Home » Articles posted by Kent Brandenburg (Page 32)

Author Archives: Kent Brandenburg

Evan Roberts: Enemy of the Welsh Revival, Part 20 of 22

November 30, 2018 / 1 Comment on Evan Roberts: Enemy of the Welsh Revival, Part 20 of 22

The content of this post is now available in the study of:

2.) The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905

on the faithsaves.net website. Please click on the people above to view the study. On the FaithSaves website the PDF files may be easiest to read.

You are also encouraged to learn more about Keswick theology and its errors, as well as the Biblical doctrine of salvation, at the soteriology page at Faithsaves.

WHAT IS TRUTH SABBATICAL

November 23, 2018 / 7 Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH SABBATICAL

First, please read Thomas Ross’s post below and the second post when it comes out. It’s very good and helpful. I don’t want you to miss because of this very, very small post.

I’m going on a sabbatical in writing here at What Is Truth. I might spend some time with an index for the posts and finally publish that index (which I’ve already started), but for an undetermined amount of time, I will not be writing here. I welcome Thomas Ross to continue posting on Friday, but I won’t for awhile, I don’t know how long. The blog will stay alive and I reserve the right for starting it up again. There is enough for someone to keep busy for awhile without my writing one single post.

There are several reasons I’m taking this extended break. One, is to show that I don’t have to write here. It’s not something I have to do. I believe I was doing it to help, and I know it has helped based on the feedback I’ve been given. If what I’ve written is the truth, then I’ve helped people. However, it isn’t something I’m required to do or have to do. It is not what defines me. Second, I know there are people that would rather I would not write, who I care about, so I’m honoring them by not writing for an unspecified period of time.

Thank you for reading and for your support.

The Testimonies of Josephus to Jesus Christ Vindicated, part 1 of 2

November 23, 2018 / 2 Comments on The Testimonies of Josephus to Jesus Christ Vindicated, part 1 of 2

Josephus refers to the Lord Jesus Christ in two passages in his Antiquities. A brief mention of the Savior appears in a context where Josephus narrates the events surrounding the death of James, the brother of Christ:

[Ananus] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ [Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ], whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20.9.1)

This text is recognized as authentic by the “overwhelming majority of scholars” (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Robert E. Van Voorst, pg. 84). Josephus also refers to the Lord Jesus in a second and more extensive passage:

Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, but those who had first loved him did not cease doing so. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having prophesied these and myriad other things about him. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared. (Antiquities 18.3.3)

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρῶτων ἀνδῶν παρʼ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες. ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταυτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

This latter passage was recognized as authentic for the large majority of church history, but it is questioned today by many, although it has been defended as authentic by both conservative and liberal scholars. There are good reasons to believe that the passage, in its entirety, is authentic. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I reprint below the (out of copyright) argument for authenticity from the most widely printed edition of Josephus today, that translated by William Whiston (The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, ed. William Whiston, pgs. 815-823):

DISSERTATION 1

THE TESTIMONIES OF JOSEPHUS CONCERNING JESUS CHRIST, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES THE JUST, VINDICATED

Since we meet with several important testimonies in Josephus, the Jewish historian, concerning John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus of Nazareth, concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself, and concerning James the Just the brother of Jesus of Nazareth; and since the principal testimony, which is that concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself, has of late been greatly questioned by many, and rejected by some of the learned as spurious, it will be fit for me, who have ever declared my firm belief that these testimonies were genuine, to set down fairly some of the original evidence and citations I have met with in the first fifteen centuries concerning them; and then to make proper observations upon that evidence, for the reader’s more complete satisfaction.

But before I produce the citations themselves out of Josephus, give me leave to prepare the reader’s attention, by setting down the sentiments of perhaps the most learned person and the most competent judge, that ever was, as to the authority of Josephus, I mean of Joseph Scaliger, in the Prolegomena to his book De Emendatione; Temporum, p. 17. “Josephus is the most diligent and the greatest lover of truth of all writers; nor are we afraid to affirm of him, that it is more safe to believe him, not only as to the affairs of the Jews, but also as to those that are foreign to them, than all the Greek and Latin writers; and this, because his fidelity and his compass of learning are everywhere conspicuous.”

THE ANCIENT CITATIONS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF JOSEPHUS, FROM HIS OWN TIME TILL THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

About a.d. 110. Tacit. Annal. 15.44.—Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, [as if he himself had set Rome on fire], ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar Christians: these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator.

About a.d. 147. Just. Mart. Dialog cum Tryph. p. 230.—You Jews knew that Jesus was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies did foretell was to happen.

About a.d. 230. Origen Comment in Matt. p. 234.—This James was of so shining a character among the people, on account of his righteousness, that Flavius Josephus, when, in his twentieth book of the Jewish Antiquities, he had a mind to set down what was the cause, why the people suffered such miseries, till the very holy house was demolished, he said, that these things befell them by the anger of God, on account of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ; and wonderful it is, that while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless bear witness that James was so righteous a man. He says farther, that the people thought they had suffered these things for the sake of James.

