The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part One)
If someone says man doesn’t have “free will,” he contradicts what scripture says. The Bible uses the terminology, “freewill,” and mainly in the freewill offerings of animals in the Old Testament sacrificial system. However, the Old Testament uses that same Hebrew word on occasion for free motivation of an act.
Old Testament Usage of Free Will
Judges 5:2, “Praise ye the LORD for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.”
Psalm 54:6, “I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O LORD; for it is good.”
Psalm 110:3,, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.”
Psalm 119:108, “Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.”
That’s four and I stopped looking for more.
New Testament Usage of Free Will
The Greek word that translates the Hebrew word for free will is in the New Testament:
Philemon 1:14, “But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.”
Hebrews 10:26, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”
1 Peter 5:2, “Feed the flock of God which is among you,, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.”
Those are some varied examples of free will in the Bible. If one were to believe or think in no free will, based on scripture, it would seem there would be no examples of free will in the Bible, yet there are.
Because I see free will in verses in the Bible, and I think there is greater proof than the actual mentions of terms for free will, I believe in free will. That comports with my experience. It also aligns with how all of scripture reads. At the same time, some who think they have free will, I’m saying, it is illusory. These people say they want free will. They want others to allow or give them free will. And yet, what they think is free will really is not.
In the next post, I will continue this one, Lord-willing.
Are These Really Uniquely Dark Times Today?
A Debate About Whether Times Really Are Dark
A very high percentage of people with whom I speak agree with deep decline of the United States. I ask many people the question, “Do you think the country is in decline?” Very few say “no.” Two different men touched on this subject in recent days, and I want to comment on their conclusions.
First, Kevin Schaal, president of the FBFI, wrote, “Wars and Rumors of Wars,” beginning the post with “we live in dark days.” Second, Aaron Blumer, owner of fundamentalist website SharperIron, wrote in criticism of Schaal’s introduction with “Do We Live In Dark Times?” First, Kevin Schaal, second, Aaron Blumer, and now I will write my thoughts addressing the question, “Are these really uniquely dark times?”
Maybe Not Any Darker?
From what I read, the older people in succeeding generations in the past complained about decline from a previous generation to theirs. The new generation changes. The former generation interprets this as decline. Some would say this happens again and again. Some would say what’s happening right now is just more of the same. Is this true? Blumer says it’s not much different and maybe better based on certain data. At least in his introduction, Schaal says, No, these are uniquely bad times, enough to call them “dark.”
Blumer contends there have always been bad times. He says this trend goes back to the beginning. Job, Jesus, Paul, and Peter talk about dark days then and into the future, Blumer writes. He also bemoans how leaders feed the anxieties already inundating the news media.
Preliminary to Christ’s Return?
I don’t think Kevin Schaal was feeding anxiety. He was saying recent world events seemed tell-tale as something preliminary to the coming of Jesus Christ. For a Christian, that doesn’t cause anxiety, but joy or happiness.
Mainly Schaal pointed to wars: Ukraine, Israel, rumors of possible war in Taiwan, and maybe something bigger in the Middle East with Iran. These are the dark times to which he referred, pointing to them as a warm-up for the seven year tribulation on earth. Maybe Blumer totally missed Schaal’s point. I believe Schaal thinks the catching up of the saints with Christ in the clouds, the rapture, precedes the second coming of Christ by seven years.
Yes, Darker Than Ever
When I talk to people out in the world, I too talk about uniquely dark times. Based on the way true Christians judge the world, this world is darker than ever. The United States, the greatest light for the Lord in recent world history, is as spiritually and morally bankrupt as ever. It is the worst by far based on every way you can judge.
In the 1980s William Bennett published his Index of Leading Cultural Indicators. Using accurate data, he reported the measurement of the downgrade in every cultural area. At that time, there was little to no positive presentation of homosexuality in the media. Now it is rampant and normalized. It’s worse than that. Conservative homosexuals now stand as leading spokesman against woke transgenderism. There is a steep decline in this country and nothing indicating that we’re coming back.
