Trinity against false teachers.  They also might defend something like the doctrine of original sin in a comprehensive way against those who reject original sin.  It seems rather convenient to choose supportive doctrine while ignoring the antagonistic.

False Doctrines of Church Fathers Besmirching Everything

Were the church fathers the church fathers or not?  I’m saying, “No,” and with a just or fair view of all the evidence.

The false doctrines of church fathers should somewhat besmirch their teaching of true doctrines.  Just because they get some things right doesn’t mean overall that they’re right.  All of the evidence about and from the church fathers should come into the consideration of that which these church fathers are fathers.  If all the cumulative evidence indicates that they believed a different gospel, they are not the fathers of a true gospel.  If someone believes a true gospel and says he believes a true gospel, he would not consider someone who declares a false gospel to be the father of his belief.

I want to especially again focus on the teaching of the church fathers on baptism.  Roman Catholics today will comprehensively say that if someone goes to the church fathers, their historic writings will make him a Roman Catholic.  They can give many examples of this too.  Men starting as something other than Roman Catholic became Roman Catholics because they thought the church fathers represent true church history.  If someone claims the church fathers as his church history, then church history is Roman Catholic.

The Church Fathers Taught Baptismal Regeneration

First Century Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration

Yet, church history is not Roman Catholic.  The Roman Catholic Church is not the church and it’s history is not church history.  Its fathers are also not the church fathers.  Again, baptism provides a good example on this.  Letter of Barnabas 7:1 (74AD) says:

But let us enquire whether the Lord took care to signify before hand concerning the water and the cross. Now concerning the water it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which bringeth remission of sins, but would build for themselves. . . .

Shepherd of Hermas 3[31]:1 says (80AD):

[T]here is no other repentance, save that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins.

Second Century Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration

Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 61, says (151AD):

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. . . . they then receive the washing with water. . . . and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.

Tehophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 16, says (181AD):

Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration.

Irenaeus and Baptismal Regeneration

Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21, says (189AD):

And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. . . . They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.

I included the above just as a sample, but one could keep moving through history and find even more plenteous examples in the church fathers than these earlier ones.  They get worse through history.  The church fathers required baptism for salvation and very often through pouring or sprinkling.  It’s no wonder that even the Protestant Reformers included this in their doctrine.  Sure, they reformed some doctrines, but they did not eliminate baptism from their requirements in addition to faith.  That means that they still fell short in returning to scripture on the doctrine of salvation.

More to Come

The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Two)

Part One

Proper Evaluation of History

God promised the preservation of scripture, but not the preservation of history.  Since God promised the preservation of scripture, He insures that with a high level of divine intervention.  The Bible says much about this.  Since God doesn’t promise to preserve history, we must judge history in a different way.  We must weigh it.

The history of the people and events of history differs in nature than the history of Christian doctrine.  Believers can open the Bible, which God preserved, and compare the history of Christian doctrine with what the Bible says.  Especially the doctrine found in what people call “the church fathers” diverges from biblical doctrine and practice.  Biblical doctrine and practice and the church fathers have many dissimilarities.

An important part of good historical evaluation is observing historical influences on beliefs, practices, and methods.  The Bible itself helps with this ability in a sufficient way.  Already in the first century, external factors affected what the church believed.  This is all over the New Testament.  Keeping false doctrine out of the church required and requires tremendous vigilance.

The Trajectory of External Influences on the Church

New Testament Times

If one just looked at an epistle like 1 Corinthians, chapter after chapter chronicle both external and internal influences on the church at Corinth.  People over emphasized the effect of baptism in chapter one.  They also devalued preaching as a method for what Paul calls “signs” and “wisdom.”  In chapter two, people were placing higher value on naturalism over supernaturalism.  Greek philosophy that denigrated the place of the physical body led to acceptance of sexual sin in chapters five and six.  The same kind of false teaching on the body led to mass denial of bodily resurrection in chapter fifteen.

One could keep moving through the entire New Testament and do something very similar to the samples of the previous paragraph.  God wants us to see how false doctrine and practice enters the church and then takes hold.  Revelation two and three chronicle seven churches and varied degrees of departure from the truth, even to the extent that the Laodicean church in Revelation three had already apostatized.  Jesus and John tell history as a warning with the seven churches about both the internal and external attacks.

