Democrats Most Astonishing Hate of Democracy
The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany
A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag. They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists. Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy. The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building. Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.
The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian. His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers. He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans. Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.
Democracy
The United States isn’t a democracy. James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well. But let’s set that aside for now.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:
Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.
Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.
Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples. They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country. While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.
Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece. Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America. I include in that schools, media, and even government. They gladly censor opposing viewpoints. The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible. Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public. Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”
Censorship
Democrats use both hard and soft censorship. By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak. It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity. That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.
By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak. It’s also moderating who speaks. The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position. Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.
A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.” The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions. They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds. The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition. Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition. I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.
Other Examples
The J6 Committee parallels with the internet. You read about the “algorhythms.” The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland. They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise. Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone. Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too. I say these are just examples of what is now normal. Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation. The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation. I think this is the least of it though. It’s a censorship industry.
The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person. Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel. Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media. The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.
Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values
As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states. No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square. Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views? It doesn’t happen except in private. You must pay to hear the truth told.
I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values. When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore? Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms. These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.
Pent-Up Voices
The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship. Yes, better means of expression exist. The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head. That group that day did wrong things. This is not what-aboutism. I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770. The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.
We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party. So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech. It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations. Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view? Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view? I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.
Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy. The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag. But they burned it. The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way. They don’t care if you vote or not. They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.
King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger
Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?
Sam Gipp is an extremist defender of the King James Bible (also known as the King James Version or Authorized Version) of 1611 (KJB / KJV / AV). Gipp has been heavily influenced by the “Baptist” heretic Peter Ruckman, having graduated from Ruckman’s Bible institute, and having received an honorary doctorate from Ruckman’s educational institution. His views are also very similar to those of Ms. Gail Riplinger. Thus, Sam Gipp is a representative of Ruckman’s brand of King James Onlyism (KJVO).
While I strongly disagree with Mr. Gipp on his Ruckmanism, I am thankful that he preaches the gospel, as far as I know, and I trust that people have been born again through his preaching. I rejoice that there will be people in heaven who are there because the Spirit used the Word through the (very!) imperfect vessel of a Ruckmanite preacher (Mark 9:38-39; Philippians 1:15-18).
I do not know if Mr. Gipp agrees with Ruckman’s gospel-corrupting heresy that people in different periods of time have been and will be saved by faith and works together, although if Gipp does not agree with it, he certainly does not separate from and plainly warn about Peter Ruckman’s false gospel and tell everyone to separate from Ruckman and his many heresies and blasphemies. Gipp does follow Ruckman in calling black people “nig–r”; he calls on white people to start regularly using this inappropriate term for blacks. He also makes foolish statements that undermine the gospel and will cause unbiblical offense (Mark 9:42), such as: “I hope you racists enjoyed this racist rant by a fellow racist. Tell your racist friends about it.” (Sam Gipp, “‘Racist’ the New ‘N-word,’ August 1, 2020. Bold print reproduced from the original.)
Dr. Gipp also agrees with Ruckman’s unbiblical KJVO extremism. For example, in Gipp’s Answer Book, he says: “The King James Version we have today … is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not … in the Greek Received Text” (pg. 24; note that the KJV is not said to be authoritative because it accurately translates the ultimately authoritative Greek text, but is allegedly authoritative independent of the Greek Received Text.). “QUESTION #30: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. A translation can’t be as good as the originals, can it? ANSWER: A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better” (pg. 69; the humorous and embarrassingly bad reason provided is that when Enoch and others were “translated” to heaven, they were better afterwards than before, along with two other texts where the English word “translation” appears that have absolutely nothing to do with rendering the Bible from one language to another.). People should be “convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible Word of God” and therefore “remove those little so called ‘nuggets’ from the imperfect Greek” (pg. 115) to study only the English of the King James Version. Gipp’s Answer Book offers many words of praise for Peter Ruckman (pg. 89) but not one syllable of warning.
Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism
I recently was at an event where Christians from a variety of backgrounds were present. I was able to have a conversation with a sincere Christian man who, unfortunately, had been strongly influenced by Sam Gipp’s view on the King James Bible. (I would not be surprised if he simply wanted to have certainty about Scripture rather than really being excited about Ruckman’s claims of alien breeding facilities run by the government, Ruckman’s carnal language, and so on.) A friend of mine mentioned to him that I had debated James White on the King James Version. This brother in Christ asked me what I thought of Gipp. I said I would be happy to debate him, too. (That was the Biblically faithful answer, but not the answer this Christian brother wanted to hear, I suspect.) I would indeed be happy to debate Dr. Gipp on a proposition such as: “Because God has preserved His Word in the English language, study of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture is detrimental or, at best, useless.” If Gipp will affirm this, I will deny it in any venue that is, within reason, mutually agreeable to both of us. I can be reached through the “contact us” page here if Dr. Gipp is open.
This Christian brother influenced by Mr. Gipp proceeded to argue that nobody really knew Greek, because it is a dead language. He seemed to think that there is no reason to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture (a conclusion also advocated by fellow KJVO radical Ms. Gail Riplinger in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers).
When I asked this sincere Christian brother if he knew where the actual Greek words spoken by Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and the other New Testament writers. were, he said that he did not know where the Greek words of the New Testament were; but he believed the King James Version was perfect. This Christian man referred to an argument made by Gipp in his Answer Book allegedly proving that agapao and phileo have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” (pg. 93, Answer Book–capitalization in the original) in meaning because it is not easy to backtranslate them from English into Greek, and, therefore, there is no need to look at Greek for anything (pgs. 93-94). What Gipp’s argument actually proves is that backtranslating is no easy matter and that the phileo and agapao word groups have significant overlap in their semantic domain; the leap from conclusions about these specific words to the conclusion that Greek is useless is breathtaking and totally without merit, of course. One could, with the same argument, prove that clearly distinct Hebrew and Greek words for miracles are absolutely synonymous, or prove that any number of other words that have overlap in their semantic domains actually have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” in meaning.
Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture
There are a number of reasons why I disagreed with my dear brother and his advocacy of Ruckmanism as filtered through Sam Gipp.
First, and most importantly, his position is unscriptural. It denies the perfect preservation of Scripture, instead arguing for a sort of restoration of an unknown and lost Bible. When the Lord Jesus said:
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
He was teaching that man must live by every single one of the Hebrew and Greek words that were penned by Moses, the Old Testament prophets, and (proleptically) by the New Testament apostles. The Lord Jesus was not talking about English words when He spoke Matthew 4:4 in Greek. When Isaiah 59:21 says that God’s Words would be in the mouths of every generation of the saints from the time that they were inspired and forever into the future, the Holy Ghost through Isaiah was not making a promise about English words. The words that were in the mouths and in the hearts of the saints, near them and not far off (Romans 10:6-9; Deuteronomy 30) were not English words, but Hebrew and Greek words (and, of course, a little bit of Aramaic). When David and his greater Son rejoiced in the pure words of God that would be preserved forever (Psalm 12:6-7), He was speaking about Hebrew words, not English words. Hebrew has jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18)–the Lord speaks of the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the smallest Hebrew mark on the page, the vowel chireq (a single dot; consider also the Hebrew accents). When this Christian brother said that he did not know where the Greek and Hebrew words of God were, he was denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. Ruckmanism is too weak on the preservation of Scripture.
Second, the Ruckmanism of Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger, which denies that one should utilize Hebrew and Greek, changes God’s glorious and beautiful revelation into hiddenness. God is not hiding Himself in His Hebrew and Greek words. He is, in ineffable beauty and glory, revealing Himself. To downplay in any way the very words chosen by the Father, spoken by Christ, and dictated by the Holy Spirit through the original authors of Scripture is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% wrong to say that we should not look at or study those words. No, we must love them, trust in them, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them, and (if necessary) die for them. I do not doubt the sincerity of my Christian brother who was influenced by Gipp, but it is wickedness to downplay in any way the actual words spoken by the Holy Spirit because of something as ridiculous as the fact that Enoch was better off when he was “translated.”
The two reasons above are the most important ones. Ruckmanism violates Scripture’s promises of preservation and changes the original language words that were the delight of our sinless Savior upon earth, and for which the New Testament Christians were willing to die, into a closed book.
Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True
There are also many other reasons why Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger are wrong when they tell people not to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. There actually are many “wondrous things” (Psalm 119:18) that God has placed in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture for His children’s instruction and delight, from puns to elements of poetry to syntactical structural markers and discourse elements, that do not show up in even a perfectly accurate English translation. (You can see many of these in my study on why learning Greek and Hebrew is valuable, especially for Christian leaders). Unfortunately, Sam Gipp in his Answer Book does not even acknowledge, much less deal with, these facts. He assumes that ascribing value to Greek and Hebrew necessarily means the English of the Authorized Version is inaccurate, when that simply does not follow. For example, consider Acts 5:34-42:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
:34 ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος, ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος, τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς ἀποστόλους ποιῆσαι. 35 εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, τί μέλλετε πράσσειν. 36 πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκολλήθη ἀριθμὸς ἀνδρῶν ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων· ὃς ἀνῃρέθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ· κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν. 38 καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς· ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40 ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ· καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ κατηξιώθησαν ἀτιμασθῆναι.42 πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν.
In this passage, Gamaliel makes the famous statement that if the Christian religion “be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” The translation in the King James Version is perfectly accurate. However, Greek has several different ways to express the conditional idea of an “if” clause. A Greek 1st class conditional clause assumes the reality of the condition, while a Greek 3rd class conditional clause ranges from probability to possibility; it is the difference between a petite woman struggling with heavy groceries telling a muscular body builder, “If you are so strong, help me!” (that would be a Greek 1st class conditional) and one of two evenly-matched boxers in a ring saying, “If I win our boxing match, I will be the champion” (which would be expressed using a Greek 3rd class conditional). In Acts 5, Gamaliel’s “if this counsel or this work be of men” is a Greek 3rd class conditional clause, while “if it be of God …” is a 1st class conditional. Gamaliel’s balancing a 3rd class with a 1st class conditional clause indicates that he assumes–correctly–that what the Apostles was preaching was actually from God, and the Jewish leadership could not overthrow it–indeed, attempting to do so was to fight against God.
There is nothing wrong with the KJV’s translation of this passage–English simply does not have different words for “if” like Greek does, and that is not the KJV translators’ fault. The Authorized Version is perfectly accurate, but there still is value in studying the Greek words dictated by the Holy Ghost through Luke. Is this a question of a major doctrine? No, of course not. But does it affect how an expository preacher explains this passage? Yes. Why should the hungry children of God not have everything that their Father wants for them? Why should some of the food the Good Shepherd has for His little lambs in the infallible Greek words of the Book of Acts be kept from them?
The argument of my Christian brother that nobody really knows Koine Greek because it is a dead language (Hebrew seems to be left out of this argument, as it is the living tongue of the nation of Israel) is also invalid. Imagine if someone in China is born again and then adopts a Ruckmanite view of the King James Version. He does not care if he learns to engage in conversation in English–he just wants to read the KJV. His goal is to read a particular written text, not to gain conversational ability. He does a lot of work and becomes fluent in reading Elizabethan English, progressing to the point where he can sight-read and translate into Chinese large portions of the KJV, although he never takes the time to learn how to, say, order a hamburger at McDonalds or talk about the weather tomorrow. Would a Ruckmanite say that this person really does not know English? Would he not say that he has learned what is by far the most important thing in English–learning to read the Bible? Would he say that this Chinese Christian should not use the KJV to shed light on his Chinese Bible? No, he would be completely in favor of this Chinese Christian comparing his Chinese Bible with the King James Version.
Let us say that this same Chinese Christian, as a result of carefully studying his King James Bible, discovers that he should not set aside Greek or Hebrew. He reads verses like: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) and realizes that the KJV itself, by transliterating instead of translating “Anathema” and “Maranatha,” is calling on him to look at the original language text. He therefore learns Greek the same way he learned English. He does not care if he can order a gyro in Koine Greek, or talk about a YouTube video in Koine Greek, but he progresses to the point where he can sight-read large portions of the Greek New Testament and translate it into Chinese. Can we say that this Chinese Christian does not know Greek? Is it wrong for him to use his knowledge of Greek to gain insight into his Chinese Bible? How can we say that he can use English to gain insight into his Chinese Bible, but not Greek?
Furthermore, let me add that, if he is starting from scratch, this Chinese Christian would find mastering the Greek of the New Testament easier than achieving fluency in English. There are the same number of vocabulary words in the Greek New Testament as there are words known by the average four-year-old child, and far fewer words in the Hebrew Old Testament than the average eight-year-old knows. The simple country farmers that were the large majority of the population in ancient Israel, and the slaves and lower-class people who were the large majority of the members of the first century churches, could understand the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Learning the English of the KJV is a harder task (if starting from scratch) than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Because Ruckmanites are–conveniently–overwhelmingly native English speakers, they assume (without proof) that English, with all its irregularities, exceptions, and complications, is an easy language and that Greek and Hebrew are much more difficult, and ask why God would hide his Word in the hard languages of Greek and Hebrew instead of preserving (re-inspiring? re-revealing?) it in the easy English language. It would actually be more accurate to ask: “Why would God hide His Word in the difficult language of modern English, instead of preserving it in the easier languages of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew?” What is more, dare we say that God is not allowed to inspire and preserve a perfect, canonical, complete revelation in a language that becomes a dead language? Has God’s Word failed, because languages change over time? God forbid!
Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:
Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger
There are many other problems with Ruckmanism. Reject Ruckman’s heresies on the gospel, Ruckman’s racism, Ruckman’s carnal spirit, and Ruckman’s many other bizzare doctrines and practices. Reject the extremism on the KJV of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger. Their indefensible position leads many away from the KJV to embrace modern versions. Instead, believe God’s promises of the perfect preservation of His Words. The Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus contain all the words God inspired and preserved. Since the KJV is a fantastically accurate translation of those inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek Words–the ultimate and final authority for all Christian faith and practice–its English words are authoritative and have the breath of God on them. All Christians in the English-speaking world should be King James Only. None of them should be followers of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, or Gail Riplinger.
–TDR
Wallace’s Remarkable Erroneous Paper On The Doctrine Of Preservation
Daniel Wallace
Certain names represent the biggest evangelical challengers to the biblical and historical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. They have written journal articles or books against preservation of scripture.
The Bible version issue starts with scriptural teaching on preservation. When you believe what God said, you come to perfect preservation. Then you have to deal with what that looks like in the real world. The teaching of the Bible presupposes the outcome.
One of the biggest names is Daniel Wallace, longtime professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. Any evangelical who takes Greek knows who Dan Wallace is. Second or third year Greek students use his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. It is a very helpful book to own and use.
Manuscript Evidence
In recent years Wallace turned his attention to The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. A major stated mission of CSNTM is the following:
To provide digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts so that such images can be preserved, duplicated without deterioration, and accessed by scholars doing textual research.
Wallace considers their task to continue the restoration of a lost text of the New Testament.
Denial of Preservation
When anyone asks Wallace about the preservation of scripture, he sends them back to a journal article he wrote in the 1990s, entitled, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.” Rather than interact on the subject, Wallace points to that article. He doesn’t need to talk about it. Wallace wrote the article and that ends the conversation. He wrote it, that settles it.
With Wallace’s demand, I acquiesced and read his article with an open mind and great interest. I didn’t assume he was wrong. I welcomed the possibility he was right. What he wrote, however, was very disappointing. It was filled with errors. Wallace and I had a brief back and forth on an evangelical blog in the comment section, since deleted. He claimed that I cherry picked the points I made about his article. I ask you to consider if that’s true with the below links to my analysis of his article.
First Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part one
Second Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part two
Third Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part three
Fourth Post. Criticizing Professor Wallace part four
For a man of such renowned, his article denying the preservation of scripture is very, very poor. It’s still right there all over the internet though, remarkable multiple errors and all.
The Most Indispensable Quality for Manhood
Designed Manhood and Manhood Under Attack
A strange incongruity exists. On the one hand, the world blurs the distinctions between men and women. On the other, women want to be men and men want to be women and do so by embracing the natural distinctions between men and women. The world in which we live produces this incoherence.
“God created man in his own image, . . . male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). When God created the woman, he created her with a different role than the man. He made the woman to complement the man. Men and women are different.
Scripture throughout distinguishes men from women in their traits, their roles, their functions, and their appearances. To do His moral will, God intends for men to be men and women to be women in the way His Word prescribes.
To oppose the plan of God, Satan and the world system attack and confuse biblical manhood and womanhood. Men become more feminine and women become more masculine. From this arises sex and gender confusion. It damages both sexes, but especially the man.
The Loss of Manhood
Mostly today the man loses his identity, role, and function in society. This occurs either through the feminization of everything or the subversion of God created and ordained male qualities.
The culture now eradicates male qualities by calling them toxic. When a man acts like a man, he’s toxic, termed “toxic masculinity.” He receives approval when he terminates male qualities to act more like a woman. If he goes further to attempt a sex change, more the better.
Even though I don’t believe in toxic masculinity, I believe a fake masculinity exists that replaces the true. Like every other doctrine, a false one supplants a true one. Fake masculinity welcomes all the tokens of popular masculinity like beards, tattoos, booze, foul language, and risky hobbies. These are easier to inculcate then the fundamental traits of masculinity.
What Makes a Man, a Man?
What is it that makes a man, a man? The Bible evinces the most indispensable quality for manhood as “strength.” In 1 Corinthians 16:13, the Apostle Paul writes, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” “Quit you” in the KJV is “to acquit yourself.” “Quit you like men” translates a single verb which means, “act like a man.” Then when Paul defines what it is to act like one, he commands, “Be strong.”
Later, when Paul writes to Timothy in his second epistle, he explains to him ‘how to be strong.’ In 2 Timothy 2:1, he writes:
Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
Again we read the command, “Be strong.” Paul starts that sentence with “therefore,” so he bases this command on the content of the previous section. If anything, its theme is unashamedness. Rather than be ashamed, be strong.
Not Ashamed
To help Timothy, he gives him portrayals of strength that would make him not ashamed: the faithful man, the soldier, the athlete, and the farmer. These all describe this quality of strength.
What is the shame about which Paul speaks? It relates to telling the truth. Paul himself had declared in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” Men should stand on the truth without wavering. They should say it, which includes firmness about manhood itself. Satan and the world system want men to back down on the truth and shirk responsibility to tell it, live it, and lead it.
Some might call this, having a backbone. Men diminish behind the skirts of women. They look to women for permission for what they can say. Many times women gladly accommodate or accept that. This changes everything in society.
Women Rule Over Them
Many times scripture says to the woman, “Keep silence or stay quiet” (1 Cor 14:34, 1 Tim 2:11-12). This says, “Let the man lead.” When things aren’t going well for a nation, Isaiah 3:12 describes:
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
This is role, function, and quality reversal. That means men are not ruling according to God’s design. Now men accept this quietly. They know if they say anything, they’re in trouble.
As a first indication of a man deferring his own manhood, he stops standing spiritually. A common scenario in my lifetime, I go to a door to speak about the gospel. A man or at least a male sex answers the door, sees who I am, and turns to say this conversation is for his wife. Men lack spiritual strength or conviction.
When men check with their wives, that might sound happily egalitarian. Maybe they use their wives as an excuse for their weakness. I’m not saying men can’t confer with their wives, very often today men can’t decide because they’re weak. Maybe today a majority of men support the idea of a woman ruling over them. It would just be easier.
The Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Saints and Revelation 6:17
Does Revelation 6:17 support, or undermine, a pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints? We have considered other Rapture positions in relation to passages in the book of Revelation in other posts on this blog. Consider the context:
Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
Rev. 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev. 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Rev. 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Rev. 6:12 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἕκτην, καὶ ἰδού, σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος τρίχινος, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα,
Rev. 6:13 καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν εἰς τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τοὺς ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς, ὑπὸ μεγάλου ἀνέμου σειομένη.
Rev. 6:14 καὶ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον εἱλισσόμενον, καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν.
Rev. 6:15 καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς, καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνες, καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι, καὶ οἱ χιλίαρχοι, καὶ οἱ δυνατοί, καὶ πᾶς δοῦλος καὶ πᾶς ἐλεύθερος, ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς πέτρας τῶν ὀρέων,
Rev. 6:16 καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις, Πέσετε ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου·
Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;
Rapture / Tribulation Views and Revelation 6:17: Wrath “is come” means what?
Some opponents of the pre-Tribulation Rapture argue from Revelation 6:17 that the wrath of God has not started yet; after all, the verse says that the “great day of His wrath” is only come now at this point, and this is the sixth seal. Thus, they would say, God’s wrath does not come with the start of the Tribulation, but only here, with the sixth seal, and so a “pre-wrath” Rapture, or maybe, if this is the midpoint of the Tribulation, a “mid-Trib” Rapture here, or perhaps, if one distorts the sequence of events in the book of Revelation so that the seals, bowls, and vials are not sequential (although they actually are), even a post-Trib Rapture. What do you think?
Note that the verb translated “is come” in Revelation 6:17 is ἦλθεν, a 3rd singular 2nd aorist active indicative of ἔρχομαι, “to come” or “to go.” What would we expect for an aorist in terms of the time of the action? The most common use, at least, is that the action would have started in the past: “Generally, the aorist looks at an action as a whole and does not tell us anything about the precise nature of the action (constative)” (Basics of Biblical Greek, WIlliam Mounce, chapter 22; note that this blog post is an adjusted devotional that I prepared for my Greek students as we were studying chapter 22 on the aorist in Mounce’s grammar). A constative aorist-the most common category for the aorist–would support God’s wrath starting earlier in the chapter, before the sixth seal, namely, at the first seal at which the Tribulation began. However, there is also a rare category called a “proleptic” aorist, which could suggest that the wrath here had not yet started but was only about to begin now; maybe the aorist here is proleptic, leaving room for anti-pre-Tribulation Rapture views?
In response, we should first consider that the constative aorist, the aorist for summary past action, is much more common than a proleptic aorist. The English “whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30) certainly shows that an “-ed” verb in English can be used for something that is yet future, because it is so certain to God, but how often do we speak that way in English, in comparison to using the past tense to describe an event that is actually in the past? Thinking that the aorist here portrays an action that has already started before this point is the natural assumption. To assume that God has not yet started to pour out His wrath in the first five seals (even though things like ¼ of the world’s population dying have already taken place—that is like every single person in North and South America suddenly dropping dead–But is that God’s wrath? Oh no—of course not!) is an unnatural assumption.
We also need to consider who is speaking. Revelation 6:17 is not a statement that God makes; it is not a statement a holy angel makes; it is one the unregenerate earth-dwellers make, the same people who say things like “Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4). If we concede that wicked and unregenerate mankind now begins to understand that God’s wrath is being poured out, that does not mean that this point is when His wrath actually begins; as those who did not have all their thoughts set on God, they did not see His wrath in the famines, the plagues, the Antichrist, the wars, the death all around—but the first six seals actually already were God’s wrath, although wicked men did not see it.
Revelation 6:17: The “Come” verb in Revelation 6
Note as well an important tie-in with the same verb,erchomai, earlier in the chapter:
.
Rev. 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see
Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζώων λέγοντος, ὡς φωνῆς βροντῆς, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.
Rev. 6:3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
Rev. 6:3 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν δευτέραν σφραγῖδα, ἤκουσα τοῦ δευτέρου ζώου λέγοντος, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.
Rev. 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
Rev. 6:5 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν τρίτην σφραγῖδα, ἤκουσα τοῦ τρίτου ζώου λέγοντος, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε, καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού, ἵππος μέλας, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔχων ζυγὸν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.
Rev. 6:7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
Rev. 6:7 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τετάρτην, ἤκουσα φωνὴν τοῦ τετάρτου ζώου λέγουσαν, Ἔρχου καὶ βλέπε.
Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;
As Christ breaks each of the first four seals we see the living creature or beast say, “come!” And then what happens? A judgment! The Antichrist takes power with the first seal, the rider on the white horse, conquering and to conquer; then the second seal, the wars after the short-lived peace of the Antichrist; then the world-wide famine of the third seal; then the death of 25% of the world’s population in the fourth seal. The fifth seal is obviously different, as we see there the martyred saints crying out for vengeance on the wicked, which God promises them He will enact. And then we have the sixth seal here:
In Revelation 6:17 the expression “the day … has come” is an acknowledgment by all people in the context of the heavenly and earthly disturbances of 6:12–14 and the flight to the mountains and caves in 6:15–16. However, within the literary structure of this unit—the breaking of the seven seals—the “has come” (ēlthen) in the sixth vision is an acknowledgment of the results of the summons to come (erchou), which is repeated four times at the beginning of the series. The summons “come” calls forth elements of the day of the Lord. The declaration “has come” looks back over all these elements and acknowledges what has in fact come to be.[2]
This usage also suits Old Testament Day of the Lord prophecies.
So in Revelation 6:17 even the unregenerate earth-dwellers finally recognize what has been going on since the first seal—the wrath of God poured out upon the earth, wrath which started with the first seal, which comes immediately after the pre-Tribulation Rapture.
We deserve the judgments of the Tribulation for our sins. That is how horrible they are. We deserve the eternal torment in the lake of fire described near the end of Revelation. But the Son of God, by His grace alone, took that very wrath that we deserve upon Himself, suffering and satisfying our infinite debt of sin. By being our blessed sacrificial Lamb He has eternally delivered us from the future wrath of the Lamb on those who reject His glorious sacrifice. For delivering us from the wrath to come, let us say with all the saints: “Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” (Revelation 5:12-13).
[1] William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 3d; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2010), 202.
[2] Craig Blaising, “A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture,” in Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan Hultberg, Second Edition., Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 61.
–TDR
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Four)
Being Intentional
When you intend to do something — some people today call that “being intentional” — you might plan it or schedule it. Does scripture regulate or legislate intentionality? This thing of being intentional even has a definition: “making deliberate choices to reflect what is most important to us.” King David begins Psalm 101 with intentionality:
1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
When you intend to do it, you might schedule it. That’s good. It’s how you ‘redeem the time’ (Eph 5:16). How do you seek something first? You’ve got to move it up in priority on purpose. You will and then do of God’s good pleasure. This is sanctification. It’s how you keep something holy.
If I want to ensure I do something, I put it on a “to-do” list. For the year, I write those actions on a calendar. For an entire church, as a church leader, I have a church calendar. What goes on that calendar? I could put a “Jumper Day” on the calendar with intentionality. Jumpers are those inflatable fun houses, serving as a kind of trampoline. Let’s say instead, I intentionally schedule into the year of the church a spiritual emphasis. Let’s call it a “liturgical calendar.” Every year the church emphasizes scriptural events in the life of Christ and other biblical themes.
Using the Calendar
The Psalms are a guide for writing hymns. The prayers of the Bible are a guide for what to pray. In the Old Testament, God weaves into the year a means by which Israel will remember what God did. This included the weekly Sabbath and then festivals. This is a model, not for continuing to follow a Hebrew calendar, but for what to do with a calendar.
Israel began to observe also an event the occurred after the completion of the Old Testament, the Feast of Dedication. It celebrated an event in the intertestamental period. Israel then added that Feast to the Hebrew calendar. Jesus too observed the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22ff). Like the other Feasts, the Feast of Dedication helped Israel remember what God did in saving Israel during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macccabees.
The New Testament church schedules services on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t say how many, but many churches meet three times on Sunday: Sunday School, Sunday morning, and then Sunday evening. They might hold a midweek time too. Through example, scripture regulates a Sunday gathering for the elements of New Testament worship. It does not regulate how many meetings.
Keeping Holy
A believer can keep his speech holy. He can keep his deeds holy. A true Christian can keep his thoughts holy. He can also keep his motives holy.
Paul says the believer can yield his members, his body parts, as instruments of righteousness unto God or yield them as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin (Romans 6:13). Yielding his body parts as instruments of righteousness unto God is how he presents his body holy unto God (Romans 12:1). Someone can “worship God in the spirit” (Philippians 3:3) or not do that.
Sanctification in the Truth
Sanctification in the truth starts with thinking and understanding what God says in His Word. More than a hearer, he must also be a doer. This requires volition, a readiness of will. It also means a delight in what God said, a holy affection.
Sanctification in the New Testament follows the example of Jesus. In John 17:19, Jesus prayed to God the Father:
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Jesus provided the perfect example to follow, and the Apostle John writes in his first epistle (2:6):
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Walking as Jesus walked is not arbitrary. It is looking to the scriptural example of Jesus. Also as John Owen wrote:
To see the Glory of Christ is the grand blessing which our Lord solicits and demands for his disciples in his last solemn intercession, John 17: 24.
The Glory of Christ
In 2 Corinthians 4:6, regarding sanctification, the Apostle Paul writes:
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
A church centers on the Person of Jesus Christ and Christ changes the church by its seeing of Him. To conform to the image of the Son a church must see the image of the Son.
I’m contending for purposeful, intentional seeing, thinking, and understanding the glory of Christ. The New Testament emphasizes certain events in Christ’s life. To be sanctified by the example of Jesus, to walk as He walked, and to see His glory, you must focus on Him. Jesus appeared on earth in real history in real time. He was here. In His time here, He accumulated important events in His life. The gospels, Acts, the epistles, and Revelation talk all about them. Put those on the calendar.
Keep Your Year Holy
Validity and Value
Don’t emphasize the events of Christ’s life according to their traditional dates on the calendar. Do emphasize them on their traditional dates. I like my emphasis on the calendar better than your no emphasis.
Putting the events of Christ’s life and other important biblical themes on your calendar is a way to keep your year holy. I’m saying there is a value to it. It is a means by which to accomplish many requirements for the believer from the New Testament. It’s not the putting it on a calendar that accomplishes the seeing, thinking, and understanding of the truth. It is the actual doing of seeing, thinking, and understanding.
Words mean things. The keeping in keeping something holy means something. This year I handed out a Bible reading calendar. Scripture doesn’t regulate the calendar I handed out. The calendar is how someone might keep things holy. Someone can have a calendar and remain unholy. I’m saying a calendar is valid and of value.
Remember and Emphasize
I didn’t hand out a fun-time-a-day calendar to our church. Our calendar did have one verse for each week for scripture memory. Scripture doesn’t regulate that. Does scripture regulate scripture memory? I’m guessing people won’t be arguing over a Bible reading calendar and a scripture memory calendar. Neither are in the Bible.
Believers should assume that they can keep something holy. They are told to keep things holy. Yes, in the Old Testament God instructs Israel to keep the Sabbath holy (Exodus 20:8). By what I read some people write, you might think that I’m writing this series for the purpose of keeping the word “Christmas” holy or keeping a date for Christ’s birth holy. I’ve not written anything like that.
I believe it’s been clear what I’m advocating. Some argue against it with what seems to be red herrings and straw men. I say, let’s be purposeful about remembering or emphasizing the events of Christ’s life during the year. A church can schedule more than that, but I support the use of a liturgical calendar to keep the church year holy.
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Three)
Regulative Principle of Worship
Over a period of time, professing Christians formulated from scripture what was termed, “the regulative principle of worship.” I believe in that. This took awhile in the history of Christianity to develop. I believe it because it is scriptural and, therefore, I want to follow it. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 expresses it:
The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
One example of the seriousness of regulating worship by scripture is that of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered strange fire to the Lord (Leviticus 10). Offering strange fire meant changing the recipe for the incense for the altar of incense in the holy place. Silence was not permission for them to offer a different recipe.
God prescribed a specific recipe, spelling out percentages of the ingredients. Scripture regulated the recipe. That was an element of Old Testament worship. Since God spelled it out, that’s all you could do. Nadab and Abihu changed it. God killed them for that. This indicates the seriousness of it.
What changes with observing Christ’s birth around December 25th? Next year Sunday is actually December 28. Emphasizing Christ’s birth changes nothing that God prescribed. It’s not like changing the recipe for the altar of incense. I contend it does not violate the regulative principle of worship.
Application of the Regulative Principle
Canon of Dort
Like one Reformation group, the Puritans, another, the Dutch Reformed Church, whom like the Puritans I’m not endorsing, committed to the Regulative Principle of Worship. In 1618-19, that group held their Second Synod of Dort, the Dutch term for the town of Dordrecht. This council explained its decisions in a document, The Canons of Dort. In Article 67 of the Canon, the council says:
The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.
Earlier in Article 63, it writes:
The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided.
Helvetic Confession of 1564
Another Reformation group in Switzerland wrote Helvetic Confessions in 1536 and 1564. The second of these writes:
THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.
Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all.
Variations of Applications
All of these varied groups, including the Puritans, claimed the Bible as their final authority. They disagreed on the application of the regulative principle. Some said “no” on the organ. Certain ones said only psalms and no hymns. Groups differed on a liturgical calendar. They had their unique reasons for all of these variations, but all believed and practiced the regulative principle of worship.
Puritans sprinkled infants. How many infants do we see baptized in scripture, let alone sprinkled? Sure, Pilgrims and Baptists separated from the Church of England. Many Puritans, however, saw no problem with a state church as seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Puritans heavily involved and led the English Civil War. Most Puritans would not use musical instruments and sang only Psalms (total Psalmody).
Word Meanings
“Christmas” derives from “Christ’s Mass.” “Sunday” derives from “Day of the Sun” and Hellenistic astrology. If I called you “gay” in the not too distant past, that was considered a compliment. Not anymore. The word “mass” comes from the Latin missa, which means “to send or dismiss.” You could argue that “Christmas” literally means “Christ sent,” like John 17:18, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”
If I say, “Merry Christmas” to you, I’m not saying, “Go have a merry time at Roman Catholic Mass.” No. This is a joyous time, like when the ark returns to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. This symbolizes God’s presence back in Jerusalem and David celebrates with all his might. Christmas means “Christ’s birth” to most. Be gone the idea that every word must revert to its original etymology. It’s one reason we revise our dictionaries — words change in meaning based on usage. Here’s a definition you might read: “the annual commemoration by Christians of the birth of Jesus Christ on Dec 25.”
Special Occasions
Philadelphia Confession
A liturgical calendar acknowledges special occasions. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 says:
The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to Him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgiving, upon special occasions, ought to be used in a holy and religious manner.
Jesus and the Feast of Dedication
I call to your attention the words, “special occasions.” Churches advocated for special occasions. Regarding this, Stephen Doe writes concerning the regulative principle of worship:
God commands us to worship him once weekly in a corporate manner, but allows us to apply biblical principles to worship him at other times. The church under the new covenant does not have less liberty than the church under the old covenant; we are not the underage church, but the church which has been baptized in the Spirit of Christ. If we were to apply the regulative principle without clearly understanding these things, then we would have to condemn the apostolic church for meeting daily, since God had never commanded such meetings. Instead, they understood that what God was commanding was for them to worship him acceptably (cf. John 4:24; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:25; 13:15).
This balance is seen in the example of our Savior, who exercised his liberty of conscience, while not violating the regulative principle, when he attended the Feast of Dedication (that is, Hanukkah; cf. John 10:22). That was an extra-biblical feast not commanded by God in Scripture, but begun by the Jews to commemorate the rededication of the temple after the close of the Old Testament. Jesus was free to go up to Jerusalem or not to go up. God commands us to worship, and Jesus was using that occasion to obey the command of God.
The events on a liturgical calendar are not special occasions because a church sets them apart for observation. No, they are special because they are events in the life of Jesus Christ. If a church adds Thanksgiving, Mothers Day, and Fathers Day, those are justifiable. These do not violate a regulative principle.
Keeping Holy
The term holiday has diminished in its meaning. If I say, Happy Holiday, today, I might mean something akin to a Hallmark card greeting. It probably is the opposite of holy, the meaning of “Holy Day” or “holiday.” When we observe it, set apart for special emphasis, then it is holy, like the ground around the burning bush with Moses.
Exodus 20:8 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” I could say, “Remember the birth of Christ, to keep it holy.” “Remember the resurrection of Christ, to keep it holy.” If we can keep something holy, then we can sanctify something. We can set something apart to keep it holy, rather than just being a worldly item during the year. Churches can and should do that. This is the value aspect, I’m advocating, for a liturgical calendar.
(More to Come)
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14
My fourteenth debate review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Biblical preservation or King James Onlyism goes through John 13 and examines every single variant between the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is valuable to those who watched the debate, since it proves that Dr. White cannot be consistent when he attempts to prove the superiority of the Nestle-Aland text and modern English versions by attacking the Received Text based on one word in Ephesians 3:9 and one word that is in some TR editions in Revelation 16:5. His text has orders of magnitude more minority readings than does the Textus Receptus, so his attacks are not just like him pointing one finger at the KJV while four fingers point back at his LSB; rather, it is like a millipede pointing one leg at the KJV while all his other legs are pointing at the LSB.
However, the analysis in this video is also very helpful for those who never end up watching the debate. (I discussed debate-specific matters that relate to what is examined in video #14 in video #13.) While I do not doubt that I am biased, since I created the video, I believe it would be valuable for anyone who is entering the Baptist ministry and is going to confront textual-critical issues, valuable for any student of Biblical Greek who wishes to understand the overall differences between the TR and the NA/UBS Greek text, and valuable for any Christians who wish to have a level of understanding of the matter of Biblical preservation beyond what is rudimentary.
In this video, I demonstrate that in John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times
95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times
99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times
99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times
100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.
Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times
90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.
I also demonstrate that in vast numbers of short sections of text the Nestle-Aland text does not look like any known Greek manuscript on the face of the earth, and that even Nestle himself, from whom the Nestle-Aland text is named, recognized that the critical texts extant in his day were a patchwork that never existed in real space and time in textual history. The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text is indefensible Scripturally, historically, and rationally.
I would encourage all defenders of God’s preserved Word in the Textus Receptus to learn, understand, and use these facts as they stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture. I believe these facts are not as well known in King James Only circles as they should be.
I also demonstrate in this video some facts about the Textus Receptus and how it compares to printed Majority Text editions that are not well known. While there certainly are minority readings in the TR–approximately 1% of the time when there are variants–and there are good reasons to follow the TR in this small percentage of Greek text for Scriptural and historical reasons–there are also plenty of places in all printed Majority Text or Byzantine Priority editions–whether that of Hodges / Farstad, Robinson / Pierpont, or Pickering–where the printed Majority Text follows a minority of Greek manuscripts while the Textus Receptus follows the majority. In fact, in John 13, while the TR and the Byzantine priority text editions were very close to each other, the TR actually follows the majority of Greek manuscripts in more letters in the chapter than does any printed Majority Text edition. The fact that the TR frequently follows a majority of Greek manuscripts when printed “Majority Text” editions do not is also a fact that is not well known enough in King James Only circles.
You can watch the video using the embedded link below, or view it at FaithSaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube.
These are important facts. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of God’s Word can rejoice in them. Those who defend modern English versions and the corrupt United Bible Society / Nestle – Aland Greek text from which they are translated need to both understand and explain why these things are so, and why they are defending as God’s Word a patchwork text that never existed in real space and time in the history of textual transmission.
–TDR
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Two)
The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar
You Might Have a Liturgical Calendar
If you have Easter and Christmas on your calendar, you have a liturgical calendar. You might not call it one, but it still is. Should you though? Is it permissible or maybe even of value for a church to keep a liturgical calendar every year?
Let’s say that you mark Easter and Christmas at their traditional and maybe historical times. That means every year you acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a virgin in Bethlehem about nine months apart. You do more than that. You make those a major emphasis in every aspect of the service on those days. That is liturgy.
The Liturgical Calendar, Per Se, Not in Bible, But…
Regulative Principle
Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind. Based on that, I understand a rejection of these special days under a regulative principle of worship. The Bible does not regulate a Christian calendar. Is that end of discussion? I don’t think so.
I would still argue for a liturgical calendar, even if you don’t want to call it a liturgical calendar. The Bible does not require it either by precept, principle, or example. It also does not require using hymn books, offering plates, even the construction of church buildings for worship.
You can plan worship days on a calendar around the events of Jesus’ life, but the Bible doesn’t tell you to do that. Prayers, preaching, and singing in a true church should on a continual basis emphasize especially certain events in Jesus’ life. Biblical events really occurred. Churches should treat them like they did. It is right to do that.
Circumstances of Worship
Our church celebrated Christmas this year on December 24th. We went out and caroled on December 21st at the houses of seven different people or families. I did a three part Christmas series with sermons on December 10, 17, and 24. I would call that liturgy.
Even though a liturgical calendar, I contend, is not an element of worship, it does fall under a sub-category of a circumstance for worship. Every theme of a liturgical calendar fits within the elements of worship. As an example, for Christmas a church can bring Jesus’ birth into prayer, preaching, and singing. That is still regulating the service based on scripture.
I would further contend that the order of a calendar gives more necessary order to the worship of God. Order is in the nature of God. Worship in truth should reflect the truth about God. Liturgy itself is an order of service. Service should be orderly.
The Use of the Term “Liturgy”
Most Baptists do not use and have not used the term, “liturgy.” Professing Christians define liturgy as the standard order of events in a gathering of worship. When people attend church, they do things. They might start with prayer, sing a psalm, then sing a hymn, take up an offering, read scripture, pray again, preach a sermon, and then end in prayer. This order of events, planning out what the church will do in worship, is liturgy.
“Liturgy” is the transliteration of a Greek word in the New Testament, leitourgia. BDAG, the foremost New Testament lexicon says the word primarily means: “service of a public or formal type.” In certain instances, the word “minister” is the translation of leitourgos, another form of the word. This is “one engaged in administrative service.”
Here are three usages of leitourgia as “service of a public or formal type,” translated “ministration,” “service,” or “ministry”:
Luke 1:23, “And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Philippians 2:17, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.”
Hebrews 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
All three of the usages relate to worship of God. They are service of a public or formal type.
Roman Catholic Liturgy?
Some oppose liturgy, because Roman Catholics use the word. Some would say liturgy originated out of Roman Catholicism. In the most fundamental way, liturgy is order of service. If you plan an order of service with prayer, singing, reading, and preaching, you prepared liturgy. If you plan that out further in a general way for your year, that’s a liturgical calendar.
Historical evidence exists for pre Roman Catholic liturgy. Of course, this isn’t the English word “liturgy” from the first three centuries, because English didn’t exist. However, liturgy in its most fundamental understanding existed in the first few centuries. Scripture also reveals the liturgical aspects of a worship service.
Liturgy of American Consumerism?
After preparing with many thoughts on this subject of liturgy, I read these paragraphs by Scott Aniol:
I always find it ironic when I hear Christians in America state with conviction—and a little bit of piety—that they won’t be tied down by “Catholic” traditions like the Church Calendar, and yet through their actual practices they prove to be constrained by a liturgical calendar of another sort—The Liturgical Calendar of American Consumerism.
They insist that they won’t celebrate Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas.
And yet instead, their churches celebrate New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and a Christmas season stretching from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day—days with customs rooted not in biblical events or Christian tradition, but in the tradition of American commercialism.
His article and a few to which he linked argues for liturgy in churches. A church could opt to plan out the traditions of American commercialism and plan into the calendar the events of Jesus’ life.
(More to Come)
Recent Comments