About a.d. 250. Id. Contr. Cels. 1.35–36.—I would say to Celsus, who personates a Jew, that admitted of John the Baptist, and how he baptized Jesus, that one who lived but a little while after John and Jesus, wrote, how that John was a baptizer unto the remission of sins; for Josephus testifies, in the eighteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities, that John was the Baptist; and that he promised purification to those that were baptized. The same Josephus also, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, when he was inquiring after the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the demolition of the temple, and ought to have said that their machinations against Jesus were the cause of those miseries coming on the people, because they had slain that Christ who was foretold by the prophets, he, though as it were unwillingly and yet as one not remote from the truth, says, “these miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ; because they had slain him who was a most righteous person.” Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother [Gal. 1:19]; which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said that it happened for the sake of Jesus? etc.

About a.d. 324. Euseb. Demonstr. Evan. 3.124. Certainly, the attestation of those I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a farther witness; who, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, when he was writing the history of what happened under Pilate, makes mention of our Savior in these words:—“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as had a veneration for truth. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared unto them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had spoken of these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him: whence the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” If therefore we have his historian’s testimony, that he not only brought over to himself the twelve apostles, with the seventy disciples, but many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also, he must manifestly have had somewhat in him extraordinary, above the rest of mankind; for how otherwise could he draw over so many of the Jews and of the Gentiles, unless he performed admirable and amazing works, and used a method of teaching that was not common? Moreover, the scripture of the Acts of the Apostles (21:20) bears witness, that there were many ten thousands of Jews, who were persuaded that he was the Christ of God, who was foretold by the prophets.

About a.d. 330. Id. Hist. Eccles. 1.11. Now the divine scripture of the Gospels makes mention of John the Baptist as having his head cut off by the younger Herod. Josephus also concurs in his history, and makes mention of Herodias by name, as the wife of his brother, whom Herod had married, upon divorcing his former lawful wife. She was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petrean Arabians; and which Herodias he had parted from her husband while he was alive; on which account also when he had slain John, he made war with Aretas [Aretas made war with him], because his daughter had been used dishonorably: in which war, when it came to a battle, he says, that all Herod’s army was destroyed; and that he suffered this because of his wicked contrivance against John. Moreover the same Josephus, by acknowledging John to have been a most righteous man, and the Baptist, conspires in his testimony with what is written in the Gospels. He also relates, that Herod lost his kingdom for the sake of the same Herodias, together with whom he was himself condemned to be banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul; and this is his account in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes this of John verbatim:—Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and one that commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism, for that by this means the washing [with water] would appear acceptable to him, when they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only],—but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly delighted in hearing his words, Herod was afraid that this so great power of persuading men might tend to some sedition or other, for they seemed to be disposed to do everything he should advise them to, so he supposed it better to prevent any attempt for a mutation from him, by cutting him off, than after any such mutation should be brought about, and the public should suffer, to repent [of such negligence]. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.”—When Josephus had said this of John, he makes mention also of our Savior in the same history after this manner:—“Now there was about this time, one Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him: for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold them and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him: and still the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” And since this writer, sprung from the Hebrews themselves, hath delivered these things above in his own work, concerning John the Baptist and our Savior, what room is there for any farther evasion? etc.

Now James was so wonderful a person, and was so celebrated by all others for righteousness, that the judicious Jews thought this to have been the occasion of that siege of Jerusalem, which came on presently after his martyrdom; and that it befell them for no other reason than that impious fact they were guilty of against him. Josephus therefore did not refuse to attest thereto in writing, by the words following:—“These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ, on account that they had slain him who was a most righteous person.”

The same Josephus declares the manner of his death in the twentieth book of the Antiquities, in these words:—“Caesar sent Albinus into Judea to be procurator, when he had heard that Festus was dead. Now Ananus, junior, who, as we said, had been admitted to the high priesthood, was in his temper bold and daring in an extraordinary manner. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are more savage in judgment than any of the other Jews, as we have already signified. Since therefore this was the character of Ananus, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority], because Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembles the sanhedrin of Judges, and brings before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others [of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them, as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and those who were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done could not be justified,” etc.

About a.d. 360. Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym. 2.12.—We have discovered that it was the opinion and belief of the Jews, as Josephus affirms (who is an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself), that Herod lost his army, not by the deceit of men but by the anger of God, and that justly, as an effect of revenge for what he did to John the Baptist, a just man, who had said to him, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus:—“That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him; from whom began the congregation of Christians, and hath penetrated among all sorts of men: nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world which continues strangers to his religion.” If the Jews do not believe us let them at least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he has an unbeliever, and unwilling this should be true, he has not denied it to be so.

About a.d. 400. Hieronym de. Vir. Illustr, in Josepho.—Josephus in the eighteenth book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles; and that John the Baptist was truly a prophet; and thatJerusalem was demolished on account of the slaughter of James the apostle. Now, he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner:—“At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles:—he was believed to be Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding, those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

About a.d. 410. Isidorus Pelusiot, the Scholar of Chrysostom, 4.225.—There was one Josephus, a Jew of the greatest reputation, and one that was zealous of the law; one also that paraphrased the Old Testament with truth, and, acted valiantly for the Jews, and had showed that their settlement was nobler than can be described by words. Now since he made their interest give place to truth, for he would not support the opinion of impious men, I think it necessary to set down his words. What then does he say? “Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these, and a vast number of other wonderful things concerning him: and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Now I cannot but wonder greatly at this great man’s love of truth in many respects, but chiefly where he says, “Jesus was a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure.”