The Roman Empire and Greek Philosophy

The persecution of the Roman Empire affected churches in the first century.  This parallels with anything and any place where persecution occurs.  People accommodate the pressure and change from biblical belief and practice.  The pressure of Sodom affected Lot and his family.  The world itself corrupted Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).

Many other external factors changed and change thinking.  This is why Paul warns against philosophies and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8).  Theologians like Origen invented their own subjective approach to interpretation of scripture.  Many others accepted then Origen’s way.  Some read so much Greek philosophy, available during the period of the church fathers, that they took on the thinking of the Greek philosophers.  Include Augustine among those.  Greek philosophy doesn’t mix with the Bible and improve it.  It corrupts it.

When Paul says “wisdom” in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he, like James in James 3:15, meant human wisdom, which could be intellectualism, naturalism, rationalism, or human reasoning.  The false teachers that Peter battled as seen in his second epistle judged according to their own reasoning, attempting to conform their theology to that.

Syncretism

An important term to understand is “syncretism.”  Wikipedia gets it right when it says in its entry on syncretism:

Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

People mix two different philosophies, ideas, concepts, or beliefs and out of the two becomes something brand new, a hybrid, which contrasts with the ones from which it came.  The false worship of Israel arose from syncretism, mixing Israel’s divine, scriptural worship with pagan or idolatrous worship practices.

Comparison with the True Church

The church doctrine and practice of the church fathers does not look like the church in the New Testament.  The church fathers represent a path that diverts from the true path of the New Testament churches.  As I wrote in part one, almost entirely they read as proto-Roman Catholic.  Roman Catholicism came from somewhere and this is easy to see.  It’s no wonder that for centuries Roman Catholicism did not want people to read the Bible on their own.  When they read it, they would see the differences.

It is easy to see in history what happened when people were reading the Bible and comparing it with Roman Catholicism.  People left Roman Catholicism.  They knew that wasn’t the truth.  Based on reading scripture, they separated from Roman Catholicism.  As well, true churches never joined that path in the first place.  True churches always existed and people joined with them who left Roman Catholicism based on reading or hearing scripture.  They also needed courage because Roman Catholicism through the years would kill them for disagreeing.

Roman Catholicism and the Church Fathers

Roman Catholicism preserved the church fathers.  They served Roman Catholic mission and goals.  Roman Catholicism uses the church fathers as their evidence of a historical trail.  Roman Catholic apologists point to the church fathers as evidence of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

The authority and military of the Roman Empire served Roman Catholicism.  The denomination itself took on qualities of an Empire and enforced the doctrine and practice.  Ultimately, it would not allow for challenge.  This produced an inauthentic history of a church.  It never was the church.   The Roman Catholic Church always was a pseudo-church, posing as one.  It keeps people fooled and strapped into false religion.  The church fathers offer a major contribution to the deceit and destruction.

Today evangelicals embrace the church fathers. They point to them as a part of their own history.  This supposes that God used Roman Catholicism to keep the truth.  It isn’t true and it doesn’t even make sense.  This doesn’t just provide a cover for the error.  It sends people down the wrong path.

The Example of Baptismal Regeneration

A good example of the deceit and danger of the church fathers relates to the teaching of baptismal regeneration.  The church fathers taught baptismal regeneration.  The Bible doesn’t teach that.  It teaches against it.  Roman Catholicism among other kinds of deeds and rituals requires baptism as a condition for salvation.  Protestants did not make a full turn from Roman Catholic doctrine with their acceptance of infant sprinkling.  This dovetailed with the Roman Catholic view that the church was the worldwide kingdom of God on earth.

In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter that He was building His church on the gospel.  His church has a true gospel.  The church fathers undermined the gospel and the church that arose from that teaching was a false one.  It was Roman Catholicism and its state church.

More to Come

The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers

I already have several series going, which include one on the Antichrist and globalism, one on the way people contort Matthew 5:17-20 to eliminate the doctrine of preservation, another one exploring Christian nationalism, and the one below, which I would predict has two parts, but it might just end here.  I wanted you to know, Lord-willing, I would return to some of these series as I see fit.

*****************************

Church Fathers

If you grew up in a Baptist church like I did, then you didn’t hear anything about “church fathers.”  I never heard that language until perhaps college, and I actually don’t remember when I first heard the terminology.  No one referred in any of my childhood Baptist churches to a church father.  I would doubt that I even heard of church fathers in high school, even though I attended and graduated from a Christian high school.