Apatheism and the Start of a Turnaround
I’ve never seen greater ignorance of the gospel in places once considered the Bible belt. Atheism has grown, but it’s not just that. It’s what someone rightfully calls “apatheism.” Apatheism might be worse than atheism. It’s at least atheism from the neck down but in greater numbers by far than actual atheism.
When I preach and serve, I don’t act like we can’t come out of the present cold or lukewarm spiritual condition today. I behave like we can see this all turn around. Do I think it will turn around? No. But if it is, it will start with me, then my church, then my community and my county. I’m not thinking of something as big as a nation changing. Let’s start with our church and then our neighborhood.
Israel through a Biblical Lens
A Biblical Lens to See Israel
Everyone should look at everything through a biblical lens. God’s Word is truth. I hear people make assessments of Israel without any reference to what the Bible says. On the other hand, some overshoot and use Israel as their prophetic pin cushion.
I see two perspectives to organize appraisal of Israel. One, treat Israel as the consummation of the Abrahamic Covenant, promises still unfulfilled. Two, reckon Israel according to biblical principles like any other nation.
God’s Promises to Israel
Romans 9-11
For number one, in Romans 11:1, the Apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Answer. No. Why even ask the question? Israel as a nation doesn’t believe (Romans 9). It’s Israel’s fault (Romans 10). Paul gives the answer in the strongest possible negative: “God forbid.”
Old Testament Teaching
“God forbid” corresponds to Old Testament teaching:
Psalm 94:14, “For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.”
1 Samuel 12:22, “For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people.”
Psalm 89:31-37 describes Israel with her unbelief, disobedience, and then God’s faithful implementation of His unilateral covenant:
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.
The Old Testament says much more, making the same point and in different ways. God set aside Israel in a deliberate, limited way for His ultimate ends. When you look at Israel in the Middle East, you should understand that God has a plan for her still.
Biblical Principles for Judging Nations
For number two, Israel is a nation. According to biblical principles, God instituted nations. He also expects believers to judge between nations based on His Word and support a better nation or culture over another one based on those principles. We should do that with the United States too.
God separated men into distinct lands to preserve the good against the evil. It is not a cookie cutter clarity in these divisions as we analyze. I’ve been to Israel and I saw what was good and bad there. Even without the promises of God to Israel, Israel deserves the land. She is not beyond criticism, but she is exponentially better than the nations surrounding her.
Based on an accurate view of history, Zionism is historical. According to the Bible, it is biblical. In a philosophical way, Israel better represents the nationalistic purpose of God. Arab’s having lived on that land for centuries doesn’t negate Israel, any more than American Indians negate the United States.
At the same time, I can see the tribulation of Hamas upon Israel a possible means to God’s ends. It is not a sign, as some people characterize it. The signs are to come like Christmas is coming. For Christmas to come, Thanksgiving must first arrive. Occurrences before actual signs could lead to those signs like Thanksgiving leads to Christmas.
The Whole Universe Both Runs and Acknowledges It Runs on Jesus’ Time
I know that the title of this post sounds like Donald Trump saying, Mexico will pay for the wall. It sounds like it can’t be right. Nevertheless, the title is right.
Despite Outlawing Jesus, the Public Acknowledges Jesus All Over
In the last few days, I talked to someone who worked for Gideons, the parachurch organization. I asked him if they handed out Bibles in the public schools in Decatur County. He said, “No, it is illegal to hand out Bibles in the public school.” They cannot do that. No one can do that. That doesn’t sound like a society that acknowledges that it runs on Jesus’ time. And yet, it does.
The calendars for the Indiana public schools where I live call it 2023. The sports schedules call this 2023. This year’s basketball season is 2023-2024. When I use the internet, the world wide web, to schedule a post, it says it’s 2023.
Anno Domini
2023 is AD. AD is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. 2023 is 2023 years since the birth of Jesus, assuming Jesus born at 1, since the Romans didn’t have a zero. Whether you refer to the Julian Calendar or the Gregorian one, Jesus is the start date.
