Home » Uncategorized (Page 6)
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Should Christians Learn Hebrew and Greek? Part 1 of 7
I have composed a work explaining why Christians, and, specifically, Bible-believing, separatist King James Only Baptists should and can learn Hebrew and Greek, the Biblical languages. View the complete work here. While my first purpose in writing was to encourage my current crop of students, I believe that this work will be edifying to a broader readership, including those who never learn the Biblical languages. First, it exposits Biblical principles that relate to this topic, and, as an exposition and application of Scripture, has value. Second, it exposits a number of specific passages where controversy currently exists, enabling Christians to have Biblical answers in these inspired texts. Third, it explains the relationship between the original language text dictated by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old and translations. Can one call translations “inspired,” and if so, in what sense? Fourth, it answers the unbiblical extremism of Ruckman and Riplinger that is a stain to the advocates of the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. When peole want to find out what a Biblical word means, it is fine if they want to look at Webster’s English dictionary, but they should definitely be looking at a Hebrew or Greek lexicon, contrary to the advice of false teachers like Mrs. Gail Riplinger. Fifth, it can encourage Christians to see that learning the Biblical languages is not only desirable, but is an eminently attainable goal.
I am not planning to introduce the entire text of my study on these topics into the blog. I intend to summarize its arguments in several posts. Please read the actual work itself for more information. Learning Hebrew and Greek are desirable and attainable goals for Christians.
Please feel free to comment on this post or the rest of the posts in this series, but kindly read the work I am referencing first. Thank you.
–TDR
James White, Michael Kruger, and the Canonicity Argument for Preservation of Scripture
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
In historical Christian writings, when using the term canonicity, men applied that to books. For a book to be canonical means that it has a true, right, and authoritative place in the collection of inspired writings. To put it simply, if it is canonical then it is God’s Word, or it’s Bible. However, the Bible itself does not speak of the canonicity of books, such as “this book is inspired” or “this book belongs in the Bible as part of God’s Word.” The Bible treats words as canonical, such as words inspired or every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. The Bible speaks of inspired writings or scripture. A book belongs in the canon because all of its writings belong in the canon.
All the principles or doctrine from scripture that apply to the canonicity of books first apply to the canonicity of words. One cannot argue books from scripture without starting with words. Books are inspired because words are inspired.
In the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, published by our church in California, which is also Pillar and Ground Publisher, in 2001 (second edition, 2003), I wrote an important chapter, Chapter 19, entitled, “Test of Canonicity as Applied to Words.” This came over 10 years before Michael Kruger wrote, Canon Revisited, a theological dealing with the canon of scripture. In light of my test of canonicity argument, I listened to James White and Michael Kruger discuss canon at the 2018 G3 conference.
The principles I elucidated in my chapter do reflect how true believers or churches thought and believed about both the doctrine of canonicity and the doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Before I wrote that chapter, I had not read anything saying what I wrote, but since then, many have written on canon as related to the doctrine of preservation. Perhaps they read my chapter or articles on the blog here (also here and here). I hear identical language being expressed in the following video with James White and Michael Kruger.
Starting at about 5:30, James White says:
The issue of the canon is a theological for us first and foremost because of the nature of scripture.
That statement ought to get your attention on every bibliological doctrine, including preservation. The nature of scripture makes every issue with the Bible a theological one. He continued:
If you just put canon into Amazon, what’s going to come back are going to be books that are going to direct you to, well, this early church father had this list, this early church father had that list, and then you have this development here, and you have that development there, why does there need to be a different approach? I mean you’re taking a different approach.
Kruger answered:
I take a quite a different approach actually than the standard models. . . . I’m teaching a class on the New Testament canon years ago, and we’re talking about the question of “how you know,” and I realized no one ever answered the question. Uh, ya know, I’m assigning Metzger. I’m assigning some of the other classic sort of texts on canon, and they’re what I sort of call ‘data books’ and they do a great job collecting together, sweeping together, a bunch of factoids about when, aaah, books began to be used as scripture and how long it took . . . and they’re basically just history books. . . . and my students kept asking . . . but that doesn’t answer my question. . . . why should we think the results of all that mean anything?. Ummmm, And so you have to back up and say, oh, wait a second, you can’t just look at the data. You have to have a worldview. You have to have a theological system in which you can absorb that data and interpret it and understand what it means. If you do that, then you need a theology of canon.