At some point as a child, I heard about “Father Abraham.”  Sometime soon after that, I learned that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel.  I also found that Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob were the Patriarchs.  The English word, Patriarch, comes from the Latin, pater, which means Father.  If you asked me who the Patriarchs were, I would answer, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”  Still, I never ever heard about any church fathers.  Because of Galatians 3:7, now I might add that Abraham is also my Father, since I too am a child of his by faith in Jesus Christ.

Who are the Church Fathers?

So who are the church fathers?  As you read this, maybe still you’ve never heard of the church fathers.  However, now when people say “church fathers,” I know of whom they speak.  I took a course in grad school, called “History of Christian Doctrine,” which examined the church fathers.  Part of the requirements for my grad degree was historical theology.  Okay, so who are these people called “church fathers”?  I didn’t give them that name.

A Roman Catholic theologian named Johannes Quasten systematized ancient Christendom with his book, Patrology, which discusses what ancient Christian writers said.  Historians had designated this study as Patristics.  The earliest I read this term Patristics is in the 18th century and in German.  Quasten defined “Church Fathers” as those Christian writers from New Testament times until Isidore of Seville (636) in the Latin world and John of Damascus (749) in the Greek world.

A second century writer, Irenaeus, who himself people call a “church father,” wrote:

For what any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.

Clement of Alexandria,  also a church father, wrote:

We call those who have instructed us, fathers.

Apparently, the basis for this designation originated from Deuteronomy 32:7:

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

Proto Roman Catholic Fathers

From my reading through the years, I see these men, called church fathers, as proto-Roman Catholics.  I’m not saying they would surrender or acquiesce to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, if they read it.  However, in general Roman Catholics embraced these men, claimed them, and then designated them as their fathers.  The teachings of these fathers developed into later Roman Catholic dogma.  Roman Catholics use them as credence for their false doctrine.

The earlier “fathers” were not in general as filled with error as the later ones.  They show the incremental departure from true New Testament doctrine and practice.  Their errors provide the basis for later and more severe error.  Today men justify their own false doctrines historically by referring to something in the patristic writings.  They can and do say that they have historical justification from the fathers for unbiblical beliefs and practices.

Value of the Church Fathers

I’m not saying the fathers are not without merit.  You can find true beliefs and accurate exegesis of scripture in their writings.  In many cases, they sound like sincere, true believers.  Those writings also do validate certain doctrine and practice existed at that period of time, which is important for the history of doctrine.  The patristic works show that people believed these things at this time according to these writings.  They also indicate a consideration of New Testament books as the Word of God and a belief in Jesus Christ.  From what they wrote, we see the reality of a love for the Bible among them.

The church fathers are very old writings, some of the oldest ancient writings that we possess.  They are relevant as historical matter.  They authenticate the story of Christianity.  We can get from them an understanding of some what happened at that time.  From the mere historical standpoint, they are very valuable.

The Church Fathers Were Not the Church Fathers

With all the above said, I don’t believe the church fathers are the church fathers.  They’ve been labeled “the church fathers,” but they are not the fathers of the true church.  I acknowledge the notoriety of these men called “the church fathers.”  They represent a particular view of history with a trajectory toward a state church.

The best and really only evidence of the true church is scripture.  One should judge the veracity of a church by what the Bible says it is.  The Bible says what a church is.  Then when someone examines something called a church, he tests it by scripture.

I would contend that the church fathers are better the fathers of the state church, which isn’t a true church.  The state church chose the writings they would preserve.  Based on biblical presuppositions, I contend that other men followed more closely to scripture.  Their writings did not survive, because they clashed with Roman Catholic viewpoints.  Those men represent a different trajectory of history.

Evidence for Church Fathers

Scriptural Presuppositions

You’ve heard, “To the victors go the spoils.”  The victors very often also write the history books.  The state church dominated most of the period of history from Christ until today.  Its history and advocates of its history also dominate.  For centuries, the state church had no problem destroying whatever did not support the state church, including the writings of which it did not approve.  This means often leaving no historical trace of the presence of its enemies.

Based first upon biblical presuppositions, I and others believe that churches always existed separate from the state church.  From some historical record, we believe they were known by different names.  I think enough evidence exists to identify them by some of those names (example).  Rather than a state church, these were autonomous and persecuted churches operating independent of state churches.