About a.d. 440. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. 1.1.—Now Josephus, the son of Matthias, a priest, a man of very great note, both among the Jews and the Romans, may well be a witness of credit as to the truth of Christ’s history; for he scruples to call him a man as being a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of the words of truth. He names him Christ openly; and is not ignorant that he was condemned to the cross, and appeared on the third day alive, and that ten thousand other wonderful things were foretold of him by the divine prophets. He testifies also, that those whom he drew over to him, being many of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, continued to love him; and that the tribe named from him was not then extinct. Now he seems to me by this his relation almost to proclaim that Christ is God. However, he appears to have been so affected with the strangeness of the thing, as to run, as it were, in a sort of middle way, so as not to put any indignity upon believers on him, but rather to afford his suffrage to them.

About a.d. 510. Cassiodorus Hist. Tripartit. e Sozomeno.—Now Josephus, the son of Matthias, and a priest, a man of great nobility among the Jews, and of great dignity among the Romans, shall be a truth of Christ’s history: for he dares not call him a man, as a doer of famous works, and a teacher of true doctrines: he names him Christ openly; and is not ignorant that he was condemned to the cross, and appeared on the third day alive, and that an infinite number of other wonderful things were foretold of him by the holy prophets. Moreover, he testifies also that there were then alive many whom he had chosen, both Greeks and Jews, and that they continued to love him; and that the sect which was named from him was by no means extinct at that time.

About a.d. 640. Chron. Alex. p. 514.—Now Josephus also relates in his eighteenth book of Antiquities, how John the Baptist, that holy man, was beheaded on account of Herodias, the wife of Philip, the brother of Herod himself; for Herod had divorced his former wife, who was still alive, and had been his lawful wife: she was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petreans. When therefore Herod had taken Herodias away from her husband, while he was yet alive (on whose account he slew John also), Aretas made war against Herod, because his daughter had been dishonorably treated. In which war he says, that all Herod’s army was destroyed, and that he suffered that calamity because of the wickedness he had been guilty of against John. The same Josephus relates, that Herod lost his kingdom on account of Herodias, and that with her he was banished to Lyons, etc.

P. 526–27.] Now that our Savior taught his preaching three years, is demonstrated both by other necessary reasonings, as also out of the holy Gospels, and out of Josephus’s writings, who was a wise man among the Hebrews, etc.

P. 584, 586.] Josephus relates, in the fifth book of the [Jewish] War, that Jerusalem was taken in the third [second] year of Vespasian, as after forty years since they had dared to put Jesus to death: in which time he says, that James, the brother of our Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, was thrown down [from the temple] and slain of them, by stoning.

About a.d. 740. Anastasius Abbas contr. Jud.—Now Josephus, an author and writer of your own, says of Christ, that he was a just and good man, showed and declared so to be by divine grace, who gave aid to many by signs and miracles.

About a.d. 790. Georgius Syncellus Chron. p. 339.—These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ, on the account that they had slain him who was a most righteous person. Now as Ananus, a person of that character, thought he had a proper opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembles the sanhedrin of judges, and brings before them James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and some of his companions, and when he had formed an accusation against them, as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those that seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and those that were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the king [Agrippa] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done could not be justified, etc.

About a.d. 850. Johan. Malela Chron. 10.—From that time began the destruction of the Jews, as Josephus, the philosopher of the Jews, hath written; who also said this. That from the time the Jews crucified Christ, who was a good and righteous man (that is, if it be fit to call such a one a man, and not God), the land of Judea was never free from trouble. These things the same Josephus the Jew has related in his writings.

About ad. 860. Photius Cod. 48.—I have read the treatise of Josephus About the Universe, whose title I have elsewhere read to be Of the Substance of the Universe. It is contained in two very small treatises. He treats of the origin of the world in a brief manner. However, he speaks of the divinity of Christ, who is our true God, in a way very like to what we use, declaring that the same name of Christ belongs to him, and writes of his ineffable generation of the Father after such a manner as cannot be blamed; which things may perhaps raise a doubt in some, whether Josephus was the author of the work, though the phraseology does not at all differ from this man’s other works. However, I have found in some papers, that this discourse was not written by Josephus, but by one Caius, a presbyter.

Cod. 238.—Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee and of Perea, the son of Herod the Great, fell in love, as Josephus says, with the wife of his brother Philip, whose name was Herodias, who was the granddaughter of Herod the Great, by his son Aristobulus, whom he had slain. Agrippa was also her brother. Now Herod took her away from her husband, and married her. This is he that slew John the Baptist, that great man, the forerunner [of Christ], being afraid (as Josephus says) lest he should raise a sedition among his people; for they all followed the directions of John, on account of the excellency of his virtue. In his time was the passion of our Savior.

Cod. 33.—I have read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. He omits the greatest part of what was most necessary to be related; but, as infected with Jewish prejudices, being also himself a Jew by birth, he makes no mention at all of the advent, or of the acts done, or of the miracles wrought, by Christ.

The time uncertain. Macarius in Actis Sanctorum, 5.149. ap. Fabric. Joseph. p. 61.—Josephus, a priest of Jerusalem, and one that wrote with truth the history of the Jewish affairs, bears witness that Christ, the true God, was incarnate, and crucified, and the third day rose again; whose writings are reposited in the public library. Thus he says:—“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also; this was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first, did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and still the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Since, therefore, the writer of the Hebrews has engraven this testimony concerning our Lord and Savior in his own books, what defense can there remain for the unbelievers?

About a.d. 980. Suidas in voce Iēsous.—We have found Josephus, who hath written about the taking of Jerusalem (of whom Eusebius Pamphilii makes frequent mention in his Ecclesiastical History), saying openly in his Memoirs of the Captivity, that Jesus officiated in the temple with the priests. Thus have we found Josephus saying, a man of ancient times, and not very long after the apostles, etc.

