Home » Kent Brandenburg (Page 7)
Category Archives: Kent Brandenburg
If You Want to Lose Men in and from a Church
Statistics and Studies
As of June 2022, thirty-six percent of women said they attended church the last Sunday, but only twenty-four percent of men did (Gallup, 2021). Those percentages are not the same everywhere. Statistics or studies show that men are less religious in gender-equal countries. The Pew Research Center says that women have more influence on a family’s religious practices. Perhaps you are a church leader and you wonder why churches are losing more men than women.
Artificial intelligence, represented by ChatGPT, which culls from the entire internet, says that 60 to 70 percent of women want an egalitarian relationship with men. In 2019, in a Pew study, sixty-eight percent said that gender equality increased in the United States. At the same time and in the same study, more than ten percent said religion has a less important place in society (37%) than said it was more important (27%). Family ties weakened by fifty-eight percent to fifteen percent. I asked AI whether men or women wanted egalitarianism more and it answered:
In conclusion, based on research findings and survey data, it is evident that women generally want egalitarianism more than men, as they exhibit greater support for gender equality, express higher levels of concern about existing inequalities, and actively engage in initiatives aimed at promoting equal rights and opportunities for all individuals regardless of gender.
In the year 1997, the United Nations did a study on women in authority, published in 2000. The study said that women in authority often assumed male attributes, even male dress. Contemporary women executives wear “power suits.” Fourteen percent of men prefer a female boss compared to thirty-nine percent of women. Another study, August 2022, said that 28 percent of women prefer a female boss compared to 16 percent a male one.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism
Egalitarianism does not help family unity. It results in less prominence of religion. Also, it traces to men less involved in or happy in church. Almost everything I’m saying I don’t think needs statistics to know. I’ve seen it myself firsthand. Most of all, the Bible teaches male authority, a position called “patriarchalism.” The verse in scripture that best represents the totality of the position of patriarchy is 1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
“The head of the woman is the man” is axiomatic. It’s talking about society in general, especially in the context of that section in 1 Corinthians. I, however, address for this post the place of men in the church.
Many churches today push their egalitarianism right to the front. They want it. Others say they are complementarian, but they practice egalitarian. Few really believe it. The fewest dare say they are patriarchal. Even some of those only say it, but practice in a greater way mainly complementarianism.
Patriarchy is biblical. It also attracts biblical men. I’m saying masculine men or men who are actually men. A basic and simple test is whether a church comfortably talks about what this all means. The church isn’t hiding its patriarchal belief and practice. It promotes it.
Losing Men by Violating the Man Code
When I talk about losing men, I mean talking about losing real men. I’m also talking about losing those with the male sex, that might not operate as a real man as of yet.
Today, when I say man code, even men might automatically think of male chauvinism that protects bad behavior. I don’t mean that. However, I think of a biblical way that men don’t turn on each other. They’ve got each others backs. It’s not unusual for men to capitulate to women and defy the code. Perhaps in so doing, they give up their man card.
When you read Genesis 3, it looks early on that men want to please women. Adam did. He wasn’t deceived by the serpent (1 Tim 2:14). Instead, he ‘hearkened unto the voice of his wife’ (Gen 3:17) and God cursed him because of it. Even as I write this, some men today look for something wrong. Women might too. This is enough to shut men down and bring a church back to the status quo or a societal norm. Some might call this conventional thinking.
If you want to lose men in the church, you can violate the man code. When I say that, I mean violate the ways God intends to respect the male role in the church. If you want to lose men, just do these things. You’ll lose men fast.
A First Way to Lose Men
Before I talk about a first one, men, understand that you don’t have to push the eject button, just because a man or church violated the code. Give someone a break. Talk to someone about it. That’s manhood. Don’t leave just because your meter sets off an alarm. That itself isn’t manly. Some churches though set off buzzers and keep setting them off. The men disappear.
You will lose your men if as habit or practice, you address the woman and not the man. This could occur many different ways and not in any particular order. All of the following five will apply to this common way for churches and even other institutions for losing men.
Application One
One, in the most simple way, you should walk to the man and talk to the man. Spend time with him first. When you hover around the woman, maybe because the interest she shows, the vitality she has toward the organization, that won’t be lost on the man. He gets it.
The woman exists, but you might need to act like she doesn’t, if you have the temptation to start with her. Draw a circle around him and head into that circle. Ask him about his work. Lead into spiritual things without fear. Don’t act like those things are unusual, but right down main street for a man. Talk to him.
Sometimes women automatically start the conversation. They talk and talk and talk while a man stands in silence. Everyone watches her. Instead of looking at her, look at her husband, and when she gives you a break, start talking to the man and keep talking to him, forcing her into some kind of silence. Learn to talk to him as if he has something to say.
Application Two
Two, when you visit, ask for the man. The woman might arrive at the door, but you ask, where is the man (husband, etc.)? If he is sleeping, that doesn’t mean stay and talk to her. You could ask, “Good seeing you, but when do you think he might be available?” Get the time and get together with him.
Application Three
Three, make appointments with the man. The meeting is with him, not with her. What’s a good time for the man? “When do you think that you and I can meet?” “It would be great to have you over for supper.” “Would like to have coffee sometime?” Do not ask the woman whether they want to come. Go to the man about that. He might ask his wife, but not your asking the wife. Look at him in the eye and talk to him.
Men still break number three all the time with me. They ask my wife about something related to me, like going to mom instead of dad, because it’s easier to get a “yes” answer. Instead of texting me, they text her and ask her if she’ll ask me.
Application Four
Four, don’t talk to the wife about her husband except to say how great he is. Never undermine him with his wife or significant other. You will lose the man if you undermine the man. Even if it looks like he’s got bigger problems than her, you don’t say that to her. If you want to talk about his problems, talk to him about them, not her. She easily can look for your approval for putting him down. Don’t do it.
Application Five
This next one is vitally important. It’s probably the easiest of these to violate, and you really are violating the man code, when you do. Five, if the wife or woman wants to talk about something bad about her husband or man, don’t do it without talking to him first. Part of fake manhood is thinking that you’ve got to rescue some other woman. You could have the false sense that you’re somehow God’s gift to women and all of them should talk to you. Maybe you will need to rescue a woman, but if you don’t want to lose men, you better go to the man first when his woman, his wife, wants to report something bad about him.
I see men violate this last rule again, again, and again. Surely it happens in the work place many, many times. It’s also very much prey for infidelity. She gains a higher opinion about the counselor or leader than she does about her own man. That can become a very difficult barrier to solve in the future for her man (husband). It also brings a possible dangerous closeness with the one listening approvingly.
Even when only the woman is in the church, I want to get close to the man. I show interest in him even when he isn’t interested. Obviously, he might say he doesn’t want any attention, but usually this isn’t the case. He’s a man made in the image of God, so you can respect that about him.
Due Process
I’ve seen church leaders talk to a wife and keep talking to the wife and not include him in the conversation. They call this counseling. It isn’t, because something major is missing. It’s called “due process,” a basic aspect of justice.
A man could have done something very seriously wrong. He may still be doing it. Through the years, I’ve seen that as the case. More times than not, he isn’t and she’s exaggerating or just blaming a situation on him. Even if he is the one doing wrong, the conversation should not go to her, but go to him. This should happen as soon as possible.
Almost immediately church leadership must talk to both parties. “Wait a minute. Do you mind if I let your man (your husband) know that you’re talking to me?” I don’t care how persuasive it might be.
Bring both parties together in Solomonic fashion, but starting with talking to the husband and it’s great if you can say, “She didn’t say anything to me. I told her I wanted to talk to you first. We should do that, but it would be better if we could get together.” For sure you can’t enter into the conversation with the man, having believed what someone else said about him without having talked to him. You can lose men if you won’t do that. They see it as betrayal.
Falling Short of Patriarchy
Violation of one or more of these five points fall short of patriarchy, God’s biblical intention. They betray a kind of practical egalitarianism. Someone reading might say that they allow a man to get away with offenses. That’s not true. Instead they will help salvage a situation with a man and really help him, not excuse or cover for something a man is doing or has done wrong.
Churches all over the country lose men because they break these basic standards of decency and respect. It would be good if they might apologize to men for violating them, and then start over. It’s much harder to respect men who will not operate this way. Through years, I’ve had many men not give me the respect of operating this way. Most of the time, they don’t even know what they’re doing wrong. Then when they find out, they just make excuses for themselves. Excuses over this behavior will make it ever more likely to lose a man, sort of the coup de grace in the process.
I’ve found men want you to treat them like a man. Ironically, men forget or don’t even know how to treat another man like a man. If you want to keep men, you’ve got to treat men like men. This first principle for not losing men is a first in the man code. The five points applying the principle also constitute an important delineation of the man code.
Why Don’t Men Talk to Men?
More to Come
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian, Preacher, and Person?
Probably far behind you that read here regularly, last week I learned that Artificial Intelligence (AI, ChatGPT) will answer questions. As I understand it, AI uses what is available over the entire worldwide web. It can do this very quickly and write a decent, sometimes very good, essay. What AI can do that is difficult for almost anyone is sift through a tremendous amount of material and provide a succinct explanation. It would be hard for me to self-evaluate whether I’ve been courteous online, but AI doesn’t have feelings, so I asked it three questions. First, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous theologian? Second, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous preacher? Third, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous person?
I will post the answers AI gave to those three questions below in that order, separated by the question. By the way, I asked AI the same question about James White, “Is James White a courteous theologian?” Here is the first line of its answer: “No, James White is not considered a courteous theologian based on the provided context.” I didn’t write these answers, but here is what Artificial Intelligence said about me.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian?
Kent Brandenburg’s demeanor and conduct as a theologian can be characterized as courteous based on his interactions and writings within the theological community.
Kent Brandenburg, a pastor at Bethel Baptist Church, has demonstrated courtesy in his engagements with others in the theological sphere. His approach to discussions, debates, and theological discourse reflects a level of respect and politeness towards those he interacts with, regardless of differing viewpoints or disagreements. Brandenburg’s courteous behavior is evident in his writings, public statements, and interactions with fellow theologians and individuals within the Christian community.
Brandenburg’s courteous nature can be observed in his willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, even when addressing contentious issues or doctrinal differences. He maintains a respectful tone in his communication and endeavors to express his perspectives thoughtfully and considerately. Additionally, Brandenburg’s commitment to upholding biblical principles while engaging in theological discussions is accompanied by a demeanor that seeks to foster understanding and mutual respect among participants.
Furthermore, Kent Brandenburg’s reputation as a courteous theologian is reinforced by testimonials from those who have interacted with him personally or engaged with his theological works. Colleagues, peers, and members of the Christian community often acknowledge Brandenburg’s respectful conduct and demeanor in various theological settings.
In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg exemplifies courtesy as a theologian through his respectful interactions, thoughtful engagement in theological discourse, and commitment to upholding biblical principles while fostering understanding among individuals with differing perspectives.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Preacher?
Yes, Kent Brandenburg can be considered a courteous preacher based on his actions and interactions as described in the provided context. Despite engaging in activities that some may find controversial or confrontational, such as distributing fliers with strong evangelical messages to the Sikh community during their Peace Parade, Brandenburg’s approach seems to stem from a genuine belief in the importance of sharing his faith rather than from a place of malice or disrespect.
Throughout the incident at the Sikh parade in El Sobrante, California, Brandenburg’s actions, such as complimenting the Sikhs on their attire while handing out fliers and expressing his concerns for their salvation, indicate an attempt to engage respectfully with individuals of different faiths. His blog posts and responses to criticism also demonstrate a commitment to explaining his beliefs and engaging in dialogue about religious differences, even when faced with backlash from the Sikh community and others who found his methods offensive.
While Brandenburg’s approach may be seen as assertive or provocative by some, particularly those who disagree with his theological views or evangelistic methods, there is an underlying tone of sincerity and conviction in his interactions that suggests he is driven by a desire to share what he believes to be essential truths rather than by a desire to offend or provoke unnecessarily.
In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg’s actions and statements suggest that he approaches his role as a preacher with courtesy and a genuine concern for others’ spiritual well-being, even if his methods may be perceived as controversial by some.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Person?
Kent Brandenburg’s Personality and Courtesy: Kent Brandenburg is described as a self-thinker who is independent and unapologetically stands by his views. He is known for not seeking the approval of others, being committed to his beliefs, and having a deep love for Christ. Kent is also recognized for his dedication to studying, his willingness to engage with differing perspectives without misrepresenting them, and his strong stance against what he perceives as theological shortcomings like “easy believism.” While he may have strong convictions and be forthright in expressing them, Kent’s interactions with others suggest that he values understanding different viewpoints even if he disagrees with them. Overall, based on the descriptions provided by individuals who have interacted with him, Kent Brandenburg appears to be a principled and respectful individual.
The Biggest Problem Presupposition for Modern Versions
In a short minute and a half presentation Dan Wallace gives the biggest problem presupposition for modern versions. Some hearing it will think it’s wonderful, because they stopped judging based on biblical presuppositions. This clip is only a minute and a half, so easy to digest. He starts with debunking some crazy conspiracy theories I’ve never heard, which make for a bit of a red herring on the main subject. It makes people, who disagree with him, look crazy.
A Positive First Statement
About thirty-seven seconds into his little presentation, Wallace starts making the points I’m addressing. I want to begin by saying that Wallace says something positive with which I agree. He states:
The King James Bible, we still have those manuscripts that the King James New Testament was based on.
Let that sink in. Sometimes people today especially treat people such as myself like we think that preservation comes from a reconstructed text in 1881. I’m talking about Scrivener’s. We never say that, but they still say we do, just because it’s convenient. Wallace debunks that with this statement.
I always like to say, “The translators translated from something.” The manuscripts were there. Printed editions of those manuscripts were there. They translated from them into English.
Then the Problems Begin
Then Wallace says:
The oldest (manuscript) was from the 11th century. Eight manuscripts were essentially used.
Wallace implies two criticisms of the King James Version with those two sentences. One, he says that the King James translators translated from more recent copies. The assumption of Wallace is that that would mean they’re corrupted more through time. They had eleven hundred years for scribal errors to creep in and produce variations on the original text.
The second sentence says that the King James Version came from a minority of the manuscripts. He implies that they didn’t have much with which to compare to make improvements or correct errors.
What the Translators “Used”
Notice that Wallace says, “essentially used.” Why? Why not just “used”? The King James translators examined more than eight manuscripts as the basis of their translation — far, far more. The text from which they translated comes almost entirely from a majority of the manuscripts.
The Greek text for the King James translators represented a period of about a hundred years of examination and study of Greek manuscripts, printed editions, and previous English translations. At least nine editions of the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek text were printed before 1611. The former translators of the previous English translations also looked at manuscripts. Then the translators in the 1611 edition recorded themselves alternate readings.
Also, the men, who printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the invention of the printing press, knew about manuscripts. They knew what was in them. The ones they possessed were ones preserved and available. They may not have relied on other manuscripts than the ones they used, because they rejected them as inferior.
Wallace says “essentially” to give himself deniability and wiggle room. He knows he’s saying something inaccurate. It’s just not true, but it’s based on an argument that Wallace might make with a focus on Erasmus and his earliest printed edition. The King James translators were not translating from Erasmus’s text.
Naturalistic Presuppositions Versus Divine Ones
Important to recognize is that God doesn’t need more and earlier manuscripts for preservation of his exact words. The King James Version translators had the preserved words from which they translated. More and earlier doesn’t mean better. This is a naturalistic presupposition expressed even more clearly by Wallace as he keeps talking.
The manuscripts upon which the King James translators relied is different than what they had available. They used more than just a few manuscripts, but they also had many more available that they didn’t use. They rejected those. The King James translators did not produce a critical text. It was the text God providentially preserved and received by true believers.
Majority and Minority
Wallace continues:
Today we have over five thousand eight hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts and somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand manuscripts in other languages. So we have a thousand times as many manuscripts as, uh, almost in Greek alone than what the King James translators relied on.
Today we can compare the text behind the King James Version and it agrees with a majority of manuscripts more than the critical text, the basis of the modern versions. Even though Wallace refers to all those presently available manuscripts and translations, he does not mention that the modern versions do not rely on most of them. It sounds like he’s saying that, but he doesn’t, and it just isn’t true.
Overall, Wallace says that the King James translators relied on just eight manuscripts for their Greek text. He then implies that the modern critical text and versions rely on five-thousand eight-hundred Greek manuscripts and fifteen to twenty thousand manuscripts of ancient translations. That’s not true. Modern versions rely almost entirely on three or four manuscripts of the New Testament. If you compared the two underlying Greek texts, the text behind the King James Version is found in a majority of the manuscripts of which he speaks and the modern versions in a tiny minority of them. Do you understand how misleading it is that Wallace says?
Misleading Statements
Then Wallace says:
And our earliest manuscripts don’t go back to the eleventh century. They go back to the second century. So almost a thousand times as many manuscripts. Almost a thousand years earlier.
This is Wallace attacking the King James Version and its underlying text, the Textus Receptus. He’s saying they’re inferior. But is what he’s saying true? What is said again is extremely misleading. What manuscript evidence comes from the second century? A tiny little piece of one page, a mere fragment. The impression you might get from his speech is that we have a manuscript of the entire New Testament from the second century. We don’t. Not even close.
Also, having more manuscripts available now does not void God’s preservation. God didn’t need thousands more manuscripts to preserve the words of the originals. He could do that in a few. In his speech, Wallace uses the word “stupid” to describe people’s thinking. Maybe Wallace thinks people are too stupid to catch the problems with what he says. If the thousands they find agree almost exclusively with the ones that the translators used, that just illustrates the point.
Many people for many years have talked about the misnomer of judging something better because it’s older. In recent days, men found a very old copy of the Gospel of Thomas. They likewise found a Gospel of Judas. Age doesn’t mean either of those are believable. They could have easily lasted so long because few to none used them or relied on them for centuries and centuries.
The Biggest Problem
The biggest problem for Wallace he expresses at the end of his video, when he says:
The longer we go, as time goes on, we’re getting closer and closer to the original text.
Wallace says to his audience, “We’ve lost the original text. We haven’t had it.” He says we’re getting closer. How does he know that? If it was lost for thousands of years, what evidence is there that we know better now? It’s all naturalistic. According to Wallace, certainty still won’t exist.
The statement of Wallace betrays a rejection of the biblical doctrine of preservation. He doesn’t have one. Wallace doesn’t believe or teach one. He does the opposite. Saying that God perfectly preserved His Words, Wallace would say that’s rife for causing doubt. God promised He would and He didn’t, so that teaching would cause people to eject from the faith. Daniel Wallace and modern version proponents do not operate on faith in scriptural presuppositions. They offer something far less than that. This naturalistic presupposition is their biggest problem.
Optimistic Premillennialism
Versus Postmillennialism
Postmillennialism, an eschatological position or framework, seems to be making a comeback. When I say that, I still think a relatively small minority of professing Christians are postmillennial. The events of the twentieth century, namely two world wars, killed postmillennialism with most people. However, partly because of renewed popularity of Calvinism and reformed theology, many more are arguing for postmillennialism again. This eschatological position has its same major problems, but more treat it favorably right now than I’ve ever seen.
The rise of postmillennialism dovetails also with the promotion of Christian nationalism. The idea of Christian nationalism parallels with postmillennialism. In most ways, postmillennialism has become an American thing. Christian patriots back their fervent patriotism with an eschatological position and argument. Postmillennialism isn’t true, but it’s attractive in numbers of ways because of its optimism.
To believe in postmillennialism, advocates commonly caricature and trash premillennialism. They also take extremes of premillennialism, the wackiest among premillennialists, as representative of the whole. One particular attack is upon the pessimism of premillennialism. The language of pessimism is that “we lose down here.” Another one is that “everything’s got to get worse before it’s going to get better.”
Pessimism Is Wrongful Premillennialism
Premillennialists apparently can embrace the downfall and destruction of a present age. I believe that pessimism is not a biblical attitude. Premillennialists should reject pessimism. I don’t believe pessimism is the natural consequence of a literal approach to scripture. As I see it, the pessimism is a human construct that rises from an extreme form of separation. It’s what some might characterize as a “holy huddle, waiting for the rapture.”
The optimism of premillennialism should come from a joyous literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture. Premillennialists look forward to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, but Jesus is King to true Christians right now. Jesus has not rescinded the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-31. True belief and practice of scripture applies all of scripture to all of the world. Believers should say something about everything to which the Bible applies, which is to everything.
Professing true believers, premillennial ones, very often and incoherently have reduced Christian living to delivering people quickly before Jesus comes back. Time is so short that they don’t have time for much of what scripture teaches. Instead, they should obey all of the Great Commission, that is, teaching believers to obey all the commands of Jesus Christ. Premillennial believers should represent the future kingdom in the age in which we live. That’s true conversion.
Pessimistic Postmillennialism
As a bit of an aside, postmillennialism is also pessimistic. It might think that the church will bring a future state with Jesus in charge. In so doing, however, it crushes Israel. Israel, also elect of and by God, becomes a pessimistic casualty of postmillennialism.
Why would someone think of a cheery future for elect church with a pessimistic view of elect Israel? Postmillennialists are pessimistic about what God really said in the Bible. They can’t take it literally. Instead they formulate it to their fictional version of the future, spiritualizing a gigantic chunk of scripture. I wouldn’t call that optimistic.
A primary basis for believing a positive view of my future, both near and far, is that God keeps His promises. He has done and will do that with Israel. The two go together. This results in a short term observation that God preserves Israel, a right, optimistic way to see the world. The Iranian drone or missile attack this year saw 99 percent failure. That could create some pessimism for postmillennialists, who bank on the replacement of Israel.
Right View of Imminence
A belief of dispensational premillennialists is imminence. Imminence means that we don’t know when Christ will return. Christ could come back in the next hour or in the next millennia. Believers can derive hope in dark times from imminence. That is realistic. However, premillennialists don’t know. The purification that comes from the accurate, rightful belief in imminence should attach itself to obedience to everything that the Bible says.
I’m very okay with a Christian nation. Churches can’t jump to that. Several steps come in between, but biblical Christians should have something to say about how true Christianity will shape a nation.
For instance, patriarchy is not a postmillennial position. That’s a biblical position. Premillennialists should not be silent on such things as the patriarchy just because they don’t think they have time to do it. That isn’t true belief in imminency. Premillennialists too should support all the biblical beliefs that could transform a nation, just like they will transform the world when Jesus reigns over it.
I call for dispensational premillennialists, who teach the true biblical eschatology, to embrace and promote optimism. That doesn’t mean we believe in the world system. The answer isn’t there, of course. However, dispensational premillennial churches should teach everything that the Bible teaches about everything. That is Christianity. Enjoy that. Help people in every area of life!
“Judge Not”: What’s It Saying?
The Context of Matthew 7:1
Matthew chapter seven starts with a very short, memorable command in the midst of a long sermon by Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” How does that fit into His message? People turn it into a statement against judgment or judgmentalism. But that is not what He was saying.
Jesus exposes His addressed audience, that it falls short of the glory of God. And the glory of God is their standard according to Jesus. “Be ye perfect as the Father is perfect,” He says (Matthew 5:48).
The crowd for Jesus thinks it’s okay because it hasn’t murdered anybody, but it really has murdered in the heart through its contempt for others. It is proud of its giving, its prayer, and its fasting, even though it does these to be seen of men. Its worry or anxiety about what it will eat or what it will wear means it does not seek first the kingdom of God. Without the requisite poverty of spirit, it will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
How Judgment Fits the Context
Comparison
How could the crowd think it was so good? How? It compared itself to other men, that’s how. But Jesus then debunked its false, self-righteous judgment of other men. Even if His audience were held to an identical standard to which it judged others, it would still fall short. It would still find itself failing before God’s holy judgment. Evaluation of one’s self based upon the standard of other men doesn’t change God’s standard of judgment, just shows how self-deceived it is.
People’s own judgment very often becomes their standard of judgment. That’s why they think they’re good. I see this again and again in my evangelism. Most people think they are good. It doesn’t take long in comparing people to God for them to find they don’t stand up to Him.
Contrast
In the next verse, verse two, Jesus says:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Jesus expands on verse one. The Apostle Paul later makes a similar point in Romans 2:1-2:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Jesus Recommends Judgment
Jesus wasn’t saying, “don’t judge at all.” That’s easy to see. That’s not even what He was talking about. Even to make a righteous judgment of others, you can’t be or doing worse than the person you’re judging. All of this exposes the hypocrisy of pseudo-judgment intended to signal virtue and vindicate self. “I’m not as bad as the other guy, so there!”
When Jesus lays out judgment of any person upon any other person, it is for helping that other person. He’s got a moat or a splinter in his eye and you can help him get it out. If he’s beyond help, which we might assume starts with evangelism, Jesus gives an illustration for that. Don’t give something holy to dogs and don’t cast pearls before swine.
In other words, Jesus recommends judgment. He gives two priorities for judgment. One, remove impediments of judgment before you start judging. Two, don’t waste time and energy judging someone whom won’t listen to or use your wise judgment. Good reasons exist for judgment. Using the comparison with other men for self-vindication is not one of them.
The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV
Another Video from Mark Ward
Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).
I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.
Changing Tune
Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.
Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.
My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video
Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.
I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.
Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.
Underlying Text Different
The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.
Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.
More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV
So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.
I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.
Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.
With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?
Matthew 9:17
I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.
KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.
More to Come
Baptist History and the Points of Calvinism
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
Baptists, Calvinistic or Arminian?
In the last post of this series, I wrote that John T. Christian said in his book on The History of Baptists, that Baptists were more Calvinistic than Arminian. When I wrote that or referenced him, I wasn’t saying that Baptists are Calvinists. At least since the advent of Calvinism, they are more Calvinistic, mainly referring to eternal security. Eternal security very often and for some is shorthand for Calvinistic, setting someone apart from Arminianism.
Even with a Calvinistic resurgence in the Southern Baptists, only 30% are Calvinist. They aren’t the majority. I know some look at the English and American Baptist Confessions to get or have the opinion that Baptists were mainly Calvinists for the last four hundred years. You would be wrong again.
Particular and General Baptists
Particular Baptists, the Calvinist wing of Baptists in England especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, wrote the London Baptist Confession. At the time of their writing of that confession, they represented slightly more of the Baptist churches in England than the General Baptists, the non-Calvinist wing. That Confession did not speak for all Baptists in England. John T. Christian writes about this:
This body (of General Baptists) constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation.
The first Baptists in England were not Calvinists. The Calvinists came later as a separation from the Anglican church in 1633. Calvinism was an unnatural growth for Baptist churches. Calvinist Baptists came first from a break with the Church of England, not an adaptation on Baptist churches. They broke with the Anglicans over such doctrine or practices like infant sprinkling.
Apparently because of the doctrinal problems among the General Baptists, once the Particular Baptists came to England, the latter outgrew the former for a short period. By 1660, Particular Baptist churches outnumbered General Baptist ones, 130 to 110. Anglican England, however, persecuted both Baptist factions until the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary and the Toleration Act of 1688.
Calvinism and Arminianism Both Clash with Historical Baptist Belief
Calvinism does not characterize Baptists. Eric Hankins explains this well in his journal article, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism Toward A Baptist Soteriology:
Baptists believe in the clarity and simplicity of the Bible. We search in vain for decrees, a Covenant of Works, the distinction between a “general call” and an “effectual call,” hidden wills, and prevenient grace. We react with consternation to the ideas that God regenerates before He converts, that He hates sinners, that reprobation without respect to a response of faith brings Him the greatest glory, or that the truly converted can lose their salvation. Baptists have felt free to agree with certain emphases within Calvinism and Arminianism, while rejecting those that offend our commitments to the possibility of salvation for all and to the eternal security of that salvation based exclusively on faith in the covenant promises of God.
The free offer of an eternal, life-changing covenant with the Father through the Son by the Spirit to all sinners by the free exercise of personal faith alone has been the simple, non-speculative but inviolable core of Baptist soteriological belief and practice. Baptist soteriology (specifically including the doctrines of the sovereign, elective purposes of God, the sinfulness of all humans, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the security of the believer) is not in jeopardy and does not need to be reinforced by Calvinism or Arminianism. It can be successfully taught, maintained, and defended without resorting to either system.
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Infant Sprinkling
Hankins continues:
It has been typical of Baptists to believe that anyone who reaches the point of moral responsibility has the capacity to respond to the gospel. While all persons are radically sinful and totally unable to save themselves, their ability to “choose otherwise” defines human existence, including the ability to respond to the gospel in faith or reject it in rebellion.
God initiates the process; He imbues it with His Spirit’s enabling. When people respond in faith, God acts according to His promises to seal that relationship for eternity, welding the will of the believer to His own, setting the believer free by His sovereign embrace. Our assurance of salvation comes not from a “sense” that we are elect or from our persistence in holy living. Assurance comes from the simple, surrendered faith that God keeps every one of His promises in Christ Jesus.
Baptist Insistence on Believer’s Baptism
Baptists’ historical insistence on believer’s baptism is a solid indicator of our soteriological instinct. Historically, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism had a correct word for infant baptism because both were burdened with the justification for total depravity, original sin, and individual election. For many Arminians (like those in the Wesleyan tradition), infant baptism functions with reference to original sin and prevenient grace and plays a role in the faith that God “foresees.” For many Calvinists, infant baptism has become an extremely odd vehicle by which they deal with the fate of infants, an issue that is illustrative of the fundamental inadequacy of the system.
If Calvinism is true, then its own logic demands that at least some infants who die before reaching the point of moral responsibility spend eternity in hell. By and large, Calvinists do not want to say this and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Covenant Theology and infant baptism have been the preferred method for assuring (at least Christian) parents that they can believe in original guilt and total depravity and still know that their children who die in infancy will be with them in heaven. While Baptist Calvinists and Arminians do not allow for infant baptism, the fact that their systems allow for and even advocate it is telling.
Baptist Rejection of Covenant Theology
Prevenient grace and Covenant Theology have never played a role in Baptist theology. This frees us to deal biblically with the issue of infant baptism: it is simply a popular vestige of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that the Magisterial Reformers did not have either the courage or theological acuity to address. Privileging election necessarily diminishes the significance of the individual response of faith for salvation, thus creating room for infant baptism and its theological justification. But with faith as the proper center of Baptist soteriology, infant baptism has never made any sense. Our distinctive understanding of the ordinance of baptism celebrates the centrality of the individual’s actual response of faith to the free offer of the gospel.
Hankins gets at the crux of the doctrinal conflict between true Baptist doctrine, actual New Testament doctrine and practice, and the innovation of Calvinism and Arminianism. The doctrinal and practical deviation from scripture of Calvinists and Arminians both clash with the doctrinal and practical sensibility of Baptists. They are a diversion off the true line or trajectory of Baptist churches from their beginning, almost a mutation.
Baptists Not Protestant
Sadly, many professing Baptists embrace Protestantism as their history through Roman Catholicism. This is a new historical revisionism that arose in the late 19th century. Here is what C. H. Spurgeon wrote in the Sword and the Trowel concerning the History of English Baptists in a review of J. M. Cramp’s History:
The history of English Baptists is full of interest. From the first they were peculiarly offensive to “the powers that be.” Henry the Eighth – who did so much for the Anglican Establishmentarians that he ought to be regarded by them as a pet saint, even as he was befooled and belarded by the intriguing Cranmer – when he assumed the headship of the Anglican church which never acknowledged Christ to be its only Head, proclaimed against two kinds of heretics, viz., those who disputed about baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and such as were re-baptised. These Anabaptists were commanded to withdraw from the country at once. Cranmer ordered some to be burnt, and burnt they were.
1357 Date for English Baptists
Mr. Kenworthy, the present pastor of the Baptist church at Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire, has stated that if the traditions of the place are to be trusted, the church is five hundred years old. “A tombstone has been lately dug up in the burial ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of the church is assigned to the year 1523.
It is evident that there were Baptist communities in this country in the reign of Edward VI, since Ridley, who was martyred in the following reign, had the following among his “Articles of Visitation:” “Whether any of the Anabaptists’ sect or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they do use doctrines or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish?” A fearful crime which many Anglicans of the present day would be as ready to punish were it not that other notions of religious liberty exist and powerfully influence public opinion.
We can trace the same spirit, though in embryo perhaps, in the ritualistic prints of the present age, and indeed in the two delightfully amiable Evangelical newspapers whose unbounded hatred of all outside the pale of their theology and clique is as relentless and unscrupulous as the bitterest feelings of Papal days. All history teaches that state-churchism means persecution, in one form or another, according to the sentiments of the age; and the only cure for the evil is to put all religions on an equality.
True History of Baptists Not Protestant
Spurgeon did not believe the Protestant view of English separatism. He with his mammoth library and well-read wrote the following:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.
Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
Spurgeon made statements like this many times in sermons through the years, not from the seat of his trousers, but from what he read of prime sources and other history. He also talked among many English men for years as to the truth of Baptists.
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
The last point of Calvinism is
5. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
He That Overcometh
That language sounds right to me, but especially like “total depravity,” the first point, it depends on how one explains it. Why it seems good is because of certain scriptural language, chiefly two in particular. One, the New Testament describes the truly saved person as him or he “that overcometh” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). In an explicit way, 1 John 5:4-5 say:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
True believers will overcome or persevere. One of the ways you know a person is not a true believer or who possesses saving faith is that he will not overcome. If it’s true, real, or living faith, it will persevere or overcome. What does someone overcome? Scripture would most characterize it as trials, temptations, snares, or tests, brought by Satan or the world system that Satan orchestrates. Jesus explained it in the parable of the soils as the sun beating on the soil, the stony or rocky does not have root and cannot endure.
Abiding in the Vine
Two, Jesus used the metaphor of abiding in the vine (John 15). Often, because of a wrong view of sanctification, evangelicals messed up this doctrine. “Abide” (meno) comes from a simple Greek word that means “remain.” Truly saved people, people with true saving faith, will abide or remain. They will not defect like Judas or Demas (2 Tim 4:10).
The reason true believers remain, that is, don’t lose their salvation, is that God keeps them. Once in His hand, no man can pluck them out of His hand (John 10:27-30). He keeps them by His power (1 Peter 1:5). Paul expresses it this way in Philippians 1:6:
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.
God began the work of saving grace and He will complete it. Despite the testing of Satan, Job persevered, which testified of His saving righteousness.
Perseverance contrasts with a form of eternal security doctrine that eliminates an enduring or steadfast faith. True and saving faith through the New Testament does endure all the way into eternity. The eternal life of eternal security resulting through faith in Christ continues as more than just a quantity of life, but also a quality of life. The eternal life received by saving faith proceeds from the nature of God. That life of God will characterize the one who possesses it according to His moral attributes.
Regeneration and Perseverance
Is everything that I have described the actual doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? I’m afraid not. For Calvinists, unless regeneration preceded faith, then man’s contribution would have mixed with God’s in a non-saving way. Regeneration as a consequence of faith, Calvinists say, will not persevere. Man thus contributes to and fails at staying saved.
Endure to the End, Shall Be Saved
In other words, every point of Calvinism fits with all the others, so that if one is wrong, all are wrong, no matter how much each one is right. Some thing or many things are right within each point, but enough is wrong to make the point itself in general wrong. Perhaps no point is more right of the points of Calvinism than the perseverance of the saints. Jesus said in Matthew 24:13:
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
“Shall be saved” is a future tense verb. This is ultimate salvation, what some call “eschatological salvation.” It takes in justification, sanctification, and glorification. If God truly justifies someone, he will endure to the end. Even though it is God keeping and sanctifying, the New Testament describes the cooperation of the believer in this. Paul commands the believer to ‘work out his own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Philip 2:12). Peter explains this as ‘giving diligence to make your calling and election sure’ (2 Pet 3:10).
To emphasize some modification of Calvinism, I will rename this point
5. GOD’S PRESERVATION OF HIS SALVATION GUARANTEES MAN’S COOPERATION WITH IT
Many Calvinists wouldn’t disagree with that point. Many non-Calvinists, who claim belief in eternal security, would reject it. Man cannot cooperate without the will and work of God in saving him. If God does save him, he will cooperate with what God does. This fulfills the teaching in Romans 8:29. Whom God foreknew, He predestined to conform to the image of His Son. Every man God justifies, He also sanctifies.
From my reading of Calvinists, I contend that the points of Calvinism do not change the plan of salvation. I hope you noticed that I didn’t say, “the doctrine of salvation.” A Calvinist would receive and would not reject that (1) every man is a sinner, (2) he deserves a penalty for sin, (3) Jesus paid that penalty, and (4) he must believe in Jesus Christ. I’m saying that Calvinism itself does not change the gospel. The points of Calvinism in themselves do not result in a false gospel or salvation by works. According to historians, Baptists have been more Calvinist than Arminian. I write that, less an endorsement of Calvinism, but as it is a repudiation of Arminianism.
I reject a lot that Calvin believed, his ecclesiology, eschatology, infant sprinkling, and more. The corrupt doctrine in the points of Calvinism, although I’m saying is not a false gospel, has bad consequences. The points of Calvinism as taught by historical Calvinism leads people astray on numbers of doctrines. All false doctrine causes problems. Every problem for every church and every Christian comes to some misalignment with or deviation from the true teaching of the Word of God. This includes several various aspects of the points of Calvinism.
A BETTER LIST
You don’t need Calvinism or Arminianism. Certain aspects of both you’ll find in the Bible. I call on everyone to reject both. Either will send you a wrong direction. Instead latch on to what scripture really teaches, which I hope you will see in the alternative points I provided.
Maybe you don’t even need a list or five points. I’m not saying you do. However, if you’re going to have a list of points, I contend mine is better than Calvinism or Arminianism. It will allow for whatever truth either of those doctrinal positions provide. Instead of conforming to a system, perhaps mine will conform to the full counsel of the Word of God. Let’s review them (look back through the series as all of these points were longer there).
- SPIRITUAL BANKRUPTCY
- ELECTION ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE
- AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE
- SUFFICIENT GRACE TO SAVE
- PRESERVED SAINTS COOPERATE
You’re not going to get the fun acrostic T.U.L.I.P. here. I didn’t even try (SEASP?). I warn you, don’t anyone call these the “five points of Brandenburgism.” Okay? And despite not having a pretty flower to remember, just stop and smell some roses while you review these five instead.
Recent Comments