Churches that represent the biblically acceptable viewpoint left enough historical evidence, a footprint, to acknowledge their existence.  Their trajectory leaves adequate trace of their scriptural legitimacy.  Someone pictured it with a rope across a river, held on each side by men.  You can see where the rope goes into the river and where it comes out.  You know the rope continues in between, but you can’t see it at every point.  However, you know the rope is there.

Enough of a History

The New Testament tells the story of true churches, local only.  Evidence shows true churches existed then after the invention of the printing press.  Some proof also indicates their presence in between.  I would contend that the church fathers are the apostles and first pastors in New Testament times.  The historical trajectory of those fathers does not move through those called, “the church fathers.”  Therefore, the church fathers are not the church fathers.  I don’t accept them as mine.

The actual fathers have little mention in church history.  God did not promise to preserve their history and little of their history did survive.  These are primitive Baptists first called Christians in Acts 11:26.  True New Testament churches, that believed and practiced the Bible, continued through history separate from the state church.

The Horrific Distortion of the Lord Now in Matthew 5:17-20

Related Post Number One    Related Post Number Two     Related Post Number Three

Perfect Preservation

You required payment from me on a certain future date and I had no money except the exact change for the payment in a large jar.  You needed full payment and I had it in the way of coinage.  It was all in one large jar, and I said to you:

I truly say to you, until the specified future required date of payment, one dime or one penny shall in no wise pass from this large jar, till the fulfillment of the whole amount of payment.

Anyone hearing this statement could and should acknowledge a promise of preservation of every coin in the large jar until the completion of the payment.  One could call this a promise of perfect preservation of the coins.  Every coin and all of them will survive or continue within the jar.  Of course, the fulfillment of the promise depends on the trustworthiness and veracity of my words.  In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

That sounds like a guarantee to me, and a strong one.  When you read the previous and following verses (17 and 19-20), they do not diminish from what Jesus guaranteed in verse 18.

The Veracity of Jesus

The promise of Jesus extends to heaven and earth passing away, which has still not occurred.  That event will transpire, but it remains in the future.  At this date in the year 2024, heaven and earth continue.  With that the case, what would one expect related to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 5:18?  Of course, the perfect preservation of every jot and tittle of the law.  The context says the law here was (so is) all of scripture.  The words “jot” and “tittle” indicate the preservation of all of scripture goes to the very letter.

In my hypothetical for illustration, I promised the perfect preservation of every coin in a large jar.  I thought the illustration would enhance an understanding of what Jesus said.  The major difference between the two statements, mine and Jesus’, is that what Jesus says is the truth, always.  My guarantee even for one generation is not as sure as Jesus’ is.  When He promises preservation, you can count on it.  He always fulfills His promises.

Jesus is truth, so what He says is always true.  He also can make guarantees or promises based upon His divine attributes.  He has the power to fulfill what He promises.  Because of His omniscience, He also knows already He will fulfill the promise.  The quality of what Jesus says depends on His attributes.  Since I don’t have those attributes, my promises or guarantees are of a lesser quality than that of Jesus.

Again, in my hypothetical, let’s say that I did lose a few of my coins, so I did not fulfill my promise of perfect preservation of every coin.  If that happened, it does not change the meaning of what I promised.  Those words continue to mean what they meant when I said them.

High View of Scripture

Perhaps you’ve heard the terminology, “a high view of scripture.”  Someone has a high view of scripture when he sees scripture elevated above feelings, man’s thinking, philosophy, tradition, and all other authority.  A high view fits within the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4:  “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.”  It follows that scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, perspicuous, and sufficient.

Someone with a high view of scripture will not and does not change its meaning based on circumstances.  God said it, that settles it.  That kind of thing.  With a high view of scripture, when he reads Matthew 5:18, he takes it at face value.  He explains the fulfillment based on what Jesus said and not on what he think may happen.  He conforms what happened to what Jesus said and not vice versa.  This also means not later changing the meaning to have it fit with how he interprets what happened.

Adapting Circumstances to What Jesus Said

John Lightfoot first wrote From the Talmud and Hebraica between 1658 and 1674.  In that book, he writes about Matthew 5:18, and he already considered the repercussions of circumstances of which I speak, saying:

A second question might follow concerning Keri and Kethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the test of the law was not preserved perfect to one jot and one tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur.

Do variant readings nullify what Jesus said?  Instead of conforming what Jesus said to the circumstances, which is a low view of scripture, Lightfoot explained variant readings of the text to what Jesus said.  John Lightfoot was not questioning or changing the meaning of Matthew 5:18.  The teaching on perfect preservation was so indisputable to him, that it need no mention.  That is how it reads.  Bravo Lightfoot.