About a.d. 1060. Cedrenus Compend. Histor. p. 196.—Josephus does indeed write concerning John the Baptist as follows—Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that he was punished very justly for what punishment he had inflicted on John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both by righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. But as concerning Christ, the same Josephus says, that about that time there was Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure: for that Christ drew over many even from the Gentiles; whom when Pilate had crucified, those who at first had loved him did not leave off to preach concerning him, for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had testified, and spoke these and other wonderful things concerning him.

About a.d. 1080. Theophylact. in Joan 13.—The city of the Jews was taken, and the wrath of God was kindled against them; as also Josephus witnesses, that this came upon them on account of the death of Jesus.

About a.d. 1120. Zonaras Annal. 1.267.—Josephus, in the eighteenth book of Antiquities, writes thus concerning our Lord and God Jesus Christ;—Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

About a.d. 1120. Glycus Annal. p. 234.—Then did Philo, that wise man, and Josephus, flourish. This last was styled The Lover of Truth, because he commended John, who baptized our Lord; and because he bore witness that Christ, in like manner, was a wise man, and the doer of great miracles; and that, when he was crucified, he appeared the third day.

About a.d. 1170. Gotfridus Viterbiensis Chron. p. 366. e Vers. Rufini.—Josephus relates that a very great war arose between Aretas, king of the Arabians, and Herod, on account of the sin which Herod had committed against John. Moreover, the same Josephus writes thus concerning Christ: There was at this time Jesus, a wise man, if at least it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as willingly hear truth. He also drew over to him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was Christ. And when Pilate, at the accusation of the principal men of our nation, had decreed that he should be crucified, those that had loved him from the beginning did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, according to what the divinely inspired prophets had foretold, that these and innumerable other miracles should come to pass about him. Moreover, both the name and sect of Christians, who were named from him, continue in being unto this day.

About a.d. 1360. Nicephorus Callistus Hist. Eccles. 1.90–91.—Now this [concerning Herod the tetrarch] is attested to, not only by the book of the holy Gospels, but by Josephus, that lover of truth; who also makes mention of Herodias his brother’s wife, whom Herod had taken away from him while he was alive, and married her; having divorced his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petrean Arabians. This Herodias he had married, and lived with her; on which account also, when he had slain John, he made war with Aretas, because his daughter had been dishonorably used; in which war he relates that all Herod’s army was destroyed, and that he suffered this on account of the most unjust slaughter of John. He also adds, that John was a most righteous man. Moreover, he makes mention of his baptism, agreeing in all points thereto relating with the Gospel. He also informs us, that Herod lost his kingdom on account of Herodias, with whom also he was condemned to be banished to Vienna, which was their place of exile, and a city bordering upon Gaul, and lying near the utmost bounds of the west.

About a.d. 1450. Hardmannus Schedelius Chron. p. 110.—Josephus the Jew, who was called Flavius, a priest, and the son of Matthias, a priest of that nation, a most celebrated historian, and very skillful in many things; he was certainly a good man, and of an excellent character, who had the highest opinion of Christ.

About a.d. 1480. Platina de Vitis Pontificum’ in Christo.—I shall avoid mentioning what Christ did until the 30th year of his age, when he was baptized by John, the son of Zacharias, because not only the Gospels and Epistles are full of those acts of his, which he did in the most excellent and most holy manner, but the books of such as were quite remote from his way of living, and acting, and ordaining, are also full of the same. Flavius Josephus himself, who wrote twenty books of Jewish antiquities in the Greek tongue, when he had proceeded as far as the government of the emperor, Tiberius, says. There was in those days Jesus, a certain wise man, if at least it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of men, of such especially as willingly hear the truth. On this account he drew over to him many, both of the Jews and Gentiles:—he was Christ. But when Pilate, instigated by the principal men of our nation, had decreed that he should be crucified, yet did not those that had loved him from the beginning forsake him; and besides, he appeared to them the third day after his death alive, as the divinely inspired prophets had foretold, that these and innumerable other miracles should come to pass about him and the famous name of Christians, taken from him, as well as their sect, do still continue in being.

The same Josephus also affirms, That John the Baptist, a true prophet, and on that account one that was had in esteem by all men, was slain by Herod, the son of Herod the Great, a little before the death of Christ, in the castle of Macherus,—not because he was afraid for himself and his kingdom, as the same author says,—but because he had incestuously married Herodias, the sister of Agrippa, and the wife of that excellent person his brother Philip.

About a.d. 1480. Trithemius Abbas de Scriptor. Eccles.—Josephus the Jew, although he continued to be a Jew, did frequently commend the Christians; and in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, wrote down an eminent testimony concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.

TDR

Jesus Isn’t a Rorschach

November 21, 2018 / 1 Comment on Jesus Isn’t a Rorschach

The Rorschach Test is named after Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach and it involves inkblots. The inkblots are sufficiently ambiguous for someone to see whatever he wants to see in them. I doubt the reliability of the test itself, but I use it now for its illustrative value, because people treat Jesus like a Rorschach Test, that is, Jesus is Himself sufficiently ambiguous to see whatever Jesus one wants to see in Him.