I brought in the Gideon story, because the public schools still use a date with Jesus Christ as the start date. They won’t let anyone hand out Bibles, the book about Jesus, but they use “the year of our Lord,” which refers to Jesus. I’m guessing that when they hand out their teacher paychecks, they use the year of our Lord for a date. Wikipedia says:
The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means “in the year of the Lord” but is often presented using “our Lord” instead of “the Lord”, taken from the full original phrase “anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi,” which translates to “in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Universe
The term “universe” in the title is defined as the following:
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
Wikipedia says:
The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
I can go with that as my usage. The Latin etymology is universus or universum, which is all things as a whole, so speaking of everything physically as a whole, not the individual parts.
Acknowledging Jesus’ Time
When I say the universe acknowledges it runs on Jesus’ time, I mean that they refer to the year of our Lord Jesus Christ to mark the date. With full disclaimer, I saw an episode of Star Trek that said the year of the program was 3188. The character said that on another planet. Star Trek acknowledged that other planets would say that they use Jesus as a basis for dating.
Presently we don’t know of another planet in the universe with life besides earth. According to a hypothetical, sentient life on other planets says they provide the present date using the year of Jesus’ birth as the starting point.
Perhaps you could join me in the irony of all this. This world must acknowledge Jesus, even when it doesn’t want to do that.
David Whose Heart Was Perfect With The LORD His God?
David. You look back to Saul, and then back at David. Of course, David. You look forward to Solomon, and then back to David. Of course, David. David. Why? Something is different about David. What is it?
David and Solomon
When you arrive at 1 Kings 11:4, the Lord says:
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
God was not saying that Solomon’s heart was not with the LORD his God. It was not perfect with the LORD his God. On the other hand, David’s heart was perfect with the LORD his God. What was different about David, that his heart was perfect before the LORD his God, and Solomon’s wasn’t?
David and Jeroboam
Even Compared to Solomon
Then in 1 Kings 11:6, God says:
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
This puts the condition of Solomon compared to David in a different way: he “went not fully after the LORD.” He also did evil in the sight of the LORD. By the time we get to Jeroboam, he’s worse than Solomon. His heart wasn’t even with the LORD his God. 1 Kings 12:32 says:
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
Then 1 Kings 13:33 says:
After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.
Judgment on Jeroboam
Because of this, 1 Kings 13:34 says:
And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.
And then God says to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:10:
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
In fulfillment of that in 1 Kings 15:29-30 we read:
And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: Because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger.
Distinct Paths Taken
Again and again after this, you can read the phrase, “walked in the way of Jeroboam,” very much like there was the phrase, “as David thy father walked.” These are two different paths in the history of Israel. David’s path is very much described by what God warned Solomon in 1 Kings 9:4 (and 11:38):
And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments.
David did not live a life of sinless perfection, but he walked in integrity of heart, uprightness, doing all God commanded him, and keeping God’s statutes and judgments. Fulfilling that is not sinlessness, but it does mean having a perfect heart with the LORD and going fully after Him.
Scripture distinguishes the heart of David from other kings. Some other kings had a heart fully after the LORD in the heritage of David. The way this manifested itself more than any other was in the worship of David. Someone fully after the LORD acknowledges who God is and then offers Him what He wants.
Solomon was an idolater, not to the extent of Jeroboam. But then Jeroboam was an even worse idolater, because he gave himself fully to idolatry. Solomon gave himself partly to the LORD and partly to idols. Solomon set himself part by building the temple and worshiping God there, even though later he partially turned from that and ruined his legacy with God.
Worship Distinguished David
David murdered Uriah. He committed multiple adultery. He was a polygamist. What does this mean in juxtaposition with the good things scripture says about him?
David was a true worshiper of God, who sought after God. He failed, but his direction and his sincere spirit for the Lord characterized him over the flaws in his life. The Bible and myself do not write these things to excuse David, but to elevate the distinction of worship.
Today churches are rampant with idolatry. The church growth movement changed and corrupts the worship of the church. It centers on the audience and not the Lord. The false worship profanes God and shapes a false god, unlike the God of the Bible, in the imagination of the participants. This is akin to the path begun by Solomon and then taken full fledged by Jeroboam. It’s ruining young people, churches everywhere, and the entire United States of America.