What we see occur today horrifically distorts what Jesus said to deprive it of its original meaning.  In so doing, men eliminate a promise of preservation in lieu of textual variants.  I’ve noticed they even distort much of the meaning of what Jesus said even in the entire sermon, it seems, just to eradicate a promise of perfect preservation of scripture in Matthew.

More to Come

Books By David Cloud Read Aloud: Can You Help Truth Get Out?

Way of Life Literature, run by Bro David Cloud, has many excellent resources.  David Cloud has also written many excellent books, as well as useful videos one can find on his website.  While not infallible, of course, they are well-researched, sound in doctrine, and something I could recommend highly to almost any Christian.  I am very thankful for David Cloud’s works.  His books, along with those published by Bible Baptist Church Publications, helped me to become a Baptist separatist instead of a mushy evangelical after I was converted by the grace of God.

 

Today, sadly, many people do not read.  Brother Cloud has given me permission to have at least some of his books read aloud and then made available on fora such as YouTube, Rumble, and Audible.

 

If you would be interested in reading aloud some David Cloud books, such as his works on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions:

Faith vs. The Modern Versions

For Love of the Bible

The Glorious History of the English Bible

Bible Version Question and Answer Database

The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame
Why We Hold to the King James Bible

or some of Cloud’s other books, such as:

 

Dressing for the Lord

The Future According to the Bible

History and Heritage of Fundamentalism and Fundamental Baptists

and you have a good reading voice–speaking clearly, with expression, and not one that will put people to sleep–and enough commitment to finish something once you have started it, please contact me and let me know.

 

Thank you.

A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Two)

Part One

Seeds of Christian Nationalism

Scripture teaches nothing about anything remotely Christian nationalism for the New Testament church age.  Christian nationalism must arise at the most from principles through scripture that permit Christian nationalism.  Is that possible?  I think a semblance of that is.  True believers in Jesus Christ, Christians, could hope for that. However, before I write about that, I will deal with the Christian nationalism movement in the United States, as I see it.

The Christian nationalist movement in the United States arises from the false eschatology of postmillennialism and a false ecclesiology of paedo baptism and communion.  I suggest that several factors have contributed to this theonomist style or Christian reconstructionist postmillenial revival.

Recent Embrace of Protestant Theology

Not necessarily in this order, but, one, postmillennialism proceeds from recent new embrace of Protestant theology, some being a new Calvinism, or the “young, restless, and Reformed movement.”  Many factors, I believe and have witnessed, led to the attraction to this faction of professing Christianity.  The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:22:  “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.”  The latter wisdom, one might also call, “intellectualism.”  Perhaps an insipid, superficial evangelicalism swung the pendulum to theological seriousness and the greatest allure to a muscular, Puritanical determinism with heavy historical roots.

Attack on the Male Role in Society

Two, the elimination of and attack on a male role in society and growing egalitarianism pushed young men toward a more masculine view of the world.  Postmillennial theonomy embraces not just complementary roles for men and women, but thoroughgoing Patriarchy.  This also explains the great popularity of Jordan Peterson, who promotes the significance of the Patriarchy and a unique place for men in the culture.

Other Reasons for the Rise of Christian Nationalism Propositions

Three, men responded to the degradation of the culture.  The United States slouches toward Gomorrah.  The weakness all around begs for an answer or a reaction.  Men don’t like what they are seeing.  This corresponds with the decline of the United States on the world stage, a porous border, and decrepit leaders.

Four, the Postmillennials have some effective spokesmen, that contrast with the ineffectiveness of the alternative.  I would compare Russell Moore, now editor of Christianity Today, and Douglas Wilson.  The former capitulates and whine and the latter puts on the battle fatigues.

Five, even though Trump himself is not a Christian, Christian nationalism dovetails with the rise of Trump.  It would take some explaining here, which I don’t think is too difficult, but I’ll leave it at that one sentence.

Premillennialism the Truth

Scripture is plain on the future or how everything will end.  It is not postmillennial.  Premillennialism represents a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture.  It is how the Bible reads.  Premillennialism does not correspond well to a biblical presentation of Christian nationalism.