An actual Jesus most reject. However, an inkblot sort of Jesus, that allows someone to see the Jesus he wants — that Jesus would be acceptable. We do understand Jesus in our imaginations. We know Him in our minds, also called our hearts in the Bible. What we know is real or concrete with definite boundaries. Another way of saying that is “He is Who He is.” When He is turned into someone or something else, He isn’t Jesus anymore.

People are more comfortable with an inkblot Jesus upon whom they can see what they want. He gives them what they want. He makes them feel how they want. They accept him, even if he isn’t actual Jesus. Since Jesus died, was buried, rose- again, and ascended into Heaven, this has been a problem. People impose on Jesus Who they want Him to be. In that sense, He becomes their servant, delivering to them a Jesus who is satisfactory to them. They think their personal perception of Jesus is Jesus. Paul wrote about this in 2 Corinthians 11:34:

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

He says “your minds should be corrupted.” People prefer a malleable Jesus, who they can turn into whatever they want him to be in their minds. They accept him, and he saves them, also in their minds, even if he isn’t Jesus. He gives them a false sense of security.

The interpretation of the Rorschach Jesus is shaped in the imagination by various means, including entertainment, recreation, and music. He is not shaped by a thorough exposition of scripture. He is formed by varied means and false teaching or the acceptance of a counterfeit Jesus by others. They might see something He isn’t, but the toleration of variations of him bolster the error.

Subjects view the same inkblot and they see two humans, a four-legged animal, a dog, an elephant, or a bear. No one is corrected. Whatever they see can’t be wrong. The perception should be accepted without criticism. There isn’t anything specific in the inkblot. It is designed to provide ample ambiguity for a range of perception. Jesus is treated the same way today by the world and now by evangelicalism. The only problem are those who require specificity and condemn for insufficient limitations on the true Jesus. He should be a craft or vessel in which to pour whatever it is someone needs him to be, which is the beauty of him. He doesn’t have to be one thing. He can be what you want or what you need in your own imagination.

A great threat exists for the corruption of thinking. The unbeliever under the wrath of God has a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28). Paul calls certain unbelieving men “of corrupt minds” (2 Timothy 3:8) and “men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness” (1 Timothy 6:5). For this reason, the epistle contain regular prayer concerning what someone “knows.” Paul writes to the Ephesians (1:15-20, bold print mine for emphasis):

Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.

The brunt of Paul’s prayer is that those members of the church of Ephesus would have knowledge through revelation and have the eyes of their understanding enlightened so that they would know certain things (what and what and what). For them not to know rightly was intolerable for him. His prayer centered on their knowledge, in a major way because that’s how they could become messed up the most in their lives. Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:2-3 (bold mine for emphasis):

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.

The wrong or false or lack of knowledge risks grace and peace and all things that pertain unto life and godliness. For salvation, someone needs the knowledge of Jesus our Lord and receives salvation through the knowledge of him. If someone doesn’t have the knowledge of Him, the right knowledge of Him, or sufficient knowledge of Him, he easily could be left in a lost condition, even while thinking he is already acceptable. This is how someone is deceived. Very often, a person convinced of partial truth is inoculated against all of the truth.

How does Jesus become a Rorschach? I will deal with one, even though I touched on several means above that are also worth exploring. A chief means is conforming the Jesus of the imagination into one’s own lust. This is a message of 2 Peter. Men walk after their own lusts and then conform Jesus or the entire Godhead to what they want Jesus or God to be. Every false worshiper shapes God into his own lust. In so doing, he isn’t serving God, but himself (cf. Romans 1:25).

A man knows he is in trouble. He knows death is coming. At the same time, he wants what he wants. He loves himself. He needs Jesus for the former, but the true Jesus clashes with the latter. The Rorschach Jesus works, except that He isn’t Jesus, so He doesn’t really work at all.

Editions of the TR Argument and Excellent Preservation Versus Perfect Preservation

November 19, 2018 / 6 Comments on Editions of the TR Argument and Excellent Preservation Versus Perfect Preservation

Mark Ward says he “won’t argue textual criticism with those who insist on the exclusive use of the King James Version,” but he really is arguing with them, against what he says he won’t do. He argues at his blog for what he calls “excellent preservation” versus what he says is “perfect preservation.” If you google “perfect preservation of scripture,” the entire first page of links has my name and our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, in some fashion.

The “perfect preservation” view is a name I gave to the biblical and historical view of the preservation of scripture, coining the terminology. Ward won’t talk to me directly, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t arguing with me. I am saying right here and now that I would welcome a public debate with Mark Ward about perfect preservation of scripture.

If Ward is going to debate perfect preservation, he should debate the actual view instead of the strawman, which is what he and others present. I have to think they know they are doing it, which would be to call them dishonest or they just don’t care. I want to give the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve answered this over and over. This is also where the common question from those of the eclectic text view enters, the question of “which TR edition”? (TR = Greek textus receptus New Testament).

Ward ends his post by writing, “Please tone down the rhetoric. And let us know which TR has every jot and tittle, no more and no less.” His strawman is not the perfect preservation view, and this isn’t a dodge. We have written an entire book and I have written here so many posts that answer that question, it’s hard to say how many. People criticize me for having written so much, but it’s no wonder, when the same strawmen are repeated so often (here are examples of answering: one, two, three, four, five, six, and many more).

Ward and others conflate the very few differences between the TR editions into an eclectic text position, as if the modern textual critics believe the same as those who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). This isn’t true. Again, this seems like a knowing or purposeful lie. The men of the WCF believed in perfect preservation. Like any and every believer in the perfect preservation of scripture, they also knew there were variations in manuscripts of the New Testament. Variations in individual manuscripts do not contradict the doctrine of perfect preservation. The founders of modern textual criticism and the critical or eclectic text did not believe in perfection preservation, did not start with any scriptural presuppositions at all regarding the doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Leaving this information out is what makes it a dishonest explanation. At the very end of his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (p. 541), Muller makes this very interesting statement that is tell-tale for today:

All too much discussion of the Reformers’ methods has attempted to turn them into precursors of the modern critical method, when in fact, the developments of exegesis and hermeneutics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries both precede and, frequently conflict with (as well as occasionally adumbrate) the methods of the modern era.

Scrivener published an annotated Greek New Testament that showed the differences between TR editions. This is known and was known. It’s nothing anyone is covering up. I’ve owned that New Testament all the time I’ve been a pastor. Ward’s point is that the scriptural teaching of perfect preservation required a fulfillment in one printed edition of the TR. He then comes at this in reverse, essentially a naturalistic view. The lack of homogeneity between TR editions means that perfect preservation didn’t happen, necessitating a different view on preservation, what he calls or coins, “excellent preservation.” Excellent preservation veers off what the Bible teaches in favor of the external evidence of textual variants.

Scripture teaches verbal plenary inspiration. It also teaches verbal, plenary preservation. What God inspired He preserved. This is perfect preservation. Ward says you can believe in preservation of scripture without believing in preservation of scripture and he does this by saying that “excellent preservation” is preservation. What is “excellent preservation”? It’s hard to put a finger on that, because scripture doesn’t teach that position. It’s like trying to argue how many sins one must commit to be a sinner. One. One error isn’t perfect any more. Is excellent ten, twenty, a hundred? It’s not the view taught by the Bible, so it is faithless. Maybe this is the rhetoric Ward says needs to be toned down, but I’m using biblical terminology to describe what I am seeing. I’m not trying to offend, but to hit at the brunt of the issue.

Ward wants those who do not believe in perfect preservation to be given credit for not denying the preservation of scripture. He denies the preservation of scripture, based on reasoning of the following two sentences:

[Y]ou’re not going to find a Bible verse or a sufficiently clear act of providence to give you what you demand—or tell you where to find it. The TRs themselves are divided in places.

Ward defies historical biblical exposition and theology. Christians have believed we do have Bible verses on preservation. There are actually many more preservation verses that yield the doctrine of preservation more than inspiration. Men have stopped believing the verses because of “evidence,” and now they saying there are none. It is revisionist history from Ward and those like him.

It is Ward’s opinion that there is no “sufficiently clear act of providence” to get perfect preservation. This speaks to the basis of his position, his opinion. What “sufficiently clear act of providence” is there for 66 books? Really. How do we know James is in the Bible? Galatians? If it’s in the Bible, it’s got to be true. The providence comes in many different ways, and this has been acknowledged by Christians through church history.

God preserved every word. The few differences between TR editions doesn’t void that. The words of the TR were preserved and available for hundreds of years before the critical text. I dealt with Ward’s argument about TR editions at the many links I provided above.

What are the boundaries of “excellent preservation”? Versus “perfect preservation”? The ‘beauty’ of excellent preservation is the ambiguity. Over the years, I have often mentioned driving the mack truck through the gap that is created by the ambiguity. How messed up does an orthodox view of scripture become? It’s the right thing to do and for sure the best thing to do to deal with messiness after one has established he believes in perfect preservation. God preserved every Word. He said it. We should acknowledge it.

Okay, so what’s so serious about this? Ward talks like it shouldn’t be a big deal. I want him and others like him to understand, so I’m going to enumerate the list of why it is serious. I think they already know, but I want to make sure.

God said He would preserve every one of His Words and we should believe Him, because He doesn’t lie.
When God says He would preserve every one of His Words and we teach and spread that He didn’t, that attacks and diminishes faith, which affects the faith necessary to be saved.
Verbal plenary inspiration loses its value if we don’t have what was inspired.
Doubt about the words affects certainty, which affects authority and then obedience — we don’t want to lessen certainty, authority, or obedience.
The church has believed in the perfect preservation of scripture and not believing it overturns historic, orthodox church doctrine — through the history of Christian doctrine, this has been the definition of heresy.
When scripture is changed, doctrines change, since doctrine comes from the Words.
All of the above affects churches, which makes them less effective at all of what they do.
The doctrine of preservation itself is attacked and then not kept, which churches are to keep.

Here is the Word of God, which is the essence of purity. The standard is Words. It is essentially the measure that people have for purity on about anything. I took a bite into some cake last week and had only one hair in it. That isn’t pure. That isn’t excellent. Who are we to call something excellent that isn’t perfect, if God is the One Who said He would preserve it?

The Trip to Europe Continued (Nineteenth Post In Total)

November 18, 2018 / Leave a comment

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve Thirteen Fourteen Fifteen Sixteen Seventeen Eighteen

My wife, two youngest daughters, and I did a Rome walk on June 13, 2018, the late afternoon and evening we arrived in Rome, Italy. The idea was the heart of Rome walk of travel expert, Rick Steves. After eating supper, as I reported in our last post, we started at Campo de’ Fiori with the statue of Giordano Bruno, who died here, burnt at the stake.

I would call Camp de’ Fiori a trashy outdoor market. We were introduced here to street sellers we did not see in Venice. A big African-Italian man confronted us in a friendly way to tie little woven strings around our wrists as we said, “No, I don’t want one.” He smiled and kept tying the string, engaging in happy, broken English with a hint of violence. You would want him to stay happy, so you let him keep tying. He wants money. I gave him something worth the peacefulness.

The fact that there are regular armed police and soldiers everywhere seems to avoid the worst of the hoi polloi. Lots of grungy looking people are sitting around all over, and especially all around the statue of Bruno, who Steves says represents the spirit of Campo de’ Fiori. He died at the hands of Roman Catholicism for bucking the system. All those bucking the system gather there in happiness to be free thinkers. I would say its not going well for them.

Steves says that at the spot of the building right to the left behind the statue (in the picture) is where Julius Caesar was killed, the site atop the ancient Theater of Pompey.

Next in the walk is Piazza Navona. The streets are narrow leading there, something like those in Venice. What’s amazing about this piazza is the three fountains and then the architecture of the buildings around the square, especially Sant’Agnese in Agone, the work of the Italian architect, Francesco Borromini.

The Rick Steves walking tour includes an app for your phone that gives a description of the main points along the walk, and we paused at each fountain to listen to his explanations before moving on through the narrow walkways. Along the route to the next major site is the actual Italian Senate building at the Palazzo Madama. We stopped there long enough for a picture, but it is a site to behold as one turns the next corner, because there is one of the most astounding buildings in all of Rome, the Roman Pantheon, which was completed in 126AD. It was built as a temple to Roman gods and it stands right in the middle of the city as one of the best preserved pieces of ancient Rome. We couldn’t go in that evening — it was already closed — but it was breathtaking from the outside. We went inside two days later, and I’ll tell you about it then.

Coffee was the most excellent in Italy and especially in Rome. On the path away from the Pantheon to the next main stop was the La Casa Del Caffè Tazza D’oro. This coffee shop apparently was the. model for the Starbucks, as the New Yorker explains:

Howard Schultz, who created Starbucks after a revelatory trip to Italy in 1983 convinced him that the Italian coffee cultured could be transplanted to Seattle.

Our last two stops, close together, for the evening, because it was getting late, was the front of the Italian Parliament building at Palazzo Montecitorio. In front of it is the Obelisk of Montecitorio, which might be the oldest thing in Rome. The obelisk was brought to Rome in 10BC by Caesar Augustus from a conquest in Egypt, and it dates to close to 600BC. Then around the corner is another impressive column, the thirty meter high Marcus Aurelius Column,
Colonna di Marco Aurelio. On the column is a relief that tells the story of Aurelius’s successful Danubian wars. Once on the top was Aurelius, which was replaced by a statue of the Apostle Paul in 1589 after Christian saturation of Rome. A lot of pagan Roman sites were Christianized after Roman Catholicism took over.

We caught the bus home and saw the Colosseum at night, which they keep all lit up. It was spectacular. We hadn’t seen the Colosseum yet, and it was so amazing that we weren’t even sure it was the Colosseum. We would visit there the next day.

Evan Roberts & Ecumenical Feminism, Part 19 of 22

November 16, 2018 / Leave a comment

The content of this post is now available in the study of:

1.) Evan Roberts

2.) The Welsh Revival of 1904-1905

3.) Jessie Penn-Lewis

on the faithsaves.net website. Please click on the people above to view the study. On the FaithSaves website the PDF files may be easiest to read.

You are also encouraged to learn more about Keswick theology and its errors, as well as the Biblical doctrine of salvation, at the soteriology page at Faithsaves.

There Are Two Sides, You Have To Choose One, Not Straddle Both, And This Has To Do With Everything

November 14, 2018 / 2 Comments on There Are Two Sides, You Have To Choose One, Not Straddle Both, And This Has To Do With Everything

The Lord Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:24:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Related to this is something the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:22-23:

For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Furthermore from Paul comes Romans 6:16:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

From these three passages or verses we get some basic, simple truths for all of life.

To put everything above together, every person has one master or lord, just one, and he is a slave to one or the other. He cannot love them both. He loves only one of the two and then hates the other. If the master is Christ, then He is owner, based on the reality that he bought the person. The slave obeys His master, whichever one it is. Obedience will occur one way or the other. This obedience to the master is yielding to the particular master, whichever one.

A person chooses his master or lord. If he chooses Jesus as his Lord, this is faith. He believes in Jesus. The belief is a belief in reward or goodness (Rom 2:4; Heb 11:6). If someone doesn’t think he will be better off, he will not choose that master. For Jesus, it is a matter of faith, based on evidence (Heb 11:1-3). God’s Word is true, so someone can trust what it says about his present and future. He turns from the other direction, what would be an idol, to Jesus Christ.

Satan and the world system interacts with someone’s flesh to persuade him to take a different master than Jesus Christ. The world offers someone things that seem like a lot to a person, feigning competition with God. Paul calls it dung, whether it be possessions, positions, passions, or popularity (Philip 3:8). The trade is nothing for everything, which is why Jesus said (Mark 8:36):

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

A person loses everything the world offers. It is short term only. Even then it doesn’t satisfy, which is why Solomon said it was all vanity. It is about volume. More and more. Enough is never enough.

The choice is stark and plain. You go one way or the other. There is no middle ground. That is reality.