White responded:
So when you speak of a theological view of scripture. Ummm, certainly if you, if you have the modern view in the academy of scripture, you’re going the wrong direction. But you’re talking about from a confessional, believing, scriptural perspective. If you start with what scripture is that’s going to impact how you look at how God made sure his people had what He had given supernaturally in inspiration. So flesh that out, how does that differ from most normal approaches?
James White does have the modern view in the academy of scripture on the doctrine of preservation, and he is going the wrong direction. He should be talking about preservation from a confessional, believing, scriptural perspective and he does not. He contradicts himself here, really puts his foot in his mouth and he doesn’t even know it.
Kruger answered that the other approaches say they’re taking a neutral point of view. He says this isn’t a Christian worldview. Kruger is asserting that no one is neutral, just letting the evidence lead them to the truth. Everyone functions according to presuppositions. Kruger and White are saying that the determination of the canon is not naturalistic from some false neutrality, but divine. Again, both of them put their feet in their mouths because they treat textual criticism, which is naturalistic, like it is neutral. They say this presupposition is not a Christian worldview. They are saying that their bibliology is naturalistic and not Christian.
Kruger said:
Let me back up and follow up on one of the things that you (James White) said there, I think is very important, and that is, uh, this idea of seeing canon from a divine perspective. That’s another way to say what you’ve articulated. If you look at it from a purely historical perspective, it looks like a manmade thing, something that the church constructed, but what if we ask the question about, not so much what books Christians recognized, but what books did God give. And when you ask it that way, now you’re asking more of a theological question, and theoretically the books that belong in the canon are the books God gave the church. They may take awhile to recognize those books, but we can still talk about canon as a theological idea in the mind of God.
Kruger continues by talking about defining canon from the divine perspective or from a theological perspective, which he calls an “ontological canon,” which then James White calls canon with a subscript 1, which is the canon as it is known to God. White says:
We need to talk about God’s purpose in leading people to understand these things. . . . . If God extends His divine power to inspire scripture, does He have a purpose? And is there a consistency between what His purpose is in inspiring scripture and leading His people to know what that is? And obviously there are a number of texts of scripture that address that. But this is all theological.
And it drives me insane when I read, uh, people attacking this subject, and they, they want to deny that these documents are theopneustos, they are God-breathed, they are inspired, which is a theological concept, but they will only allow you to use historical, naturalistic, uh, methodology and information to defend the spiritual nature of these books. And people fall into it. We fall into the trap. It’s happening this very day in university classrooms all across America. Our young people are sitting there, and they’re getting slapped upside the head by a naturalistic professor who is demanding that they give naturalistic evidence for what is in fact a supernatural reality.
Kruger agrees. He says, “Right.” I want you to read all of what these men said. I transcribed it. Especially, however, read that last paragraph of White and compare it to what White does on the doctrine of preservation, which is in essence a doctrine of canonicity of words. Preservation is the canonicity of the writings of the words, which is what theopneustos is. All scripture, which is graphe, writings, are God breathed. It isn’t, “All books are God breathed.” Kruger then says:
No surprise. If you start with a naturalistic assumption, you end up with naturalistic conclusions.
Later he says: “Your worldview, your theological grid, ends up affecting your historical conclusions.”
Bingo.
White answers:
And the naturalistic professor, who is slapping our students upside the head has presuppositions. They just don’t allow them to be expressed or examined, uh, fairly in any meaningful fashion.
White asks:
What would you call the churches recognition of the canon over time? How would you des, what terminology would you use to describe that?
Kruger answers:
That’s what I call the exclusive definition, which is you, you, you don’t, well, it depends on what part you mean. So the final sort of settling of the canon is what I call the exclusive definition, which is if the church finally reaches a consensus around these books.
Read those words: a “settling of the canon” and “the church finally reaches a consensus.” Why would it be the canon based upon settling and consensus? There are biblical principles around these related to the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit. The unity of the Spirit is the guiding of the Holy Spirit. This comes by faith. In scripture this all relates to words.
I’m going to stop here for now, and you can hear more from White or Kruger, but you need to see that White believes and practices completely inconsistent on the text of scripture from the canon. This is not because of what the Bible says. This is because of naturalistic presuppositions, where White thinks of himself as neutral as he looks at the evidence and discovers what has been lost. These men would be lying to you if they said something different on the text. It is exactly the same. Every believer needs to be consistent on the text and on the books. We know what they are in an identical way.
Millions of Muslims are NOT Becoming Christians Because of Dreams!
Many sources report that, in the words of Roman Catholic conservative Dinesh D’Souza, “Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ.” Charismatic sources agree with the Catholics about millions of Muslims becoming Christians through dreams and visions. So do Southern Baptist mission agencies.
These visions and dreams clearly prove that:
1.) Continuationism is true and cessationism is false. God is continuing to give revelatory dreams and visions today. We have lots of testimonials, and testimonials can’t be wrong.
2.) Any passages of Scripture that seem to teach the cessation of revelation with the completion of the canon must be reinterpreted in light of the overwhelming proof from the dreams and visions.
3.) If this can happen in Muslim lands, it can happen here. Instead of the hard work of teaching people to skillfully preach the gospel, and working so that they grow spiritually to the point where they love to go house to house, we should encourage people to seek after signs, wonders, and dreams, because that is how there will be millions of new converts here in our country as well.
Right?
Wrong.
Why?
Scripture is the sole authority for the believer’s faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Scripture is more sure than any experience–even hearing the audible voice of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). Scripture, therefore, must never have its teaching ignored, altered, overlooked, or changed because of what someone claims he experienced. Indeed, even if everyone in the whole world said something was true, but Scripture said otherwise, the Bible would be right and everyone would be wrong: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Scripture teaches cessationism, as the studies linked to here clearly demonstrate. There are no Apostles today or apostolic gifts (Ephesians 2:20), the canon of Scripture is complete (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), and God Word is His completed revelatory speech.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17); conversion comes through Scripture (John 15:3). Men are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). So nobody has been born again because of a dream. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth as sinners, enabled by grace, respond to the gospel recorded in the Word of God. This is “thus saith the Lord.” I don’t care what someone says happened in his dream. God’s Word is infinitely more reliable than someone’s dream, and Scripture teaches that people are born again through hearing the gospel, not having dreams and visions.
So how do I explain the dreams? I don’t need to explain people’s dreams. The Bible tells me to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), but it never tells me that I need to explain what someone said he saw in a dream. I don’t need to explain dreams of people who say they left Islam and rejected Allah and the Quran for Christianity. Nor do I need to explain the dreams of people who say they left Christianity for Islam after having a dream. How am I supposed to know what is going on in someone else’s head when he is sleeping? The vast majority of the time I can’t even remember my own dreams. Yet I need to explain what someone tells me happened in his dream, or what someone tells someone else who tells someone else who tells someone else who prints an article with no documentation in a charismatic magazine about a dream?
I am suspicious that these “millions” of converts are allegedly taking place in lands far, far away where it is impossible to verify anything. For example, in the Dinesh D’Souza video above, there are no sources provided and no way to verify anything. This is typical–indeed, D’Souza is a scholarly man who tends to document his material far better than does the average charismatic magazine. With these millions of alleged converts to Christianity, true churches–independent Baptist churches–should be overflowing in Muslim countries, as Islam is allegedly collapsing and true Christians are allegedly becoming a huge percentage of the population. But are these people-if they even exist–becoming true Christians, or leaving Islam for other demonic religions, like Roman Catholicism or Oneness Pentecostalism? What would someone leaving one false religion for a different false religion prove? Scripture teaches that we see Christ by faith, enabled by the Spirit, in the Word (2 Corinthians 3:18), and all images of Jesus Christ are idolatrous violations of the Second Commandment (see the relevant resources here). So are they seeing the real Jesus in a dream? Also, where are all these people? Why is this only (allegedly) happening in places far, far away where we can’t actually verify it? I think of how Jack Hyles claimed that through “God’s power,” allegedly in conjunction with carnal promotion and marketing techniques that manipulated people and are found nowhere in Scripture, he had far more “saved” in one day than the Holy Ghost did on the Day of Pentecost, although not even one person was added to First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana on that day through these “saved” people, and people close enough to the situation to investigate claimed that the vast majority of these “saved” people were just as lost as before. I think of how Keswick continuationist John A. MacMillan, who is promoted among Independent Baptists at schools like Baptist College of Ministry. MacMillan claimed to have an amazing technique for casting out demons, which was copied by him and promoted at one of the yearly Victory Conferences at Baptist College of Ministry and Falls Baptist Church–but people who were close to the situation claimed, on the contrary, that the demons were in control of everything. I think of how Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, with their dreams and visions, destroyed the 1904-1905 Welsh revival. Scripture is sufficient, so even if I were confronted with signs and wonders of the quality that the Antichrist will perform in the Tribulation, I would still go by sola Scriptura–Scripture alone. But the alleged evidence for these dreams and visions seems to be woefully lacking. They aren’t like the real revelatory miracles in the Bible before the miraculous gifts ceased.
Note that the question is not if God is powerful enough to give people dreams. The question is not one of God’s power. It is one of what He has said He would do in His inspired revelation, the Bible–and in that revelation He has said that the giving of revelation through dreams has ceased. Nor is there a category of “non revelatory” dreams that are infallibly from God. If God gives infallible truth, then it is revelation. If it is not infallible truth, then God is not speaking in the dream, for God cannot lie, but only speaks and reveals infallible truth.
What if I come across someone who actually is serving the Lord faithfully in a true church, but who says that having a dream was part of how he became a Christian? Doesn’t that mean that I need to reinterpret Scripture? No. God is sovereign, and He can use all kinds of things to get people thinking about religion or about His Word. I know someone who is a faithful Christian who, before his conversion, liked to watch creationist videos while smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I commend the pot smoking. I know someone else who called on a ghost (likely a demon) to come to him, and then says that the ghost came at night and almost killed him. The demonic intervention led this person away from agnosticism to openness to the supernatural, and years later he became a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support agnostics calling on ghosts or demons. So if someone says he had a dream and that led him away from Islam to Christianity, I’m glad if he trusted in Christ, while everything contrary to Scripture that took place in his life–including the alleged revelatory dreams–are chalked up to God’s merciful and providential grace, and need no further explanation. (This is even apart from the fact that we cannot see people’s hearts, and even in true churches people without the new birth can enter and appear to be genuine believers for a time, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the person who claims to have been born again after seeing a dream is not a true child of God.)
So are millions of Muslims being born again because of dreams? No. Nobody is being born again because of a dream. Are Muslims having dreams that lead them to all kinds of religious experiences? Very possibly. Why? There could be all kinds of reasons. I do not need to speculate.
What I do need to know is what Scripture teaches. The Biblical truth of cessationism is being weakened in some independent Baptist churches because people are not thinking Biblically, but are allowing what people say is happening in their dreams to justify changes to Biblical beliefs on charismata. You are dreaming if you think it is right to change one’s doctrine and practice from what Scripture teaches because of what some other person says he saw when he was sleeping.
Never change or set aside God’s Word because of an experience or what someone says. That was part of Satan’s original technique that caused the Fall in Genesis 3. Go with Scripture–not the dreams. As Christ said, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Give Muslims gospel truth, such as in The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible pamphlet. Reject the dreams. Do not be deceived.
Objections to Christians Learning Greek and Hebrew (6/7)
The first five blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages and explained that the languages are not too difficult to learn–indeed, Biblical Greek and Hebrew are easier languages to learn than modern English. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable and attainable. But people have objections.
1.) “Greek letters look different from English ones! Hebrew letters, even more so! Greek and Hebrew must be hard languages!”
While some people who begin to learn Greek and Hebrew do not finish what they started, there is just about nobody that cannot learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabet. If toddlers can learn the alphabet in Israel and in Greece, adults can learn the same alphabet in English-speaking countries.
2.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is dangerous: such knowledge makes the person who knows the languages proud.”
There is no reason why learning God’s Word in Greek or Hebrew would contribute to pride rather than to humility, any more than learning God’s Word in English would contribute to pride rather than to humility.
3.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is too hard.”
This objection was already examined in the part four of this seven part series. However, even if learning the languages was very hard, it would not be as hard as being crucified. But all Christians are called to daily cross-bearing, so they are all already called to something that is much harder than learning Greek or Hebrew.
4.) “Greek and Hebrew can be abused.”
Yes, the Bible in Greek or in Hebrew can be abused, as can the Bible in English. Should we refrain from learning the English language because innumerable cults and false religions abuse the English Bible? Because many preachers who warn about the dangers of Greek and Hebrew do not even know how to properly exposit the English text, should we avoid English?
5.) “I do not have time to learn Greek and Hebrew—I am too busy preparing for ministry or too busy, already serving in the ministry.”
Over the course of a lifetime of ministry, learning Greek and Hebrew actually saves tremendous amounts of time. Exegetical conclusions that are easily and quickly determined by an examination of the original language text are hard and time consuming to someone who does not know the Biblical languages.
The objections above to learning the Biblical languages are insufficient. They do not even come close to refuting the positive case for learning Greek and Hebrew summarized in the first five sections of this blog series or in the more comprehensive work Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, pages 52-57 of which are summarized here.
–TDR
Does Lordship Salvation Proceed from Calvinism Like Many Say?
I believe what is termed, “Lordship salvation,” and don’t believe there is any other kind. I’ve read articles meant to expose Lordship salvation as false, that say it proceeded from the Calvinism of 17th century Post-Reformation Puritanism. Puritanism also brought the Westminster Confession of Faith. When I think of the five points of TULIP, I don’t get the connection. Lordship salvation is what I read in the Bible. Before I dig into that, I want to clarify some points.
No one is saved by works. Scripture not only does not teach salvation by works, but it instructs against salvation by works (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). The Bible does teach salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not a grace or a faith like the Mormons, their vital doctrine of salvation found in the Book of Mormon, a man-made, uninspired book (2 Nephi 25:23):
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
The Bible not only teaches nothing like that statement, but it teaches that when one adds even one work to grace, Christ becomes of no effect unto him. He also becomes a debtor to do the whole law (Galatians 5:2-4).
On the other hand, “believing” must be what scripture shows is “believing.” “Jesus Christ” must be who scripture shows is in fact Jesus Christ. These aren’t arbitrary, “believing” and “Jesus Christ.” Both must be what scripture teaches. I’m not attempting to be difficult. I don’t want truly saved people to think they’re not saved. “Believing” and “Jesus Christ” are both simple to understand. They go wrong when someone adds to or takes away from what the Bible says.
Also, when someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ does that mean he is truly saved? Is that what scripture teaches about the assurance of salvation? It doesn’t. The Bible teaches the opposite. Merely professing to believe in Jesus Christ does not mean that someone has believed in Jesus Christ. Just because someone even continues to profess faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that he is saved.
The ones that I have read that critique Lordship salvation as Calvinist or Reformed, say that the original Reformers, Calvin and Luther, taught that faith was only acceptance of the Word of God. I could agree with faith being acceptance of the Word of God if it really was acceptance of the Word of God, which means that someone truly accepted in a genuine fashion what the Bible said about Jesus Christ.
As a matter of history, Melancthon in the 16th century defined faith with three Latin words in his Loci Communes Theologici: Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Those three in order bring in intellectual, emotional, and volitional. From that, I would argue that the volitional aspect of faith arose before the 17th century. Among writers, these three divided into two, notitia and assensus representing the mind and fiducia, the heart, so that genuine faith involved the head and the heart, not only the head.
I’m not going to do this here, but if one were to follow through with a study of faith in all theological literature, one can see that this volitional or heart aspect goes very far back as an understanding of faith. As an example and before the printing press, Irenaeus in the early 3rd century wrote:
The Law which was given to bondmen formed men’s souls by outward corporeal work, for it coerced men by a curse to obey the commandments in order that they might learn to obey God. But the Word, the Logos who frees the soul, and through it the body, teaches a voluntary surrender.
Clement in the early second century writes:
Called by the will of God in Christ, we can be justified, not by ourselves, not by our own wisdom and piety, but only by faith, by which God has justified all in all ages. But shall we, on this account cease from doing good, and give up charity? No, we shall labor with unwearied zeal as God, who has called us, always works, and rejoices in his works.
This is how men have understood faith not to be mere intellectual assent to facts.
I divide the salvation issue into two parts, “believing in” and “Jesus Christ.” “Faith in Christ” is four times, “faith in the Lord Jesus” once, some form of “believe on” Christ, fifteen times, and “believe in” Christ, eleven times. There are more examples than these, but “believing” must be believing and some faith does not save (James 2:17-26; John 2:23-24). Saving faith includes more than intellect. Repentance means something more than just sorrow (2 Corinthian 7:8-11). Intellect and sorrow without volition falls short of believing.
Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance, which must be volitional. One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul (Luke 9:23-25). Scripture describes salvation as the restoring (Psalm 23:3) and converting of the soul (Psalm 23:3). To be restored or converted, a sinner relinquishes his soul to the Lord. This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way (John 14:6). Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ.
The second half says, “Lord Jesus Christ.” If someone believes Jesus is the Christ, which is necessary for eternal life (John 20:31), then he believes Jesus is King. This fits with Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s preaching to “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” One could say the meaning of this is “repent because the King is here.” The New Testament presents Jesus as King. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will, becomes subject to the King. This can be proven over and over in the New Testament.
Just as an example, one should read the parable taught in Luke 20:1-19. It’s obvious, Jesus the Son was sent to people, having authority over them. His audience was to receive His authority and ownership, Lordship, if they believed in Him. They didn’t. They killed him, so they were in big trouble. This kind of teaching is all over the New Testament. I understand the popularity of non-Lordship teaching. They walk after their own lusts and don’t want someone as a Boss (2 Peter 3:1-4).
Everything that I’ve written about believing in Jesus Christ does not require being a Calvinist or Reformed. I haven’t read anything that makes that connection. It’s an assertion without proof. Just because Calvinists did believe it doesn’t mean it originated with them. It is what the Bible teaches.
When one reads the early Baptist confession, the Schleitheim Confession (1527), written by Michael Sattler, not a Protestant confession, he reads not a full confession of faith or explanation of the Baptist doctrine. It reveals the distinctions between the Baptists and those not, who claim salvation by faith. Sattler’s statement does not disagree with Protestants on what is “faith in Christ.” One of the few statements in the Confession, however, is the following:
Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.
This defined for Baptists who believed in Jesus Christ. Repentance and true faith in Christ, including Lordship, did not arise from Calvinism.
Which Is True? Restoration, Reformation, or Perpetuity?
Two experiences dovetailed for me to write this post. As to the first, while working out I watched a documentary on Martin Luther. Does Luther’s Reformation represent the truth? Is the true church a reformed one?
The second, I took my dad to a podiatrist in Layton, Utah. As a diabetic, he goes in for his feet every three to six months. In my conversation with the LDS doctor, I gave a short gospel exposition and explained Baptists and the perpetuity of the truth and a true church. Rather than perpetuity or reformation, the Mormons believe in restoration of a true church gone apostate.
I see at least six possible historic positions on the truth. One, we never ever had it. Two, we received it, lost it, and have never restored it since. Three, false teachers corrupted the truth to the degree that some needs reformation. Four, men reformed the corrupted truth (but not likely to its original state). Five, men restored lost truth to its original condition. Six, it was never lost or corrupted. Those six positions find themselves in restoration, reformation, or perpetuity. Someone could add total apostasy to the three to take in the six.
Historic positions on the truth relate also to the church. The preservation of the truth pertains to the preservation of the church. God gave the truth to the church to preserve (1 Timothy 3:15). Applying the same views to the church, one, did the true church end? If it ended, was it restored? If forces corrupted the church, submerging it in various degrees of darkness, was it reformed? Or, was the church never lost, the truth never lost, but both were preserved? These viewpoints of truth and of the church can’t all be true. Only one of them can be true, because each of the three or four contradict the others.
Another important facet to this discussion or question is, how do we know which of these four is true? Only one of them can be true, but how do we know which one? Philosophy of history revolves around the question, what happened? Many other questions, however, arise, important of which is whether a person can report on historical events accurately with his personal interpretation. In this discussion, this is the crux of the issue. From a biblical perspective, God didn’t promise to preserve history. History can be and is slanted by those recounting.
If perpetuity of the truth and the church is true, that truth and the church were never lost, how do we know? What is the proof? Most historical evidence is on the side of corruption and reformation. Is there proof for perpetuity?
As I listened to the introduction in the Martin Luther documentary, the makers presented a very dark world out of which the reformation began. That segment began with an illustration of the painting by the Dutchman, Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights. The producers posited a world as Bosch did. The church was corrupt with few exceptions, John Wycliffe and John Hus.
Hus apparently means “goose” in Bohemian. Hus is reported to have said while being attached to the stake for burning, “You can kill the goose, but one day soon a swan will come that no one will be able to silence,” and Luther came a hundred years later. Luther’s pulpit had a swan engraved or painted on it, asserting himself the fulfillment of Hus’s prophecy.
With the reformation view of history, Luther becomes important. He becomes the vessel of the Reformation, it’s veracity attached to him. Was that true? Luther retained many Roman Catholic doctrines, including a state church. He was better than the Catholics, no doubt. Based on his own writing, I don’t think Luther was converted. A reformation viewpoint embraces Luther and then adapts him to provide the proof.
The Bible is true. What Jesus said was true. The reformed view isn’t much different than that of the restorationists in its reliance on scripture. Jesus and the Bible teach perpetuity. As I watch a Luther documentary, it is easy to see a reformed view of history as a matter of personal interpretation through a convoluted lens.
The Mormon podiatrist asked me when the Baptists started. I didn’t provide him a hint to ask that question. It was important enough for him on his own. How did I answer? I said that Baptists started with Christ, and I added, “Of course I would say that, right?” I revealed that there have always been true churches separate from the state church. That’s what Jesus prophesied and He couldn’t be wrong (Matthew 16:18-19).
I hear the reformed say, “The Reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the doctrine of justification had been lost. I have often asked men, “Do you believe the truth was preserved through Roman Catholicism?” People have a difficult time answering that. It’s easy to see why. Roman Catholicism was an apostate institution that had departed from the faith, when the Reformation started. The Reformed or Protestants trace themselves through Roman Catholicism, a viewpoint incompatible with a scriptural position on the truth and the church.
A perpetuity view starts with scripture and then gives the most complete historical evidence that corresponds to what the Bible says. In every century since Christ and the founding of the church, churches exist separate from the state church that embrace scripture as authority. With a scriptural presupposition of perpetuity enough historical evidence exists to support that viewpoint. Many historians vouch for this.
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous.
The famed Quaker commentator, Robert Barclay, said (The Inner Life of the Societies of the Commonwealth, London, 1876, pp. 11-12):
We shall afterwards show the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.
Annaeus Ypeij (1760–1836) and Isaac Johannes Dermout (1777–1867), Dutch Reformed theologians and historians, in their Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk wrote:
We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who, long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and, as a Christian society, has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.
I include these only as samples. There are many more quotes that back the hypothesis that assemblies existed separate from Roman Catholicism, which believed and practiced the Bible. They long predate the Reformation, substantiating a perpetuity viewpoint.
Modernism of the nineteenth century brought a solely empirical basis for truth. The nature of knowledge brought the necessity of rational justification for faith. Traditional beliefs that proceeded from scripture alone were questioned and criticized. The empiricist claimed knowledge through the senses alone. The only reasonable view of the world comes by scientific discovery. Sufficient evidence for perpetuity could be questioned next to the massive documentation of Roman Catholicism. This clashes with the doctrine of scripture.
Faith is the basis of pleasing God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Faith isn’t contradictory to reason, but it is superior to reason. I like to say that faith bypasses our lying eyes. Revelation exceeds, transcends, or eclipses discovery.
At the same time, perpetuity is reasonable because scripture is reasonable. This fits Romans 12:1, “reasonable” (logikos). Enough history exists either direct or indirect to corroborate the scriptural presupposition of perpetuity. Saying that the truth was lost and the church ceased as an institution is not reasonable. It’s like saying that the world got here by accident.
You know the conclusion. Restoration and reformation are false, but perpetuity is true. What does that mean for authority, the truth, or the church? It has repercussions worth exploring. If you joined something Protestant, Reformed, or Restorationist, you’re in something false. What does that leave you? Pleasing God requires living by faith, which means obeying scripture. This is why I believe in perpetuity and I’m a Baptist.
They Did Not Drive Out the Inhabitants of and from the Land
The idea of driving out anybody from almost anywhere is not acceptable in a woke world or does not work according to political correctness, the latter a softer, earlier iteration of wokeness. The act of driving out inhabitants from the land is a major theme, however, of the Old Testament. Israel is in bad shape at the beginning of Judges and a major, if not the major, reason is that the various tribes of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants of the land from the land. You could add, “and keep them out.”
A prerequisite for Israel from God was to drive out the inhabitants of the land God would give them. In fact, God would drive the inhabitants and He would use Israel to do it. It wasn’t really even their driving out the inhabitants, but God using them to do it.
It was God’s will to drive out the various Canaanities.
Exodus 23:28, And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
Exodus 33:2, And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
Exodus 34:11, Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
Numbers 32:21, And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the LORD, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him,
Numbers 33:52, Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
Deuteronomy 4:38, To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.
Deuteronomy 11:23, Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.
Joshua 3:10, And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
Joshua 13:6, All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.
Joshua 17:12, Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
Joshua 17:18, But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine:: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
1 Chronicles 17:21, And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
If they did not drive them out, this was not good — very bad.
Numbers 33:55, But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
Joshua 23:13, Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
This is still a general principle for the success of any people. The general principle is separate from people, their culture, or their way of life. Try to reach them and if they do not listen or won’t follow the scriptural way, separate from them. They won’t like this, but this is the only way to preserve a godly people and culture in order to please God. It is holiness, which is primary to the nature of God.
In the early history of Israel, one of Abraham’s family settled in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that ruined his family. God of course destroyed those cities with fire and brimstone. Just the opposite of driving out people is to join with them. Psalm 1:1, obviously the first verse of the entire Psalter, says,
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Israel failed when they did not drive out the people from the land. They disobeyed God in not doing this.
Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns:: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.
This whole first chapter is about either destroying these inhabitants or not driving them out. The first good and the latter bad. Mixing with people, intermingling with them, or coexisting with them is not the will of God. The rest of Judges testifies to the failure of not driving out or not separating. They effect the people until they become more and more like the inhabitants.
The New Testament is the same. You evangelize the lost. If they won’t listen, you separate from them, especially those who call themselves brothers (1 Cor 5:11).
This principle of driving out inhabitants or separation is crucial to the preservation and practice of truth. It’s in every New Testament book. It is a principle that not only protects an individual, family, and church, but it also is crucial for a nation, like Israel.
This above principle applies to the United States, which relates to borders and immigration. If there is an American way, it won’t be preserved without some form of separation to keep out those who won’t think the same way. I’m afraid that ship has sailed or that practice won’t be able to be put back into the bottle.
Other nations might need to think about separating from the United States. Even though the Taliban is godless and pagan, they have a way of life they are protecting by ejecting the United States. They don’t want American culture to infiltrate their very specific view of the world. They know that can’t happen without separation.
As an example of what God said and the implementation of this principle, I noticed today that European nations were considering a policy for Americans visiting there to stop the spread of Covid. Quarantine is an extreme form of separation to stop disease from spreading. It is the same principle. People judge Covid to be dangerous. They don’t want it. A bubble, like the NBA bubble in 2020, was deemed necessary to continue the season.
The continuation of true doctrine and practice necessitates some kind of bubble. Young people or a youth culture in general don’t want a bubble. They want outside of it. They want amalgamation, integration, and association. They very often want to be like everyone else and be accepted by them. It is a fools errand on their part, because it won’t end in acceptance. It doesn’t work that way. The cancel culture shows this. However, it will result in their not being right with God, the most important consideration any of them should ever have.
Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4
What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper? Do you know? If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should. I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.
The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening. Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper. The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:
On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.
Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. …
The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”
It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.
All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.
In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—
“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.
“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.
“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”
Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”
Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”
Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”
Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”
Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”
At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.
We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”
Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”
Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”
Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”
Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”
Luther.—“You are captious.”
Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”
Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”
Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.
Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”
–TDR
What Is It To Be a Witness? “Ye Shall Be Witnesses”
In the first eleven verses of Acts, the Lord Jesus Christ appears for the last time on earth until He reappears in the book of Revelation. That section is a transition between the gospels and the rest of Acts. Acts goes along with Luke like one big book of the Bible with two huge halves. They make a case for Christianity. It grew to the entire world because Jesus was the Messiah for everyone, not some regional figure accepted among just an insignificant and small population in a meaningless backwater territory.
The beginning of Acts 1 reads like a final checklist from Jesus for His followers with the keys to success. The talking points were the first two verses, what Jesus did and taught. Luke referred to his own gospel, which was the record by which Theophilus, a Gentile removed from the events, would be persuaded of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Acts would continue the attestation, explaining the worldwide spread.
Recent Comments