Fried Preacher
Early Personal Considerations
When I was a child, growing up in an independent Baptist church, I thought God dropped pastors down from heaven, at least something like that. Even when I was in high school and college, I regarded these men with reverence. God was infinitely higher and greater to me, of course, but they topped everyone else. As I became a pastor myself, despite still highly regarding the office, I held lower estimation of the men in the office.
For one, when I became a pastor, I knew for sure pastors weren’t dropped from heaven. I knew I wasn’t. Then spending more time with several other pastors in closer relations, I had to reevaluate my lofty estimation. I don’t write this to engender any disrespect for the man or his office. I still love pastors and have a better understanding how difficult the job. Many pastors are friends.
Pastor As Sunday Afternoon Meal
The idea of fried preacher relates to a Sunday afternoon meal. In the spirit of fried chicken, a church family after church instead serves up a delectable main entre of “fried preacher.” I read someone explain: “My mother would always say we were having fried preacher for dinner.”
If you grew up in church, maybe you fried your preacher sometimes for Sunday afternoon dinner. My parents never did. I never heard one foul word about a preacher in my home from my parents. It amazes me, because my parents had negative things to say about people. Their preacher was never one of them. It happens though.
The Apostle Paul himself became fried preacher by the Athenians in Acts 17:18:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
They called Paul a “babbler.” This portends a great pastime of criticizing a preacher and his preaching. I don’t think Paul was bad. Maybe no better preacher ever existed.
Pastors Say and Do Wrong Things
Prove All Things Preached
People might say true things about a preacher and his preaching. They are sometimes right about him. He did things and said things wrong. Preachers also sin.
When someone hears preaching, he should consider whether it is true. To do that, he judges it. Paul commands this practice in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
What To Do with Error
When someone tests or proves the preaching and finds something bad, what does he do next? Does he criticize the preaching to others, maybe at home at Sunday dinner? No. Scripture reveals a certain way to deal with the error of someone else. The goal is restoration or reconciliation (Galatians 6:1). You help someone get it right, when he’s wrong. That’s God’s will.
If bad preaching becomes the pattern, this necessitates a stronger reaction. The deficient preaching should be obvious. Very bad preaching occurs all over today. Probably more bad preaching exists than good. When I say good, I’m talking about when in general the preaching is good with a small minority of duds or awful preaching mixed in.
Dealing with Bad Behavior
Every preacher will also behave badly. Hopefully that’s not normal for him. 1 Corinthians 13:7 says love “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.” You hope the best. The goal isn’t to let a preacher get away with doing something wrong, but it is to believe the best about him. That approach doesn’t tend toward frying the preacher. Fried preacher doesn’t sound like love, does it?
It is hard to talk to certain pastors. Like many other men, they don’t take it very well. They could go further than that and say it’s mutiny, worthy of church discipline, heresy, or dishonor. Some might try to destroy the critic, like Diotrephes, cast him out of the church, even without any due process.
Preachers Frying Preachers
Conference Cuisine
Preachers are also notorious for fried preacher. No one can fry a preacher like another preacher. Maybe the experience of frying prepares him to fry so well. Preachers conferences can provide a kind of industrial sized instrument of frying.
I know another preacher who in recent days attended a preaching conference. When he returned, he reported to another preacher friend of mine that the conference was a major and constant frying session of a non-attending man. It was long, high temperature frying of this third party. They disintegrated him — “for the Lord.”‘ This kind of gang-style muckraking, one could even call, ganging up on someone. Fifteen to twenty on one pouncing on him in a dark alley.
In Absentia
The crispified pastor wasn’t there to enjoy the benefits of this “helpful” criticism. It was all out of his presence. His critic preachers sat at meals doing so, identifying him by name. It was all very fun and entertaining. Sinful, but at the same time, in public they gave the impression they were in special alignment with God.
The conference attendees didn’t say anything to the preacher. I know the preacher they fried. He had no opportunity for self-defense. He wasn’t there. Fried preacher only occurs with the preacher gone. Every preacher knows that.