A different picture is depicted than reality. The false portrayal, that the god of this world and his world system present, is that both sides can be straddled. You really don’t have to choose. Many, if not most, churches participate. People want the world, because of the short term benefits it offers, and because they don’t want what Jesus might offer in and for the short term, so churches turn the world into a church, so they’ll want the church. The problem, of course, is that it isn’t exactly the church anymore, but it is a way of straddling the two masters.

In the end, there is still one Master. It is Jesus. It’s all true all the way to the end, that Jesus is Master. Those who reject Him do not get the other way. The world doesn’t have anything to offer.

The problem with blending the two Masters is that it confuses the world and the church about the One, True Master. It’s true that no man can serve two Masters. The people fooled aren’t serving Jesus. They just think they are. They are even being told they are with explanations that they are and how they are.

The people that make their way through to the kingdom relinquish themselves to Jesus Christ. They choose Him as Goodness. Jesus is the Master, but they are saved because they believe He is. That is Who He is and they are acknowledging it and acquiescing to Him. They gain everything. Those who don’t, lose everything.

The Virtue of Nationalism

November 12, 2018 / Leave a comment

Wikipedia says concerning Yoram Hazony:

Yoram Hazony is an Israeli philosopher, Bible scholar and political theorist. He is President of The Herzl Institute in Jerusalem. Hazony is known for founding The Shalem Center in Jerusalem in 1994, and leading it through its accreditation in 2013 as Shalem College, Israel’s first liberal arts college.

Hazony’s book, The Virtue of Nationalism, released on September 4, 2018, a few months before French President Macron used the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I to bash nationalism in contrast to the views of President Donald Trump. He said:

Nationalism is rising across Europe, the nationalism that demands the closing of frontiers, which preaches rejection of the other. It is playing on fears, everywhere. Europe is increasingly fractured.

I wrote the following for our bulletin for Veteran’s Day, Sunday, November 11:

Scripture shows stable and cohesive national identities are the will of God. This is one means God has used to preserve the truth and His way of living in this world. There is no unifying factor in the whole world and there never will be until the Antichrist takes it by force, and then more preferably, Jesus rules over the entire world according to His will. Our soldiers fought for our nation and for principles that Americans had in common, which were worth dying for. We can be thankful for them and those men and what privileges we still hold dear, that allow us to meet in freedom to worship God today as a church.

Christians should never be “country first,” but also should support nationalism. God separated men into distinct lands at the Tower of Babel in response to something close to globalism. Genesis 11:8-9:

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The founding fathers of the United States saw wisdom in separation reflected in God’s divisions into nations. Hazony in an October 19 interview said:

Nationalism is a principled standpoint that sees the world as governed best when nations are given their independence and freedom to chart their own course on the basis of their own unique national, religious, and constitutional traditions.

I believe that nationalism is one of the most fundamental conservative ideals. It is foundational to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Conservation of ideals occurs within the borders of a nation. I call on all professing Christians to support nationalism and reject globalism.

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

I noticed at RCP today an article with the exact same name as this on The Atlantic, which isn’t a review of Hazony’s book, just making the same point with the same title. Interesting.

Historic Fundamentalism: What is it?

November 9, 2018 / 16 Comments on Historic Fundamentalism: What is it?

Do you claim to be a Christian fundamentalist? If, by this term, you mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith, and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church. Do you think that such a line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a para-church movement that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of separation? If that is truly “historic fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other humanly devised denominational structures.

However, was there actually ever a unified “historic fundamentalism” in the first place? The classic series The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the original manuscripts and in Scripture’s perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by inspiration—in the Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus.^{^[1]}
So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only? Why or why not?

However, The Fundamentals also reprinted articles
by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of
the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on
biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”^{^[2]}

So
who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an
inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved
in the Textus Receptus, or errant
autographs and apographs?

Indeed,
while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings
of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The
Fundamentals.^{^[3]} So does “historic fundamentalism” follow
Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which
is condensed in The Fundamentals?

So
which portion of the authors in The
Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”? Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis? Is it the inerrant original manuscripts
perfectly preserved in the Textus
Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop? Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary
inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?

Is
it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?

A
unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it
would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the
Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist
para-church institutions are not churches.
Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her
with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some
movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your
organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church
alone. Beware lest Christ say to you,
and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).

The Bible teaches that the church is the
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible,
Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special
protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and
blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or
protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch
institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as
evangelicalism.

There never was a unified “historic
fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority
whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s
churches.

TDR

[1]
See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew
Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The
Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York,
NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old
Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs.
19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist
periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger,
a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its
July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew
5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making
volumes The Fundamentals (“The
Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A.
C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles), writing: “We take the ground
that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point,
pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).

[2]
Pg. 492, Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing
Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration
[1910], p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,”
“The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).

[3]
Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and
his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed.
Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed
from The Warfare with Satan and the Way
of Victory.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Author Archives: Kent Brandenburg

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Evan Roberts: Enemy of the Welsh Revival, Part 20 of 22

WHAT IS TRUTH SABBATICAL

The Testimonies of Josephus to Jesus Christ Vindicated, part 1 of 2

Jesus Isn’t a Rorschach

Editions of the TR Argument and Excellent Preservation Versus Perfect Preservation

The Trip to Europe Continued (Nineteenth Post In Total)

Evan Roberts & Ecumenical Feminism, Part 19 of 22

There Are Two Sides, You Have To Choose One, Not Straddle Both, And This Has To Do With Everything

The Virtue of Nationalism

Historic Fundamentalism: What is it?

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta