The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Four)
In the history of Christian doctrine, true believers through the centuries have been in general consistent in their position on inspiration. When reading historical bibliological material, homogeneity exists. Changes emerged with modernism in the 19th century and then many novel, false beliefs sprouted up. In many cases, men invented new, wrong positions on inspiration in response to other erroneous ones, a kind of pendulum swing.
Summary
To begin here, I will summarize what I have written so far in this series. God inspired sacred scripture over 1600 years, using 40 human authors. John Owen wrote concerning human authors:
God was with them, and by the Holy Spirit spoke in them — as to their receiving of the Word from him, and their delivering it to others by speaking or writing — so that they were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand of an expert writer.
God breathed a product of almost entirely Hebrew and some Aramaic Old Testament and completely Greek New Testament letters and words. Then He used His institutions, Israel and the church to keep those words, preserve and distribute them. The London Baptist Confession reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Immediate Inspiration
And Remain Inspired in Copies
The inspiration of the “original manuscripts” believers called “immediate inspiration,” to distinguish from ongoing inspiration of preserved words and accurate translations of the preserved words. The preserved words and readings, “the original texts,” remained inspired. Francis Turretin wrote:
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Apographs” are the copies of the original manuscripts or the copies of the copies. What about a translation from the preserved, inspired original text? Is that inspired?
And Remain Inspired in Accurate Translations
In the last post (the third one), I showed 1 Timothy 5:18 among other places in the New Testament indicates that an accurate translation is scripture. An accurate translation as sacred scripture remains inspired. This is seen in Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Peter used Psalms 16, 110, and Joel 2 in the sermon. The audience heard those translated to Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Pontus, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Cretan and Arabian (Acts 2:9-11).
Supportive Materials
Rather than quote and write about the same thing that Jon Gleason already wrote, I point you to his post on the subject of the continued inspiration of a translation. I will, however, reproduce two quotes from A. W. Pink he used:
The word “inspire” signifies to in-breathe, and breath is both the means and evidence of life; for as soon as a person ceases to breathe he is dead. The Word of God, then, is vitalized by the very life of God, and therefore it is a living Book. Men’s books are like themselves—dying creatures; but God’s Book is like Himself—it “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). . . . .
The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed. In substantiation of what I have just said, it is striking to note “Therefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:7, 8); and again, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says (not “said”) unto the churches” (Rev. 2:7).
He also refers to a journal article, written in 1982 by Edward W. Goodrick that mirrors Pink and others who predated B. B. Warfield. You should also read the article by Thomas Ross, entitled “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version.” For many biblical reasons, one should consider an accurate translation of the preserved original text to be inspired and sacred scripture.
Conclusion
Because of erroneous views of double inspiration and English preservationism today, I advocate the terminology, “immediately inspired,” and just for more clarity, “derivative inspiration.” Perhaps best, one should say “given by inspiration of God” and then continued inspiration in preserved original texts and accurate translations of those texts. I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Three)
Statements for Consideration
Consider these three statements:
The King James Version is divinely inspired.
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
Do all three have the same meaning? Are all three true? If not all three are true, then is any one of them?
I will answer these questions. To start, let’s read the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16 again: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The King James Version translators (KJVT) translated the three Greek words: pasa graphe theopneustos. We have only this statement on inspiration, because it’s the only time theopneustos (“God breathed”) is found in the New Testament. Other passages elaborate or apply.
The Considerations from Scripture
God Breathed Out
2 Timothy 3:16 says God breathed out “scripture.” Inspiration applies in a technical and specific sense to these sacred writings that come from God. God inspired the product produced, not the men. Yes, 2 Peter 1:21 says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” That doesn’t contradict the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. It elaborates. Inspiration, however, applies to sacred scripture alone according to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Inspiration occurred when God breathed sacred scripture (graphe). Again, depending on the context, graphe (scripture) refers to inspired writing. It does in 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Exclusion of Two Statements Above
God breathed out all sacred scripture. The KJVT, and I agree, took pasa graphe theopneustos as ‘given by inspiration of God.’ When given, the sacred scriptures were either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That excludes the KJV from scripture given by inspiration of God. Therefore, that excludes two of the above statements:
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
I’m saying these two statements are false ones. They are saying, I believe, the same thing, meaning “God inspired” and “God gave by inspiration” are the same [An early comment by Jon Gleason in the comment section explain the London Baptist Confession position of “immediate inspiration”].
To come clean at this moment, until now I never took it upon myself to come to sufficient, completed thinking on the exact subject of these posts. I’m not done considering it, but I have arrived at sufficient enough thought to write this post (the third in a series so far). A comment I wrote last week, I edited because it disagreed with what I am writing here.
God Immediately Inspired Some Translation
“Scripture Saith”
As of this moment, I believe God inspired some translation. Which translation did God inspire? He inspired at least these translations:
John 19:37, “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
Romans 10:11, “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
1 Timothy 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”
James 4:5, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
God inspired all of these translations. . . . in their original Greek. He gave these by inspiration. In almost all of these, you are reading translations of translations, English translations of Greek translations from the Hebrew text. I use these specific verses because they say, “scripture saith.” If sacred scriptures say it, it means God said it.
“Have Ye Not Read Scripture?”
Jesus also used the language, “have ye not read this scripture”:
Mark 12:10-11, “And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?”
He translated a copy of the Old Testament Psalm 118:22-23. He again calls a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, “scripture.” Jesus and the Apostles also did more than just translate. In anticipation of this question, I say that Jesus targummed. Even the dictionary definition of targum says:
an ancient paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century AD when Hebrew was declining as a spoken language
God inspired everything in the New Testament, including Jesus’ interpolations inserted into a translation of an Old Testament text.
“Spoken By the Prophet”
Other examples apply. The New Testament often says the two words, “spoken by,” referring to translated Old Testament scripture:
Matthew 2:17-18, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
Matthew 27:35, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
Acts 2:16-21, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: . . . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Equating a Translation of a Copy with a Copy
Above are three of at least twenty “spoken by” passages in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 5:18 above gives unique information. Paul translates to Timothy an Old Testament text (Deuteronomy 25:4) and quotes a New Testament one (Luke 10:7), and he calls them both, “scripture.” He equates what we could call a translation of a copy of the Old Testament with a copy of the New Testament by calling them both, “scripture.”
Unlike what B. B. Warfield later asserted in his book on inspiration, copies are sacred scripture and accurate translations of copies are “scripture.” I contend, based upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that upon the completion of the canon, God did no more breathing out of translations. However, I also contend that accurate copies and accurate translations of those copies are in fact “scripture.” I also contend that these accurate copies and accurate translations are inspired. What God inspired, breathed out, remains inspired and breathed out. That occurs also with a translation in light of further New Testament elaboration.
The King James Version Is Divinely Inspired
Because of what I explain above, I believe one of the three statements, “The King James Version is divinely inspired.” I say that because it remains inspired. Insofar that the King James Version is an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text, it is inspired by God. This is how anyone can say about the King James Version, it is the inspired Word of God.
I might disappoint some of you with the following. The King James Version is not the only inspired translation. Any accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy is also inspired. When I say translation, I also mean translation into any language, not just English. That also means that if I sit down and do an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy, that too is inspired. If it is what God said, even in a translation, then it is also scripture.
No one translates today by inspiration of God. God by providence enables translation. He created language for translation. Verses above say a translation is scripture, so a translation of scripture can be scripture. An accurate translation of scripture is scripture. As scripture it remains inspired.
Is Love a Feeling? The Holy Bible on the Nature of Love
Is love a feeling?
What do you think?
__ Yes, love is a feeling.
__ No, love is not a feeling.
The Correct Answer Is …
“Yes”!
The correct answer is “yes” to both the question “Is love a feeling?” and the question “Is love not a feeling?” Love involves the feelings and affections, so in that sense love is a feeling. However, love is not merely a feeling, but it involves the will and the actions.
Love Involves Self-Sacrificial and Willful Action
Many in the world assume that love is just a sappy sentimental feeling, or that love is a teenage boy having his heart flutter when a pretty girl looks at him. This is a very Biblically insufficient definition of love. How does God love?
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
God’s love does not just involve sappy sentimentalism. The Father’s love led Him to give to rebellious sinners what was most valuable to Him–His own Son. His love involved self-sacrificial action. Believers must show this same kind of self-sacrificial, acting, willing, giving love:
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
This sort of love is required in other relationships as well:
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Clearly, love is not just an emotional high, but it involves self-sacrifice, action, giving oneself to the loved one at tremendous cost.
Love Also Includes the Feelings or Affections
At the same time, love is not the self-sacrifice of a drone or robot that follows a computer program to blow itself up and save someone else. Love includes the feelings and affections. We do not love as robots, but as people who have affections and passions. God wants us to love Him with all that we are–that includes our minds and wills, but it also includes our affections or feelings.
God’s love for His people involves His affections in whatever sense He has passions or affections:
Hos. 11:8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.
Hos. 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.Zeph. 3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
Human love between spouses involves the affections or passions. In the Song of Solomon the husband and wife–who are to be patterns for marital relationships–are madly in love with each other and passions and affections are coming out all over the place.
Our love for what is of God also involves our passions or affections. Paul said: “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22). “Delight” is a feeling or affection. The Messiah said, as a pattern for all the godly: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:8).
We could multiple examples for all other sorts of love that are dealt with in Scripture.
So is love a feeling? Yes, it is–God did not make us robots. Is love merely a feeling, or only a feeling, or primarily a feeling? No–it is much more than that, but it involves self-sacrificial action.
So in all your relationships–most importantly with God and secondarily with others–love like God does. Give yourself self-sacrificially to the Lord and to others. That is the most important thing–but don’t be a robot either. God wants you to love with all that you are, and that includes your feelings or affections.
–TDR
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Two)
Support for the KJV
We know the King James Version translators (KJVT) in 2 Timothy 3:16 italicized “is” in “is given” because no verb exists in the text of that verse. They gave the verse a smoother reading, but they were also telling the reader that verb did not exist. That’s why they used the italics. I have no problem with what they did, and I’m not correcting it.
I like the KJVT translation of 2 Timothy 3:16. Even though they used eight English words to translate three Greek ones and they supplied “is” twice, I support all that. I like it and support it more than most of my critics, who might say I’m correcting the KJV. In fact, they correct the KJV. They also mangle 2 Timothy 3:16 and read into it something not said by God in the verse.
Gnomic Present
The KJVT wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” They knew there were multiple usages of the present tense, one of them a “Gnomic Present.” Matthew 7:17 is an example of the Gnomic Present, which says, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” The KJVT used the Gnomic Present in their translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Gnomic Present expresses a general truth without reference to time. That perfectly communicates the three Greek words to begin 2 Timothy 3:16. That general truth is that all scripture, sacred scripture, is given by inspiration of God. That includes every word and all of them from Genesis to Revelation in the language in which they were written.
Here are some other general truths said in Gnomic fashion. No scripture is given in English. All scripture is given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Is Given By Inspiration of God
The canon of scripture closed with the last Greek word of the book of Revelation at the end of the first century AD. God stopped giving scripture. Jude characterizes scripture in Jude 1:3 as “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “Once” means “once for all.” “Was delivered” is aorist tense, so completed action. “The faith” is the complete body of God’s truth, which Jesus says is sacred scripture (John 17:17). Once God completes delivering the faith, which He did with the book of Revelation, then it is over. That completed for all time all inspired writing delivered by God.
English wasn’t a language in the first century. God didn’t give any more sacred scripture after the first century. With the completion of sacred scripture, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were the only languages in which God gave sacred scripture.
Notice that the KJVT write, “given.” Their translation says sacred scripture is given by inspiration. It is not translated by inspiration. Do you believe in the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Many seem to take an entirely different doctrine of inspiration of scripture than the KJVT did.
Not Changing Sacred Scripture
I’m not advocating changing a word in the KJV. However, if someone changes a word in the KJV, he is not changing sacred scripture. No one should charge him for that. He is changing a translation of sacred scripture. It is why the KJVT called their work, a “version.” It is a version. I quote the definition of “version” from the fabulous Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
3. The act of translating; the rendering of thoughts or ideas expressed in one language, into words of like signification in another language. How long was Pope engaged in the version of Homer?
4. Translation; that which is rendered from another language. We have a good version of the Scriptures. There is a good version of Pentateuch in Samaritan.
The publishers of the Textus Receptus do not call it a “version.” It isn’t a translation. They call it Novum Testamentum, which is Latin for “New Testament.” Men translate from these Greek texts into the English and other languages.
Men changed the words of the King James Version in 1769. They didn’t change scripture. They changed the English translation of the same original language text. Scripture doesn’t change. Translations of scripture do change.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation
2 Timothy 3:16
Three Words
The classic location for the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is in 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
The first part provides the doctrine, which says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Those eight words translate three Greek words: Pasa graphe theopneustos. Pasa is an adjective that means “all” and modifies the noun graphe, which means “writing” or “scripture.” For instance, the latter’s verb form, grapho, means, “I am writing.” BDAG says the verb means “to inscribe characters on a surface.” The noun refers to the characters inscribed on the surface of a writing material.
The Meaning of the Words
Graphe in a specific way refers to sacred scripture, depending on the context. It is a technical word for scripture. The Apostle Paul employs that technical usage in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Theopneustos is another adjective modifying graphe. It means literally, “God breathed.” The KJV translators translated that one adjective, “is given by inspiration of God.”
Some people use “is” as a reason to say that theopneustos functions like a present tense verb. They use the present tense to say that inspiration continues in a translation. Even the original Authorised Version printed “is” in italics to say it was not in the original text. The translators are communicating that they supplied the word “is.” No one should treat it like it is part of the original text.
Putting together the first three Greek words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “God breathed the characters inscribed on a surface.” It was not the men inspired. It was the writings inspired. God breathed out writings. What ended on the writing surface came from God.
Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation
God also preserved those words He breathed in the original manuscripts. The words He preserved are still the ones God breathed. They remain inspired.
When someone translates God’s inspired words into another language are those inspired? God did not breath out those words. However, if they are translated in an accurate way, a faithful manner, into the host language, those words have God’s breath in them.
The New Testament treats Greek words that translate well the Hebrew words of the Old Testament like they are the words of God. Jesus treats His Greek words of His translation of the Old Testament as if they are the Words of God. However, that doesn’t mean that God breaths out a translation. The former and the latter are two different actions or events.
False Views and the True One
It is important that a version of scripture translate the original language words in an accurate manner. The King James Version translators made an accurate translation of the original language text, both Old and New Testaments. God’s breath is in the translation. In that way we can call it inspired. However, God did not breath out English words. He did not breath out new English words later after breathing out Hebrew and Greek ones.
Part of why it is important to get inspiration and translation right is because of two false views. One is double inspiration. This says that God inspired the King James translation like He did the original manuscripts. Two is English preservation, where God apparently lost the original language words, so He preserved His words anew in the English language. Again, both those views are false.
2 Timothy 3:16 instructs people in the doctrine of inspiration. The only time that inspiration occurred was when holy men wrote the original manuscripts. God inspired every one of their words and all of them.
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate
It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text. The debate when well. I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate. What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued. His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.
You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Shaping a Jesus In Your Own Image and then Believing in Him for Salvation
Contrasting Christianity
Have you talked in public to an evangelical woman with a cross hanging down into her revealed cleavage? You see the cross juxtapositioned with the other as a backdrop. Not a fit, is it? Maybe you, like me, wonder about the vast differences in professing Christianity. They both claim to believe in Jesus Christ. What’s going on?
One church you attend uses superficial, short preaching that centers on men’s felt needs. They do series on self-interest topics that will attract people. They keep it short with lots of humor. The other opens the Bible and explains and applies exactly what it says, word for word.
Some churches use rock or pop music and call it praise. Others use sacred music, saying that God rejects and hates rock or pop music and doesn’t want to hear it. The former accepts worldly and even sinful dress or apparel. The latter preaches against that in a practical way.
A church that calls itself Christian uses world amusements that target every demographic with alluring activities. The other does exactly what the Bible presents as an obedient practice.
I could go on and on with varied descriptions of these two extremes, both calling themselves Christian. Both of them say they believe in Jesus. The modern or postmodern form of a professing Christian church wants toleration from the church with strict conformity to scripture. When the biblical church, a true one, rejects the belief and practice of the false one, the false one calls this unloving, even unChristian.
Similar Doctrinal Statement, But….
Very often I’ve said that two indistinguishable churches have a very similar doctrinal statement. The drastic incongruence between the two does not relate to their doctrinal statement. The contradiction relates to a true or false or a beautiful or ugly imagination of God. One fashions a god made after lust and the other after reverence. God and all associated with Him stays sacred in a true church. That church turns off a lot of people, not the aesthetic or feeling many professing Christians want.
Changing the God in the imagination changes everything about believing in Him, obeying Him, and worshiping Him. It distorts everything. Let me give you a simple illustration.
Scripture commands not to use corrupt communication. It does not say what that is. What was corrupt at one time and with the different imagination of God becomes uncorrupt. It’s fine now. Are you using corrupt communication? No, because the meaning changed. You have a different God that allows for that communication, so it’s fine.
The Beauty of Holiness
Psalm 96:9 says, “Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” That’s a command that one might obey or disobey. Let’s say someone does something he calls worship and it is not in the beauty of holiness. That isn’t worship. Here is a person claiming to worship, but not worshiping and in reality disobeying God. People also do not know who God is because of the false portrayal of God presented.
The false god in the imagination that might have a pretty good doctrinal statement still completely misses. This is how two professing Christianities portray such vast difference between the other. The true presents something according to true churches through most of history. The false presents a counterfeit, calling itself authentic or genuine.
Most of the false Christianity deemphasizes repentance. Some of it will hold to repentance as an entrance unto salvation in Christ. However, it’s just the word repentance used. It isn’t repentance, because it doesn’t turn from these worldly things that dishonor God. It hangs on to them.
False Repentance
What does the false repentance turn from? It can be the superficial turning of not believing to believing. However, at the same time holding to an impostor belief. A person still has not turned from unbelief, because he distorts belief too. Other forms of false repentance occur. The Apostle Paul showed how that people replace true repentance with something short of it in 2 Corinthians 7.
I don’t think what I’m writing is beyond comprehension for people. They know that two things that are different are not the same. Only one of these turns from the belief and practice of historic Christianity. That’s the false one.
Many, many people have shaped Jesus into their own image and then received the false one. They read their chosen version of the Bible, which says, believe in Jesus. They do. Now they think they’re saved. He must be Jesus. If He isn’t, they haven’t believed in Him. They are lost.
What’s different about those believing in the false Jesus? Jesus is immanent. He comes down and close in His manner as described in scripture. He’s also transcendent. 1 Peter 1:16 says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Jesus is holy. Their Jesus is not. He isn’t sacred and He does not require holiness like Peter says.
The Law Enhances, Does Not Conflict, With Grace
Relationship Between the Law and Grace or Faith
In Galatians, the Apostle Paul argues for salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He opposes the alternative, adding even one work to grace. Paul provides several arguments in Galatians 3 for the churches of Galatia to combat corruption of a true gospel.
To understand the right relationship of the law to grace and faith, Paul gives a great clue with a question in Galatians 3:21.
Is the law then against the promises of God?
This is a rhetorical question as seen in his answer in verse 21: “God forbid.” The law is not against the promises of God. It does not conflict with the promises of God. In saying the law does not conflict with the promises of God, he says that the law does not conflict with grace and faith.
Just as a reminder, “God forbid” is the strongest negative in the Greek language. “God forbid” in a technical sense is idiomatic. An idiom is “a phrase or expression that typically presents a figurative, non-literal meaning attached to the phrase.” The translators decided a literal translation could not convey the original Greek, so they used the idiomatic expression, “God forbid.” In the context of Galatians 3:21, Paul says no way the law conflicts with the promises of God.
The Law Must Not Conflict with Grace and Faith
For someone to take the correct position on the law, it must not conflict with grace and faith. What position will create a conflict? In the second half of verse 21, Paul says that it is the one that makes the law necessary for life or righteousness. The law does not give life. Neither does it make someone righteous. Only grace or faith does that.
Number one, if the law gives life and righteousness, then grace does not. Number two, if grace gives life and righteousness, then the law does not. If the law and grace or faith do not conflict, then one must take choice number two.
Paul gives several other related arguments for grace alone and faith alone. (1) The salvation of Abraham came by grace alone through faith alone 430 years before the Mosaic law came. (2) When the Mosaic law came, it did not replace (“disannul,” verse 17) grace alone through faith alone, but enhanced it. (3) When the seed (Jesus) arrived 1500 years after the Mosaic law in fulfillment of the promises, He superseded the law. Jesus wouldn’t supersede the law if it was necessary for life and righteousness. It wasn’t.
How Does Jesus Supersede the Law?
Superseding is not abolishing or destroying. I like the word as a description. One might use fulfilled or transcended. The law continues enhancing the promises even with the arrival of the seed. How?
Galatians 3:22 says. The law concludes all under sin, so that they will believe in Jesus Christ for life and righteousness. Galatians 3:23 says that faith does not come to someone until the law locks him up. The law still concludes a person under sin. It still locks up a sinner, so that he looks to Jesus Christ as His only possible deliverance, and believes in Him. Christ comes into the prison of sin and redeems the prisoner who believes in Him.
Unconditional and Unilateral Promises
As you’re reading, you might be asking, what are these “promises” of which I write? They are the promises of the seed made by God that would bring blessing to Abraham’s descendants and all the nations of the earth (Genesis 12:1-3, cf. Genesis 3:15). Also, God will impute righteousness to those who believe the promises (Genesis 15:6).
The promises of God of which Paul speaks are unconditional and unilateral. Abraham was asleep (unconscious) when God made that contract, agreement, or covenant with Abraham. Abraham did nothing, no works. This is the point of Galatians that the promises were superior to the law in that they required no mediator. Angels and Moses were mediators of the law. The promises involved only one — God.
When denominations say, “No, you’re involved, people,” they conflict with grace and faith. Now their adherents are required to continue “in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Galatians 3:10, cf. Deuteronomy 27-28). They add a mediator to the promises, when there are no mediators for the promises. This brings conflict between the law and grace, to which Paul writes, “God forbid.”
A Right Understanding of the Law
What you hear from me is not a rejection of the law, but a right understanding of it. The law continues. Christ superseded it, but it still enhances the promises of God. The rest of Galatians 3 and into chapter four lays that out. Everyone still needs and should want the moral law of God and the spirit of the ceremonial and judicial laws.
Galatians 3:19 says the law “was added because of transgressions.” John Gill wrote that the law
was over and above added unto [the promises], for the sake of restraining transgressions; which had there been no law, men would not have been accountable for them; and they would have gone into them without fear, and with impunity; but the law was given, to lay a restraint on men, by forbidding such and such things, on pain of death; and also for the detecting, discovering, and making known transgressions, what they are, their nature and consequences; these the law charges men with, sets them before them, in their true light and proper colours; and convicts them of them, stops their mouths, and pronounces them guilty before God.
Saved men, those who received the promises of God, are not under the law. That means they are not under the condemnation of the law. It does not mean they are free to disobey the law. Grace frees us from the condemnation of the law, not the law. Unsaved men still abide under the condemnation of the law. Since the law does not give life and righteousness, they must receive the promises. In other words, they must by grace alone believe alone in Christ alone.
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
An Alcohol Story
A Man Questions Me about Alcohol
Restaurant Wants to Serve Alcohol
Our church meets in a small town right across the street from a new and popular Mexican restaurant. My wife and I moved to Southern Indiana on February 23, 2023 to evangelize a twenty five minute radius with 70,000 people. We want to build up a true church for its future perpetuation, starting with six attending members who are all fifty-nine and over. The Mexican restaurant opened in September, six months before we arrived.
On our first official time of door-to-door evangelism, my wife and I went together and knocked on the front door of someone right next to our meeting place. A man opened and after I introduced ourselves, before anything else he said to us, “So you are the church that won’t let the Mexican restaurant serve alcohol? Why are you keeping us from having a nice beer with our dinner?”
Indiana State Law
I told him that I didn’t know what he was talking about. Actually someone had mentioned alcohol and a restaurant to me, but I didn’t make the connection to this situation. I didn’t apologize to this neighbor for anything anyone did. Instead, I explained ours was a biblical position on alcohol. Shouldn’t churches follow the Bible in their belief and practice? Also, I knew it was Indiana law. The state of Indiana regulated this use of alcohol. If he wanted the law to change, he should take his complaint to his state legislator, not me. The regulation is the following (Ind. Code § 7.1-3-21-11):
[T]he commission may not issue a permit for a premises or approve a designated refreshment area if . . . the following appl[ies]: (1) A wall of a school or church is situated within two hundred (200) feet . . . . This section does not apply to the premises . . . if . . . the commission receives a written statement from the authorized representative of the church or school stating expressly that the church or school does not object to the issuance of the permit for the premises or approval of the designated refreshment area.
One godly member of the original six of the church earlier told the restaurant he would not write that letter. I would not write the letter either. He couldn’t. I couldn’t. Even if I believed in it, I wouldn’t do it and offend this member. Most of all, I wouldn’t write it because it would violate scripture. Our church would not do a thing that would disobey the Bible.
Habakkuk 2:15
I saw writing a letter giving permission to serve alcohol to violate Habakkuk 2:15:
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also.
God Himself is giving this “Woe.” God says, “Woe!” People in town might pressure me or us to capitulate, but I have a responsibility to God. When I weigh God versus alcohol drinkers or alcohol servers in town, I go with God. It’s one thing to break one of God’s laws. We all do. It’s totally another to support the breaking of the laws of God and encourage their transgression. That is not worshiping the Lord.
The Consequences of Alcohol Use
107,081 fentanyl deaths occurred in 2022 in the United States. Much of that moves across our porous Southern border. It is estimated that China produces 90% of that fentanyl in the United States. The fentanyl usage I’m describing is illegal. Let that sink into your head. As it does, consider the following about a legal substance in the United States: alcohol.
Alcohol is known to directly kill. Alcohol contributes to over three million deaths per year worldwide and over 140,000 a year in the United States. About forty percent of convicted murderers used alcohol before or during the crime. Alcohol related to about two-thirds of violent acts on current or former spouses or partners. In 2021,13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths. Offenders under the influence of alcohol commit 37% of sexual assaults and rapes. Four out of ten violent victimizations involve alcohol use.
Alcohol dependence very often leads to a devastating downward financial spiral. It causes eviction notices, delinquent bills, excessive court fees, diminished credit scores, and lost jobs. Many lose their family and custody of their children. Even if it doesn’t effect financial ruin, it very often brings financial strain and risk.
I’ve been to many social events that served alcohol. Alcohol caused bad behavior every time. Not once did it not make it a worse event. I found that drinkers expect teetotalers to tolerate their offensive actions. Most of the time, they don’t know how it makes them act. Drinking alcohol damages relationships. When I compare the harmful effects of illegal drugs and legal alcohol, I think hypocrisy and double standard.
Whose Fault?
Indiana state government passed the above law. This owner decided to open a restaurant less than 200 feet of our church building. To serve alcohol, the owner should follow the law of opening something further than 200 feet from where we meet. I’m not for more alcohol drinking and I’m not going to write a letter to encourage it. Our church did not invite the restaurant to open next to our building.
Our church didn’t write the law. Indiana did. If the law didn’t exist, the restaurant would serve alcohol. My conscience also registers all of what I wrote in the four paragraphs of the previous section. It would violate my conscience to write any such letter to the state for the service of alcohol.
I don’t think I’m better than other people because I don’t drink or serve alcohol. Neither do I believe that drinking alcohol in some unique way sends someone to Hell. Everyone sins. That doesn’t mean I should write a letter supporting the service of alcohol. I won’t do it.
Another Two Challenges
The Owner
The alcohol issue went off my radar again until a short while later a person showed up to our house, who was the owner of the Mexican restaurant. The owner asked if I would write the letter that would permit the restaurant to serve alcohol. I gave a brief scriptural presentation (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including what I said above. Also, I encouraged the owner, saying that maybe the success of the restaurant came from not serving alcohol. Perhaps the restaurant could trust God in the matter.
The owner told me that customers asked for alcohol and put pressure to serve it. When these customers asked why not, the owner pointed to our church as to why the restaurant could not get the permit. That’s why I got that challenge on the very first door. The owner blamed it on our church. I told the owner, no, the state of Indiana made the law, not the church. I would not write the letter, because I couldn’t. The owner understood the reason. It was a very peaceful, agreeable conversation.
Another Customer
Zoom forward to last week. Again, I’m going door-to-door in evangelism. While talking to a man at the door, his wife interrupted him, saying she wanted to ask me some questions. She did. The last one she asked was why we stopped the Mexican restaurant from getting a permit. I explained to her what I wrote above. She appreciated the answer, understood it. I told her I did not see our position as harmful to our church or our evangelism.
Tongue-in-cheek the wife said she thought we might get more visitors to our service because of our position. She heard customers threaten in mass to “visit” our church service to pressure us to stop hindering the alcohol service of the restaurant. The restaurant encouraged this reaction by continuing to blame us for no alcohol on the menu. The wife wondered if some compromise could be made. The state requires a support or permission letter from me. My convictions and conscience won’t allow me to write one.
This alcohol situation turned into a light form of religious persecution, precipitated by a hypocritical secular culture. It now occurs in previously known as “the Bible belt.” If I wanted, I could push back against the false accusations of the restaurant. Honesty would require an explanation of a regulation passed by the state of Indiana, not our church. My wife and I go to the restaurant. It serves good food. We pay for our meals and tip the waiters. I still won’t write a letter giving permission to serve alcohol.
Recent Comments