The Prayer Request
In the fried preacher recipe book, the best chefs call fried preacher a prayer request. Pray for preacher so and so, because he’s blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. “Help me with my prayers. What else can you say about him?” Nothing to see here, they’re just praying for the guy. Nothing to smell like fried foods. You can smell that aroma from three blocks away.
Getting Caught
Fried preacher is a whole lot of fun in a conference setting. The closer proximity brings a bonding among the participants, what some call a benefit. If you can’t find doctrinal or practical unity, you could find a common enemy to bring everyone together. It take just one person to report in order to cool the fry temperature. Everything just turns soggy then. Maybe you try to find out who reported to make the subject of your next gathering.
Accuser of the Brethren
One might wonder if anyone needed to say anything negative about someone who wasn’t present. Scripture says a lot about the habit of this. Everyone does it at some point. Sometimes, people need to talk about a problem with another person. When it spreads to an all-out gossip convention, this requires a commercial kitchen for such a fry fest. This cannot, is not right. Ever. It requires at least a food service license in most states.
Revelation 12:10 says:
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven,, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Who is the “accuser of our brethren”? God doesn’t need any “help” from the accuser. This is Satan obviously. Satan is the master chef of fried preachers. To mix my metaphors, nothing is gained by backing up the dumpster and practicing demo-day on an absent fellow brother, stripping him down to the studs.
What Is Fried Preacher?
What is “fried preacher”? About one hundred percent of this cuisine is personal aggrandizement. It accomplishes lowering of the one fried and the supposed elevation of the fry chef. Psalm 52:4 says, “Thou lovest all devouring words.” Words are the oil in which a fried preacher fries.
The nature of the flesh, it loves hearing the scoop about someone when he isn’t there. The flesh of someone loves gossip, except when it’s about him. Then it’s something insidious or evil.
Is it ever wrong to say anything critical or negative about a preacher? People must say the truth at times in a certain setting and in a particular way. It usually starts with trying to help the man with whatever they think worthy of frying him. Warning of the danger of a man or his teaching could come if a man is dangerous. He should have heard about the kind of danger he is, first, at least from someone.
Men can expose false teaching in a public presentation. They review the material and point out the error. So then it becomes two people with public positions, who both interacted in public. Both are now open for review, which includes criticism. No one is anonymous. This isn’t fried preacher.
For talk to be gossip, it must be without the target of the gossip present. If he’s there, then it isn’t gossip. That would be something akin to admonishment or exhortation. Also, saying nice things about someone isn’t gossip. Only disparaging comments about a missing person fit into the definition, even if they’re true. That’s Fried Preacher.
Making Sin Justifiable and Permanent By Diagnosing It As A Psychological Disorder
“Mad” and “Madness”
As you read through the King James Version, you will read the related English words “mad” and “madness.” People in general don’t use these words any more or they use them in a completely different way than both the King James Version and historic Christianity. In 1863, William Smith in his Bible Dictionary writes:
[M]adness is recognised as a derangement proceeding either from weakness and misdirection of intellect or from ungovernable violence of passion; and in both cases it is spoken of, sometimes as arising from the will and action of man himself, some times as inflicted judicially by the hand of God. In one passage alone, John 10:20, is madness expressly connected with demoniacal possession by the Jews in their cavil against our Lord; in none is it referred to any physical causes.
It will easily be seen how entirely this usage of the word is accordant to the general spirit and object of Scripture, in passing by physical causes and dwelling on the moral and spiritual influences, by which men’s hearts may be affected, either from within or from without.
Smith’s assessment of madness, as you can read, sees it as a spiritual problem and not a physical one. In other words, that’s not “mental illness,” to which it would be referred today by Darwinistic or Freudian psychology.
From the Will and Action of Man Himself
When you delve further into Christian (and societal) thinking from an earlier era in the United States, as does Smith above, you see a distinction between “demoniacal possession” and “insanity,” “deprivation of reason,” and his “derangement proceeding . . . from weakness or from ungovernable violence of passion.” Furthermore, Smith says that it arises “from the will and action of man himself,” if not “inflicted judicially by the hand of God.” Calmut’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible by Augustin Calmut (1823), reads concerning “madness”:
The epithet mad is applied to several of persons in Scripture as 1. to one deprived of reason, Acts 26:24, 1 Cor 14:23.
2. one whose reason is depraved and over-ruled by the fury of his angry passions, Acts 26:11.
3. To one whose mind is perplexed and bewildered, so disturbed that he acts in an uncertain, extravagant, irregular manner, Deut 28:34, Eccl 7:7.
4. To one who is infatuated by the vehemence of his desires after idols, and vanities, Jer 1:38.– or
5. after deceit and falsehood. Hosea 9:7.
None of the Calmut’s definition includes mental illness or psychological disorders. Has society, science, and theology come upon something true and helpful that these previous generations did not? Or, are the modern and postmodern view apostate or heretical? I believe the latter. Premoderns told the truth about the troubles and the true conditions of men.
Four Occurrences
Christopher Rufo
Four occurrences intersected to direct my thoughts to write this essay. First, I recently watched the following youtube presentation by Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute on “The Cluster B Society.”
Sermon on the Mount
Second, I’ve started preaching the Sermon on the Mount and this came to my attention in this focus of Matthew 5:3-4:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Ultimate fulfillment comes from poverty of spirit and mourning. Society goes opposite of these and others following in Jesus’ sermon, that cause the insanity, derangement, and deprivation of reason. The absence of the comfort promised equates to madness and what our culture calls “mental illness” and psychological disorder.
Adams and the Bobgans
Third, I read many years ago the work of Jay Adams and then Martin and Deidre Bobgan. They unmask the depravity of modern psychiatry and psychology. This seems like a major tool of Satan that has infiltrated in a major way and taken over the thinking of churches.
Ryan Strouse
Fourth, in reading reports from Bible Baptist Theological Seminary it sends out through email, I read work from Dr. M. Ryan Strouse on this subject (here and here). Apparently, coming soon is a 350 page Primer on Biblical Madness. I think it will be good. His father, Thomas Strouse, the dean of the seminary and pastor of the church, was my main seminary professor. This got on my radar, because I hear more overuse of the psychological terms than ever.
The Sinfulness of Sin
Everyone sins. The psychological disorders eliminate the sinfulness of sin. Sin becomes no longer sinful. It becomes permanent, even an imbedded trait and elevating sin as a useful trait. This is what Paul calls in Philippians 3:19, those who “glory in their shame.” This also hardens and then destroys the conscience, making souls beyond salvation, speeding them to their eternal destruction.
David wrote (Psalm 51:4): “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” Sin is against God. It falls short of His glory. Sin damns people to Hell.
Today churches cooperate with justification and making permanent sin by diagnosing it a psychological disorder. This undermines the sufficiency of scripture, which is far above an earthly so-called wisdom. May we return to a biblical understanding of these important doctrines.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God Gave Words in their Original Languages and Preserved Them
In Scripture
Part of the story of the doctrine of inspiration of scripture and then its translation relates to languages. God immediately inspired the original manuscripts of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God gave scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God also used His church in an institutional sense or His true churches to give witness to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This fulfilled the scriptural instruction to keep the Lord’s Words.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “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.” A jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a vowel point, which is small. Some evangelicals say the tittle is a part of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another Hebrew letter. Either way, jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. That says that God promised to preserve what He gave by inspiration, which is the original text.
In History
Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, says that ‘not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law.’ The Lord establishes one particular detail of preservation. That detail is this: He preserves His Words, the very letters, in the language in which they were written. We can see that churches believed this point of Jesus in the London Baptist Confession, when it says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Text, Translation, and Meaning
Churches should and do go to the original texts for their final appeal in all controversies of religion. This answers the question, “How did people understand the passage who heard it in the day of its writing?” The final appeal does not go to an English translation.
Someone could then ask, “Does everyone then need to know the original languages?” The same London Baptist Confession says next:
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
I did not write Matthew 5:18. I did not write the London Baptist Confession on that point that Jesus made. However, I believe Jesus and what true churches believed and taught on this doctrine. For sure, I’m not abnormal on this.
A bit of logic could come into play. If the true Word of God was an English translation in the 17th century or an edition of it in the 18th century, could true churches believe and live what God said for the previous sixteen centuries? Anyone should ask that. If man lives by God’s Words, it assumes He possesses them. Part of the doctrine of preservation is the doctrine of availability. Denial of general accessibility is denial of God’s promise of perfect preservation of scripture.
Studying the Original Text of Scripture
Meaning
For someone reading this essay today, you should know that you can look up a word in the English translation to find the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word. I know many who put in the effort to do that. Even those who never took one day of a course in biblical languages can know the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic word. In the church I pastor right now, when I refer to a Greek word, a man looks it up on his phone to see. The one, who does not know original languages, checks me out. I welcome it.
Grammar and Syntax
I would expect further study than the meaning of the words in their original language, but that is a very good start. A great one. Yes, people should know grammar and syntax, but I find that a large majority of people do not know grammar or syntax in any language. Some of the people who criticize our use of original languages here do not rely on grammar and syntax either.
For a moment, consider the expertise of grammar and syntax, even in an English version. Isn’t that an expertise too? Does the Bible come with a grammar book? Does scripture come with a syntax guide? It doesn’t. In a sense, someone uses a glossary of extra-scriptural terms to apply to the study of the Bible.
The words “verb,” “noun,” and “adjective” are outside of God’s Word. To be consistent, original language deniers should criticize the requirement of grammar and syntax. “Don’t make me learn the word ‘participle’!” I don’t know; maybe they complain about that too. Perhaps they are grammar deniers as well.
You will miss a portion of the meaning of scripture if you rely only on a translation. It helps to know the range of semantic meaning of a word. You can understand from the original text the tense, mood, or voice of verbs or participles. Going to the original text for meaning will help a student of God’s Word. God gave His Words in those original languages.
Points in the Text Not In Translation
Hebrew Acrostics
Did God give the book of Lamentations in a Hebrew acrostic? Yes. Someone cannot see that in a translation. Does that also affect the interpretation of the book? Yes. The third chapter is a triple acrostic by starting triplets of verses with the same Hebrew letter. This also provides a chiastic structure that tips the point of the whole book in the absolute middle of the book.
Several Old Testament passages structure each section of poetry to start with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 is a well-known example of this, but also Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145, Proverbs 31:10-31; and Nahum 1:2-8.
Poetic Word Plays
The Lord also used poetic word plays all over the Hebrew Old Testament one cannot see in a translation. Does God expect someone to recognize those word plays? Yes. You will start seeing word plays in the early chapters of Genesis and then continue seeing them all the way through the Old Testament.
In Genesis 1:2, “without form and void” translated tohu and bohu in the Hebrew, which is paranomastic, a rhyming effect. We don’t get this rhyming effect in English. One aspect of beauty or aesthetics are these devices of language. God gives them to us, not to miss them.
“One of his ribs” in Genesis 2:21 and “bone of my bones” in Genesis 2:23 are a Hebrew word play. God (and Moses) reverse the consonants of “rib” and “bone.” It’s intentional and easily spotted in Hebrew, but not in a translation. We are meant to see the life connection between “rib” and “bone.”
God uses an obvious pun between Adam and the Hebrew word ’adamah, meaning “earth.” The Hebrew ’adam means “man.” In the chapter introducing the first man, Genesis 2:5 says, “there was not a man [‘adam] to till the ground [‘adamah].” Later then, Genesis 3:19 says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust [‘adamah] shalt thou return.” These Hebrew word plays are distinct from a translation.
God cares about these word plays. He used them. They mean something. He has not shelved them for translations of the original text. When someone cannot see an acrostic or poetic word play, He does not witness something God wrote. Any true believer should want to know this. It is a reason why God gives churches pastors.
Different Words
In the King James Version, the translators translated different Greek words with identical English words. They also translated identical Greek words with different English words. Someone would not know that by the translation. I ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 13:8:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
“They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” both translate the same Greek word, katargeo. You would not know that by the translation. I believe it is very helpful to know that, even for the interpretation of the passage. “They shall cease” translates a completely different Greek word than the other two in the series, and yet all three are translated differently, as if there are three different words. There are just two, not three.
On the other hand, “miracle” translates two Greek words: semeion (Acts 4:22) and dunamis (Mark 9:39). You would not know that by the English translation. Sometimes, very often, the translators translated semeion, “sign,” as if “miracle” and “sign” might be something different.
Do we decide the words and the meaning by the English translation? Do we now say, there are three different words in 1 Corinthians 13:8? Do we say that miracle is just one word, because that’s the way it looks in the English? Our decisions on these issues come from the original text, not the translation.
Originalism
Obeying God by rightly dividing the word of truth (1 Tim 2:15) requires originalism. Originalism means the original biblical text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that God gave it by inspiration. The Bible doesn’t change in meaning from the original text given to the original audience of scripture. The text means what the author meant and he wrote it in an original language. Scripture cannot mean something different than what it originally meant.
God preserved His Words to fulfill His promise of preservation. He did it for the right understanding of meaning. God also preserved those Words because His communication of meaning comes through those original Words. An accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text is not superior to the perfect preserved text. That translation comes from that text.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Four)
In the history of Christian doctrine, true believers through the centuries have been in general consistent in their position on inspiration. When reading historical bibliological material, homogeneity exists. Changes emerged with modernism in the 19th century and then many novel, false beliefs sprouted up. In many cases, men invented new, wrong positions on inspiration in response to other erroneous ones, a kind of pendulum swing.
Summary
To begin here, I will summarize what I have written so far in this series. God inspired sacred scripture over 1600 years, using 40 human authors. John Owen wrote concerning human authors:
God was with them, and by the Holy Spirit spoke in them — as to their receiving of the Word from him, and their delivering it to others by speaking or writing — so that they were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand of an expert writer.
God breathed a product of almost entirely Hebrew and some Aramaic Old Testament and completely Greek New Testament letters and words. Then He used His institutions, Israel and the church to keep those words, preserve and distribute them. The London Baptist Confession reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Immediate Inspiration
And Remain Inspired in Copies
The inspiration of the “original manuscripts” believers called “immediate inspiration,” to distinguish from ongoing inspiration of preserved words and accurate translations of the preserved words. The preserved words and readings, “the original texts,” remained inspired. Francis Turretin wrote:
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Apographs” are the copies of the original manuscripts or the copies of the copies. What about a translation from the preserved, inspired original text? Is that inspired?
And Remain Inspired in Accurate Translations
In the last post (the third one), I showed 1 Timothy 5:18 among other places in the New Testament indicates that an accurate translation is scripture. An accurate translation as sacred scripture remains inspired. This is seen in Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Peter used Psalms 16, 110, and Joel 2 in the sermon. The audience heard those translated to Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Pontus, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Cretan and Arabian (Acts 2:9-11).
Supportive Materials
Rather than quote and write about the same thing that Jon Gleason already wrote, I point you to his post on the subject of the continued inspiration of a translation. I will, however, reproduce two quotes from A. W. Pink he used:
The word “inspire” signifies to in-breathe, and breath is both the means and evidence of life; for as soon as a person ceases to breathe he is dead. The Word of God, then, is vitalized by the very life of God, and therefore it is a living Book. Men’s books are like themselves—dying creatures; but God’s Book is like Himself—it “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). . . . .
The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed. In substantiation of what I have just said, it is striking to note “Therefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:7, 8); and again, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says (not “said”) unto the churches” (Rev. 2:7).
He also refers to a journal article, written in 1982 by Edward W. Goodrick that mirrors Pink and others who predated B. B. Warfield. You should also read the article by Thomas Ross, entitled “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version.” For many biblical reasons, one should consider an accurate translation of the preserved original text to be inspired and sacred scripture.
Conclusion
Because of erroneous views of double inspiration and English preservationism today, I advocate the terminology, “immediately inspired,” and just for more clarity, “derivative inspiration.” Perhaps best, one should say “given by inspiration of God” and then continued inspiration in preserved original texts and accurate translations of those texts. I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.
Recent Comments