Based on this understanding of the future, Scott Aniol has written a different position than Christian Nationalism, that he calls Christian Faithfulness (he further argues here).  I can’t disagree with anything Aniol says about this and generally agree with his criticism of the positions of Stephen Wolf and Douglas Wilson.  I haven’t read Aniol’s new book, Citizens and Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, so I don’t know how far he goes in his vision for the nation.

The Likelihood or Unlikelihood of Christian Nationalism

Without having read Aniol’s book, I’m certain I would go further than Aniol and propose something toward Christian Nationalism without actual Christian Nationalism.  I explained some of this in part one.  In a refreshing way, Aniol calls himself a Baptist.  I am a Baptist.  Baptists as one of their distinctives claim the separation of church and state, even if the United States Constitution does not claim that.  Baptists have taken strongly a very anti church state doctrine.  The Baptists promoted and ratified the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Aniol has coined a new position related to the Christian Nationalism debate:  Christian Faithfulness.  My thinking has not yet congealed into a position.  Maybe it won’t get to that and I could hold some version of Christian Faithfulness.  I want to and will explain where I am right now.

More to Come

A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism

Probing Christian Nationalism

The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans.  Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.”  The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.”  This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:

The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God.  . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.

Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God.  This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:

Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.

Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.

Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism

As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it.  Here are important books in the debate:

The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide For Taking Dominion And Discipling Nations, by Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker

Mere Christendom: The Case for Bringing Christianity Back into Modern Culture – Leading by Faith to Convert Secularism, by Douglas Wilson

Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol

Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con.  I understand the rise of the terminology.  I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject.  Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism.  However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.

Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism

My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.

One

One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom.  The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Analysis sees two clauses: (1)  no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion.  I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged.  The latter proceeds from the former.  I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.”  There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God.  Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.

Two

Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God.  All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this.  Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.

The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion.  God is truth.  The Bible is truth.  The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality.  This is our Father’s world.  A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.

Three

Three, God wants application of His Word to everything.  The Bible is sufficient.  God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere.  To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful.  It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence.  Let God be God.

Four

Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word.  It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority.  This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to.  God founded government.  It isn’t matter and motion.  Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.

Opening the Can of Worms

I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter.  The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution.  It is not inspired.  It is not God’s Word.  Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?

Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas.  Did that yield a perfect masterpiece?  Is any kind of correction over?  Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God.  I believe it is just the opposite.  The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.

More to Come

Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?

In relation to church planting, where should a new church meet?  On this blog we have, in the past, learned the history of how Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA was started by Jesus Christ; see part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on that encouraging topic.  Grace and Truth Baptist Church is a new church planting work in San Francisco that is seeking to follow the Lord and obey and practice all of Scripture.  They currently do not have a building to meet, and the preacher there–a friend of mine for many years–had discussed the qustion with me, and asked us to pray for them, as they sought a place to meet.  I asked the advice of a number of Baptist preachers, pastors, and missionaries / evangelists concerning the pluses and minuses of a variety of options concerning places to meet.  With their permission, I have shared their responses below.  Please feel free to comment on these responses and share any Biblical thoughts or practical experiences you have concerning them.  (The response have been lightly edited for things like grammar and material that was not related to this question in this post was removed.)  I asked the following question:

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question

… I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the meeting place for a new church plant’s meeting place.  What are the advantages of renting a place in:

1.) A store front-type location, vs.

2.) A church building that is in use by a different congregation, vs.

3.) A home?

In terms of #2, do you have any thoughts on a church property that is by a weak Baptist religious organization, vs. some other religious organization (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) or even a cult meeting house (Seventh-Day Adventists that do not use their building on the Lord’s Day)?

I am wondering if a neo-evangelical or even modernistic Baptist congregation that allowed a separatist Baptist church-plant to use its facility could end up confusing visitors to the new separatist church plant.  Certainly nobody would want people to end up joining a cult or becoming a Pentecostal by meeting in a church building of those religions, but perhaps the differences would be more obvious and that would be less likely than with a compromised Baptist congregation offering its meeting place (?)  I am wondering if many people would not be willing to meet in a home (although Biblically there is nothing wrong with it).

So any Biblical exegesis, application of Biblical principles, or other Biblically-based ideas you have would be appreciated.  Feel free to share this email with someone else if you think that that third party brother would have some good advice here. …

 

Church Planting Methodology:

Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1

Just my thoughts based on what I see in the Scriptures and what I have experienced. The place is not the main thing, but the assembly. Therefore, if you start assembling at your house that would be great, or another brother’s house, that is good. If you and the members decide to rent a facility, then, together as a church you can decide to do that and finance that as a church body (Amen). If you decide to rent a space (commercial space or have some type of agreement for a space with another “church” or religious entity – that too is fine (remember Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus – were places that facilitated a temporary meeting place for the churches) – then rent it out as a church, do your best NOT to assume the payment of the rent alone BUT function as a church body (rent it together as a church). THEN, if and when the Lord would add to your assembly – a more suitable and stable place could be acquired (again, at that point you will move on to a building – as a church body, purchasing the building, etc). I see no problem using a SDA building, space, or hotel conference room, nursing home lobby, library hall, community hall, etc. Religious or not. It is the assembly that matters – not the meeting place, per se.

 

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2

Hi,

I wouldn’t like renting a false religion place when it wasn’t meeting.  I would rather have the storefront.  Meeting in the home, I would do that too.

 

 Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3

Meeting in SDA building wasn’t really my original plan. But I’m in a market that is high priced with very few options, and it has worked. We don’t really have any contact with the SDAs here. Most of them are from Africa, as we have a large group of refugees/immigrants in [town]. We use their building on Sunday and for the most part it has worked. The positives are that it is a place to meet that usually is inexpensive, with very little setup, and we put signage out on Sundays to limit confusion. We also put our hymn books and some Bibles in the pews and remove theirs in setting up. We are also careful to leave things better than we found them. So we haven’t worn out our welcome.

As far as negatives, for the most part they keep things kinda tidy but there is often some clean up or cleaning to do before Sunday morning. Also, the building here is rather old.

I think the biggest challenge is communicating to people where your church is. I say clearly that we rent the 7th Day Building on Sundays. Or if we do advertising I put the address and underneath “also the SDA Building.”

Also depending upon how strict your SDA group is they might ask you to not serve pork if you have a meal there.

We have a different building where we try to do special functions like special meetings. We will have a Good Friday fellowship at the other venue. It provides a neutral place for people to invite friends to hear the gospel. Just an idea. We also do a turducken feast in November. Last year it brought over 40 visitors to hear the gospel. My point you don’t have to be limited by a building. We still use multiple locations. It’s not easy but is what we have to work with.

In the summer we do a lot outdoors BBQ’s (it is amazing who will show up for an hotdog and hamburger and some friendship), outreach and midweek Bible Study/prayer meetings.

Unfortunately, people do like an identity with a building. So that in itself is a negative; curb appeal is a big help in church planting but not always possible.

Lastly I will say that a large number of Baptist churches in [our state in the USA] used an SDA building in the beginning. Some had good experience some not. I know of one where some of the SDA members started attending the Baptist church and realized the error that they were being taught hence they lost their welcome. That’s not a bad thing; I try to always have a plan B. I think that if something like that happens God will provide for the next step.

On a personal note we are praising the Lord here. We have almost finished paying off the parsonage and property we have, so we are getting close to having our own building as the Lord provides.

 

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4

 

Just prayed that God would guide and direct you in this matter.

I think each option you listed can have its pros and cons depending on the community and culture of the people you are trying to reach.

A store front can be more visible, but it can often give the vibes of rinky-dink. It could also be a bit more pricey.

A church building that is used by another group can give off the feeling of being “churchy,” but it can put off some people that don’t want to go in a church building. I know of a church planter in [a place] that is using a 7th Day Adventist building. You could ask his opinion on how it is working … However, at the end of the day a building is just a building.

A home can be a good place to hold a Bible study, but I think in today’s culture it could put a great many people off. Have you considered something more neutral such as a community center, school function room, or something similar?

Some practical things to consider when seeking a place to rent:

– location, location, location: easy access, parking, will some people be put off by the surrounding area?

– facilities in the building: kitchen, disabled access, parking

– how long will you be able to meet in that location

When I was looking for a place to rent, I prayed about it and then just started calling different facilities to see where the open door might be. We had a fairly easy decision, because our current location was the only available place to rent.

When I sought the Lord about where to plant a church, I also considered the need of the area. Was there a gospel preaching church in the community? If so, were they active in evangelism and discipleship?

Various thoughts: within the bounds of Scripture, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from an assembly where they were faithfully ministering. Acts 12.  Paul adapted how he lived and ministered for the sake of the Gospel, 1 Cor 9:19-23. Paul immediately obeyed the Lord’s leading, Acts 16:10.

I trust God will make the way clear and plain for you.

 

Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5

Good morning … I have done all 3 of these.

You have some considerations…

  1. if you are looking to save money…the home is best.
  2.  If you are looking at most appealing for people to walk into off the street … another church building
  3.  If you are looking to start from scratch … I prefer Jesus’ model.

Win people one by one … meet in the house of the key man … man of peace. This will be the person who is the common connection between the ones you are working with and the home will be no problem because they all know this man.

Then keep reaching key men and meeting in different homes with those in that connection group.

Finally combine the groups once you have people saved and committed to following Christ. Now you look for a meeting place.

By far I prefer Jesus’ method … although I realize this is not the American way.

Hope it makes some sense.

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers

I appreciate the Baptist brethren in Christ who took the time to share these answers with me.  In relation to their responses, the following questions come up.

Are there issues about associations in relation to meeting in a place that pertains to a false religion?  It is true that Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus (mentioned in response #1) were not places associated with Christianity, but none of them were the Temple of Diana, either.  Solomon’s porch and the synagogues were associated with the God of Israel, while the school of Tyrannus was not associated with a specific false religion.  It looks like response #2 shares those concerns, in contrast to response #3, which is willing to meet in the building owned by a cult, the Seventh-Day Adventist “Church.”

Is there a difference between utilizing the meeting place of a cult (Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostalism) and the meeting place where there are disobedient brethren (non-separatist evangelicals)?  How much difference does it make if the people in the false religion, or the disobedient brethren, are around (Sunday meeting) or not (Sabbath worshippers)?  Does Paul preaching in synagogues after Christ had already established His church and turned away from Israel as His institution help answer this question?

How does the question of “curb appeal” factor in?  Scripture does not teach that one has to have a building at all, but does meeting in a building rather than a home relate to loving one’s neighbor as oneself?  How much of a factor is it that more people will be willing to visit in a church building than in a home?  Is that even true? (Response #4 suggests it is not necessarily the case).  How much of a factor is being “rinky-dink” (as response #4 brings up)?

Response #3 referred to the practices of a number of Baptist churches in that brother’s state.  What lessons can be learned from Baptist history on this question?  Response #3 also seemed to lean more towards a “go and invite to church” versus “Go ye into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15) philosophy.  How does the question of whether the assembly is a place geared to evangelize the lost, versus a place to edify and equip the saints so they can go into the world and preach to the lost (Ephesians 4:12), impact the question of a meeting place?  How is the question of a meeting place affected if a church is seeking to grow by making disciples who can knock on doors and evangelize themselves, versus a church having an emphasis on inviting many children into the building by giving them candy and toys, and inviting targeted groups of adults into the building with various special events and give-aways?

The point in response #4 about building facilities, such as parking, a kitchen, and disabled access are important.  I have no idea what laws and regulations relate to a church meeting in someone’s home.  Does the home need to be ADA compliant and have wheelchair access (for example)?  Does it need to have a certain number of fire extinguishers?

Response #4 also brought up the question of the surrounding area.  How do factors such as the crime rate, or racial demographics, impact a meeting place’s location?

How much of a factor is how long one plans to meet, in God’s sovereign timing, at a particular place?

Response #5 was the most different, and, it seems, was advocating something where the method had the most significance.  While responses #1-4 expressed a variety of levels of agreement and disagreement, in general the idea was that the location was not all that important (with the exception of some responses arguing that one should not meet in the building of a false religion).  However, response #5 is arguing that a specific model is found in the ministry of the Lord Jesus.  Who would want to do something other than what Christ did?

In relation to response #5, reference was made to Luke 10:6-7:

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Does this verse prove that we should be looking for a key man in whose house a church plant should meet?  The passage refers to Christ sending out 70 disciples to evangelize Israel.  Were churches established in these places, and, if not, how does that affect the application of this passage?  Are there dispensational factors here we need to consider?  Does the pattern change from the Gospels into Acts and the Epistles?  Do we see the evangelists in Acts looking for a “son of peace” in this way?  In light of the broad use of the Biblical “son of” language, how much should we conclude from the “son of peace” language?  Is there a difference between simply preaching to “every creature” (Mark 16:15) and focusing on reaching key men?  Are they inclusive of each other or exclusive, and to what degree the one or the other?  In a big city can we be seeking to reach “every creature,” yet meeting in a home not be an issue, because everyone coming to church knows the “son of peace”?

 

Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?

What do you think?  How should church planting ministry be undertaken?

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives