Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority
Galatians 2 and Paul Withstanding Peter
Apostleship
In Galatians 2:11 the Apostle Paul writes:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
One could say at that point in church history, Peter was the greatest apostle. Peter saw Jesus’ glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter was the first to the empty tomb. Jesus said directly to Peter, Feed my sheep. Peter preached the great sermons in the first half of Acts. God saved at least three thousand at Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost. He got the vision from God in Acts 10, overturning Old Testament restrictions. The Jerusalem church sent Peter to Antioch to assess what happened there. Yet, Paul withstood Peter to the face.
In the context of Galatians 2, Paul defends his apostleship against false teachers. They attacked Paul because they opposed the gospel he preached. These false teachers at least added circumcision to Christ in their false gospel. Paul deals with that in Galatians but also spends almost two chapters showing his authority to preach the true gospel.
The false teachers attacking Paul in Galatian churches said Paul didn’t have the authority of the original twelve. In addition to many other arguments for his own authority, Paul wrote that he withstood Peter to his face. On his own, he could challenge Peter. This showed Paul’s direct authority received from Jesus Christ Himself (Galatians 1:12, 16).
Withstanding
“Withstood” comes from a compound verb, composed of the two words, “against” and “stand.” Paul stood against Peter. Paul explains why. Peter ate with Gentiles in Antioch until a faction claiming association with James came to visit. Because of their presence, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles. Paul regarded this as a type of gospel perversion by Peter. Through Peter’s dissembling, he confused the lost about the gospel.
Paul stood against Peter because of a possible gospel corruption. He did not confront him to show his authority. He opposed Peter with authority, not over authority. Paul wasn’t showing Peter who was boss.
The authority of Paul rose to challenge corruption of the gospel. That issue motivated the authority of Paul. Paul explains this intention in Galatians 2:5: “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Paul wanted the truth of the gospel to continue with churches.
The Gospel the Bedrock Issue for Authority
The gospel is the bedrock issue of the church, even as Jesus said in Matthew 16:16-18. Peter’s salvation confession of Matthew 16:16 was the rock upon which Jesus built the Jerusalem church. The gospel calls out the saints that make up a church. It is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it.
Issues other than the gospel do confront church leaders. However, gospel ones raised the altercation of Paul with Peter. The continuance of the gospel brought contention between Jerusalem and Antioch churches in Acts 15. Nevertheless, the churches stayed unified, because they paused to address their dispute between one another.
During the Acts 15 controversy, not one man made himself chieftain over the existing churches. Church leaders settled their discord together. A doctrinal issue did not become a personal one, rival factions vying for greatest positions. It could have gone that direction.
Teaching of Jesus about Vying for Authority
Close to his death, the disciples asked (Matthew 18:1), “Who is the greatest in the kingdom?” Jesus answered, “The one who speaks with the most authoritative voice and acts the big shot.” No, He didn’t. He said in essence, “The one who will humble himself like a little child.” Not long after, the mother of James and John told Jesus (Matthew 20:21):
Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Jesus answered in essence, “You don’t know what you’re asking, because it’s going to be someone who will drink the cup that I will drink from.” That cup, of course, was His suffering.
When the other ten heard the request for John and James, “they were moved to indignation” against them (Matthew 20:24). Jesus said to all of them (verses 25-28):
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Some had in mind that they that are great “exercise dominion over” other people. Jesus said, “But it shall not be so among you.” True believers do not covet authority. They won’t grasp after it. They have other priorities than who gets the final say in matters.
Diotrephes
Again, division and contention may and should arise for more than the gospel. Jesus cleansed the temple over desecration of true worship, probably a gospel issue. However, should men turn on each other over the issue of authority itself? In 3 John 1:9-10, the Apostle John writes:
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Diotrephes was an authority-for-his-authority-sake person. He saw himself at the top of the pecking order, the biggest rooster in the coop. No doctrinal issue manifests itself in verses 9-10 except for the doctrine of authority. Why did he cast people out of the church? To make a point that he was in charge, which is not a good enough reason.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in authority. God gave authority to the church. Churches send people. Members fit into Christ’s body. God sits at the top of the entire flow chart, so “Peter and the other apostles” said, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Whatever little seats of authority God gives men on earth, He still sits at the top. It’s not about “whosoever will be chief among you” in your little pond.
Not As Lords Over God’s Heritage
In mid to late 2021 my wife and I joined another church, one other than the one God used us to start. We enjoyed our year there very much. Shortly thereafter, another pastor called my pastor to pressure him to prevent me from continuing “What Is Truth.” He saw my writing here as a violation of authority. I understand if you think you see some irony there. Since I wasn’t in authority, he tried to use authority to stop me from writing this blog.
I heard from someone when I was young, “If the mortar’s thin, you must fling it hard.” Without a good scriptural foundation, people might rely on force of personality. I know intimidation can work. If he’s not stopped, the biggest kid in the nursery will always have his favorite toy.
Before I started pastoring and early in that office, I committed to Peter’s teaching (1 Peter 5:2-3): “taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage.” The point of pastoring was not having people do what I told them to do. Christ is Lord. Every pastor should willingly back down from what he wants to stop offending someone else or to keep unity in the church.
Every church should stand on the teaching of scripture. Pastors have authority. However, churches don’t stand on the authority of a pastor. Jesus is the Head of the church. Pastors should not rule a church with their authority, they should rule it behind the authority of the Word of God. That means very often giving liberty when it comes to their own opinions.
More to Come
Done. Yes, But…. (Part Two)
Part One [Also a Previous Post I Forgot I Wrote]
Two Religions in the World?
A common modern aphorism, very catchy, you will read from many sources: “There are only two religions in the world.” Men say they are “do” and “done.” That’s what Cary Schmidt says in his book, Done. He’s not the only one or even the first one to say it.
I googled “only two religions in the world” and got 41,900 hits. Then I searched google books and the first find was a book in 1884, The Life of John Calvin, by T. Lawson. Lawson indicates the division between eighteen your old Calvin and his cousin, Olivetan. This takes this language at least to the 16th century. Lawson writes:
“There are two religions in the world,” we hear Olivetan saying. “In the one class invented by men, man saves himself by ceremonies and good works: the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches men to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God.”
At the start of the next chapter, Lawson distinguishes the two religions as “Human Authority or Divine Revelation.” That’s different than “Do” and “Done” and is a little broader, if one would divide everything into two categories only.
More Than Two Religions
I disagree with the two religion adage. Someone could divide into “do” and “done,” but not two religions. Free gracers would agree with Olivetan and Schmidt. Jude called their false gospel (Jude 1:4), “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This turns religions into at least three different categories, instead of two.
Someone might slot Schmidt into a third category. A person may say it’s just a lacking or wrong definition of “done.” Schmidt would say he is “done.” Someone taking his identical position might agree that he’s done too. According to scripture it’s only done, however, if a person repents and believes in Jesus Christ. If not, it isn’t done yet. He’s not doing for salvation, but neither is he done.
Dividing all religious categories into “human invention” and “divine revelation,” I can agree with that. That’s not how men like Schmidt and others categorize it though. It’s just “do” and “done.” I get the problem between do and done: human effort versus divine grace. Those two contradict each other. But people then also pervert or corrupt grace. They turn grace into something less than saving grace.
Excluding Repentance and Lordship of Christ
Schmidt in his book excludes repentance and lordship of Christ. I would contend that Schmidt’s faith isn’t even true faith. He constructs different prerequisites for salvation, putting the emphasis on a prayer, asking for salvation. This falls short of saving faith. It’s either intellectual or emotional, fitting into a stony ground type of faith (Matthew 13:5-6). It almost might be worldly, where the world swallows up a shallow faith (Matthew 13:7-8).
Part of the attraction of Schmidt’s idea of “done,” which I would call human invention, is someone doesn’t count the cost or give up anything. He can go on his sweet way. Sure, God does everything. A person doesn’t even really believe in Jesus Christ and God still does everything. This really is the broad road that Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:13-14.
No-repentance goes very nicely with American revivalism and evangelicalism. I especially say American, because it relies heavily on fleshly allure and marketing. Barnum and Bailey style. Even the very tidy, Done, goes along with that sentiment. It markets “done” especially to a people that want to keep going the same direction, yet receiving heaven in the end. It’s a very short book for an easy or even easier believism.
Spreading Around the World
The densely marketed Christianity from America reverses truths of scripture. It makes worship palatable and pleasurable to the worshiper. It orchestrates feelings and entertains. The purveyors calculate almost every aspect of the church experience for the attendee. In that way, this is “doing.” The professionals “do” church for those attending, starting with a fleshly or mystical reason to come. So much of everything is a show for churches like these.
In many locations around the globe, this other false religion which I address in this post generates a greater bad influence than the “do” religion. It blinds people especially in a more affluent world. They want a stimulating and thrilling religion that is done for them. Its advocates get the life they want on earth plus eternal life. They really also form or envision a Jesus of their own choosing.
We don’t have two religions in the world. More than two exist. More than three do too. I don’t know how many there are, but “do” and “done” aren’t all of them.
Tethered to Truth: A Podcast for Christian Ladies
My wife, Heather Ross, has put up recordings on YouTube entitled “Tethered to Truth: A Podcast for Christian Ladies.” If you are a godly Christian woman, you may find the material a blessing, and if you do, please feel free to share it with other women. I would encourage ladies to check this material out.
Click here to listen to Tethered to Truth:
A Podcast for Christian Ladies
–TDR
God the Highest and Its Ramifications
Our Father, Which Art In Heaven
The model prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11 begins with the words: “Our Father which art in heaven.” Very often, I will follow this model and pray something like the following: “Dear Father, I ask that you will be praised. You are high and far above us.” What does this describe?
Separate from Sin
That God the Father is in heaven says that He is separate from sin. He is far away from anything sinful, because the third heaven, the location of His heavenly throne room, is at least as far away as the furthest space, which we know is many light years away.
The Highest
That God the Father is in heaven says that He is the highest. “Highest” is a scriptural name and description of God the Father.
Psalm 18:13, “The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.”
Luke 1:32, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”
Authority
God the Father’s highness relates to His authority. He is over everything. Numbers 24:7 says,
He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.
“His king shall be higher than Agag.” He has greater authority than Agag. Psalm 89:27 also states this truth:
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
He is better. He has greater authority than the kings of the earth. Highest means the highest authority.
Immutability
That God the Father is in heaven reflects James 1:17:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Nothing can effect God the Father’s perfection. Without anything able to effect Him, He is immutable. Everything is relative to Him, but He is absolute. Whatever comes from Him is good. It is untainted.
Majesty
That God the Father is in heaven reveals His majesty. Majesty relates to His holiness. He is separate by being the highest. However, He is not common or profane. God the Father is distinct. He shows forth the perfections of all His attributes, manifesting His glory. Everything about Him is greater.
Judgment
God is judge. That God the Father is in heaven gives Him a vantage point. He can see everything. God perches above all. If God is higher and better, than something can be judged to be so. With things higher, better, and distinct, God requires judgment. He will judge, but so should we.
The Ramifications of God, the Highest
When God is highest, He is higher than anything. That is the automatic enemy of egalitarianism. God is of the highest value. Nothing is better than Him. He is far above anyone and everyone.
For people to do what they want to do, it helps if no one or nothing is above them. It is a Satanic version of utopianism. Every man is his own god. No one is better, greater, or higher than anyone else. No one wears a different uniform. Gender or sex doesn’t exist.
Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” God is incompatible with communism, because He is the ultimate authority, higher than everyone. When people judge according to God, this act overthrows communist thinking.
If one individual cannot be better than everyone, then he at least wants no one to be better than anyone else. Everyone has his own truth, his own goodness, and his own beauty. Every standard is relative to himself. Nothing is absolute. Of course, all of this is a lie.
John the Baptist’s Diminishment of His Own Water Baptism in Matthew 3
Matthew 3 provides the New Testament introduction of the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist. While John preached in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to him for the purpose of baptism in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:7-12 read:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The Desire of the Pharisees and Sadducees for John’s Baptism
“To his baptism” in verse 11 may sound like a dative of direction or destination. It isn’t. It is the Greek preposition, epi, with the accusative noun, baptisma. The BDAG lexicon says the following about this usage of epi:
11. marker of purpose, goal, result, to, for, w. acc. . . . . baptism=to have themselves baptized Mt 3:7
John’s reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees shows that he knew they were coming out for baptism by him. How he uses the Greek word, echidna, translated “vipers,” indicates that he referred to the vipera ammodytes, the sand viper. Because of very dry conditions, brush fires will begin and spread in the Jordan River Valley, pushing these poisonous reptiles toward the water. This is the picture John paints of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This elucidates their purpose.
Sand vipers slither to the Jordan River to escape brush fires. The Pharisees and Sadducees came for the purpose of John’s baptism. They thought it might provide another possible escape from future judgment of God. These religious leaders were quite willing to try one more religious ritual as another fire insurance policy. John wouldn’t baptize them. His baptism would not deliver them.
The Preaching of Repentance
John preached repentance. He immersed only the repentant. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repentant. Their lives did not show the fruit of repentance. Repentance was a change of heart, conversion of the soul. It was more than token ritual so favored by false religion.
Later in verse 11, John says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” “Into” translates the Greek preposition, eis, which indicates identification, such as when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Unto” is again the preposition eis. The children of Israel were not placed in Moses. Through their baptism in the Red Sea, they identified with Moses. John’s immersion in water identified the repentance of the recipients.
John the Baptist is saying, my baptism doesn’t save you. Baptism would not result in the salvation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would just be another ritual for them. If they repented, God would save them, and then John would immerse them. He baptized only previously truly repentant people.
The Natural Quality of John’s Baptism
If someone thinks that baptism will deliver him from hell fire, like the sand vipers slithered to the Jordan River to deliver them from brush fires, he was wrong. John makes that clear in the following verses. Using other metaphors, John says that God would cast them into the fire without repentance. John baptized, but he diminishes it before his listeners as a means of salvation. This should give strong pause to those adding baptism as a salvation requirement. John the Baptist himself didn’t do that.
Further, John contrasts what he does with water baptism and what Jesus does with Spirit and fire baptism. John represents his baptism as solely natural. It’s water. Water doesn’t make any kind of supernatural or spiritual change. He characterizes baptism with water as inferior to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those are greater than the baptism John performed. Jesus Himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
The Supernatural Quality of Jesus’ Baptisms
Compared to John’s
The Holy Spirit and the eternal fire of Hell are both supernatural. The two media with which Jesus baptizes are superior in quality and character to the one medium of John’s baptism. John was just a man. He could water baptize, but he couldn’t baptize with the third person of the Trinity like Jesus could and did.
In Jesus’ day, slaves would carry the sandals or shoes of their Master or Lord. John was so low compared to Jesus, he says, that he was not worthy even to do that kind of slave work for Jesus. Sure, he could baptize with water. That was a baptism suitable for his doing. Only Jesus could do such supernatural baptisms as the Holy Spirit and fire.
Holy Spirit baptism corresponds in John’s preaching to gathering the wheat in his garner. The garner was heaven in John’s figure and the fire was Hell. Anyone in John the Baptist’s audience that day he invited to repent, so that Jesus would gather them into His granary. If they did not repent, therefore not being a good tree that could bring forth fruit, Jesus would axe them down and toss them into unquenchable fire.
Later in Matthew 3, Jesus then shows up in the wilderness, bringing an entirely different situation for John the Baptist. When the Pharisees and Sadducees showed up, he didn’t want to baptize them. They needed to repent and they hadn’t. When Jesus showed up, John the Baptist didn’t want to baptize him either. Why? He only baptized repentant people and Jesus had nothing for which to repent. Instead then, John asked Jesus to baptize him.
The Characterization of Jesus
If anyone should repent, next to Jesus, John was the one who needed repentance. Jesus should baptize him and not John baptize Jesus. John’s desire not to baptize Jesus diminished his baptism in comparison to the work of Jesus. Through Jesus, you could receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. John’s baptism just identified its recipients with what mattered most, their repentance. Mere identification is lesser than the much greater transformation of a life through Christ’s redemption and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus could and would also judge in the end with fire. The fan, the winnowing shovel, was in His hand. In the end judgment, He would divide the truly saved from those who are not. That is way above John the Baptist’s pay grade. John’s baptism was not salvific. It was not supernatural. John was just a man. He wasn’t God like Jesus was.
John was baptizing. When he compared himself with Jesus in John 3 to persuade his followers to follow Jesus instead, John argued (verse 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you believed in Jesus Christ, you received everlasting life. If you didn’t, you received the wrath of God. Nothing John could do would provide everlasting life or the wrath of God. Belief brought everlasting life, not baptism.
Thought Experiment
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism. They saw it as a fire escape, another ritual that would put more weight on the side of their own righteousness. It might ameliorate themselves against future judgment as an impressive deed.
As a thought experiment, let’s say John welcomed their desire for baptism, praised them for it. Their trek out to the Jordan River manifested their expression of need. They were admitting trouble for themselves, perhaps some need for cleansing. So John instead said, “Well done. In light of your recognition of deprivation, let me baptize you!”
Baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees would play right into their hands. It would give them the wrong impression and false sense of security that baptism would save. John sent the message that baptism did not save. It was a symbol. It didn’t do anything like repentance and then Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John’s unwillingness to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show fruit unto repentance teaches against any saving effect of baptism. It is not a washing of regeneration. It is mere outward identification. Jesus later says it is also a righteous act of obedience. It wouldn’t save anyone, including the Pharisees and Sadducees. John was clear on this.
Sermons Available for Listening
Sermons Online
I love listening to preaching. In addition to reading the Bible, I also like hearing preaching in audio. My goal is to read through the OT once and the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs twice this year. I did that last year. The year before that, I went through it all twice. I also like to hear others sermons regularly. Usually, yes, I do that when I’m doing something else. If I’m doing low-intellect physical labor, I’ll often listen to preaching while I do.
My wife and I live now in the Midwest in Southern Indiana two hours and fifteen minutes from where I grew up. I’m preaching there. You can listen to our preaching here. The website adds two to three sermons every week, depending on what I’m doing. Again, click on the link here.
A Gospel Presentation, Books to Purchase, and Essays to Read
Gospel Presentation
You can also watch the gospel at the church website. You could add the link to a phone text so that people you know can hear the gospel. This is a good way to evangelize. Send this gospel presentation. Click on the link here to get the youtube version (it might be easier to share).
Books at Pillar and Ground Publishing
While you are at it, maybe you might consider purchasing or encouraging someone else to purchase one of the three books at this website. It is pillar and ground publishing. You can get the three books at paypal. It’s helpful if you buy them there. You can get them at Amazon, but it’s better for me if you buy them on paypal at our pillarandground website.
A Free Essay Every Week
One more thing. Every week, I write a short essay, called “From the Pastor’s Desk.” Feel free to read these. Click on the link here.
God does NOT love everyone? A Hyper-Calvinist Error, part 2 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes!” Scripture says “no!” In part 1 of 3 in this series, I summarized the first portion of my recent composition God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. John 3:16, Mark 10:21, and 1 John 2:2 refute the hyper-Calvinist idea that God loves only the elect. Scripture is plain that God loves the entire world-every single person.
If Hyper-Calvinists Were Right,
Then Christians Should Not Love Their Enemies
Christians should be like God. If God loves every person, then they should love all men. If God has nothing but an everlasting hatred for the non-elect, then they should strive with all their might to purge out any love that they have for lost sinners from their bosoms and have nothing but an eternal and everlasting hatred for them, (allegedly) like God. However, the Lord Jesus taught:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
Christians must love their enemies because God loves His enemies. When they love their wicked, unregenerate, Christ-and-Christian hating enemies, they are being like their Father in heaven. The Sermon on the Mount does not say, “Love your elect enemies and bless the elect when they curse and hate you. If the non-elect do it, though, show eternal hatred to them.” Believers must “increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men” (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13) because God loves all men, not the elect alone.
The Quran Agrees with Hyper-Calvinism,
but the Bible does Not
Hyper-Calvinists need specific passages that teach God does NOT love the majority of the world that rejects Christ and is eternally lost. It would not have been hard for God to include such statements in the Bible. After all, the Quran is filled with them. For example:
Q 2:276 Allah hath blighted usury and made almsgiving fruitful. Allah loveth not the impious and guilty.
Q 3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
Q 3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.
The Quran is full of such statements-when I went through the Quran from cover to cover as part of my preparation for my debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally I found the seemingly constant drum-beat of Allah’s lack of love for this group and that group a sharp contrast with the teaching of God’s Word, the Bible.
While the idea that God does not love unbelievers is all over the Quran, the number of statements in holy Scripture such as “God does not love person X” or “God does not love people like Y” are equal in number to the statements such as “Christ did not die for person X” or “Christ did not die for group Y”–namely, zero. Both limited atonement and the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of God’s lack of love for the vast majority of mankind are completely absent from Scripture.
Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
God and the Bible Are Dispensational (Part Six)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
History
One of the biggest criticisms aimed at dispensationalism is the scant historical evidence for this system of interpretation. Opponents call John Nelson Darby, 19th century Anglican clergy member from Ireland, the founder of dispensationalism. They say then the early 20th century evangelical Bible teacher, C. I. Scofield, popularized it in the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible.
If dispensationalism originated in the 19th century, I would find that troublesome. Yet, it’s not how I explain the history of dispensationalism. God intended literal interpretation of the Bible, which is premillennial. You can read that in the Bible itself. For that reason, I say that premillennialism started with the apostles. From there, you can read their influence on several early patristic writers. Irenaeus reports that Papias (AD 60-130) said that “there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.”
Systematization of Interpretation
Darby among others systematized premillennialism and a literal interpretation of scripture. Scofield and others picked up his mantle with their explanation. This could easily have been a counter to the systematization of amillennialism by covenant theology. The system of covenant theology preceded the system of dispensationalism, but premillennialism precedes amillennialism. Scripture doesn’t provide a system. However it is premillennial.
In the first century, no one spiritualized the Bible as a type of interpretation. A literal interpretation was the intention of Jesus and the Apostles. That’s what they did. Spiritualization, the warp and woof of covenant theology, didn’t occur until Roman Catholicism said that the church fulfilled Old Testament Israel.
Seven Dispensations?
Scofield introduced seven dispensations. I can agree with his seven divisions of the Bible and history. However, I would not characterize, explain, or label them the same as he did. One might add a few more divisions for clarity. As I wrote earlier, dispensations indicate the continuity and discontinuity of the workings of God in His world.
God Himself doesn’t change. That is continuity. Both out of His love and justice, He works in different manners during different periods. That is discontinuity.
As a description, I don’t like “age of grace,” speaking of the era in which we now live. Salvation always came and comes by grace. What Scofield called the age of grace, like others, I would call, the church age. God worked through Israel in the Old Testament age and in the church in the New Testament one, the latter from Christ to the rapture.
Bad Dispensationalism
Just because someone is a dispensationalist does not guarantee correct belief and practice or even right exegesis of passages. Dallas Theological Seminary probably did more to spread the system of dispensationalism than any other institution. It also though disseminated a weak or false gospel and doctrine of sanctification.
Dallas for the most part produced the free grace crowd that cheapens and distorts grace. This poses as a dispensationalist view because of its source. Cheap grace bled into independent fundamental Baptists and their anti-repentance and non-lordship teaching. They became more enamored with the soteriology of the free-gracers than historic Baptists. This fit nicely with their pragmatic church growth philosophy, pretending to be revival and the power of God.
Longtime president of Dallas, Lewis Sperry Chafer affected many with his eight volume Systematic Theology. He took his dispensationalism to an extreme, perhaps in reaction to covenant theology. He pushed his discontinuity too far. Chafer presented salvation by works in the Old Testament and by grace through faith in the New. He took Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and applied it to Jews in the Millennial Kingdom.
Holding and Teaching a Right Interpretation of Scripture
Whatever bad influence Dallas had with classic dispensationalism, it does worse in recent many years. It doesn’t require dispensationalism of its faculty. Instead, it uses its clout to sway people away from inerrancy. Dallas once pumped out serious eschatology to build a pretribulational, premillennial belief in church leaders and their churches. Now it doesn’t care if you’re premill, amill, or postmill, promoting unity with any aberrant position of eschatology.
Biblical churches and pastors must preach and train in a literal interpretation of scripture. Spiritualization and allegorization are easy ways to conform the Bible to whatever someone wants it to say. Easily, the woke churches use the Bible to teach their critical race theory, employing these means. The Words are God’s Words, but what comes out in the teaching are man’s words. Satan was fine using the Word of God to teach his will (Genesis 3, Matthew 4).
Churches need evangelization, preaching a true gospel. They also must make disciples, teaching new converts to rightly divide the Word of Truth. This requires teaching them a literal, grammatical-historical, dispensational interpretation of scripture. God and the Bible are dispensational.
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Inaccuracies
As many blog readers are aware, God gave me the privilege of debating Dr. James R. White, author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, orig. pub. 1995) on King James Onlyism a few months ago (if you have not seen the debate, you can watch it here.). Our specific debate topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I believe that the debate went well, to the glory of the God who has perfectly preserved His Word and in answer to the prayers of many of His saints. Since the debate, I have been working on a series of debate review videos, a few of which are now live, and many more of which should go live relatively shortly (I would have some new ones live already, but had some issues with audio quality). I must confess that in reviewing the arguments made by Dr. White I have been impressed with their weakness. During the debate itself I was delighted that he did not bring up anything that I was not expecting or that there were not readily available answers, but post-debate review has revealed even further weaknesses with his case. What kind of weaknesses? Subscribe to my Rumble or YouTube channel (or both) to find out when I discuss them there. (I probably will comment on them here at What is Truth? as well, so you can also just keep your eyes on this blog.)
James White has on numbers of occasions indicated that he wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a handful of months, and, unfortunately, the evidences for his rapid composition are most numerous. One example that we discussed here at What is Truth? before the debate was his astonishing affirmation–backed with no written sources or any evidence of any kind–that some King James Only people think Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets all actually spoke English, not Hebrew. While these people do appear to exist in Dr. White’s imagination, there does not appear to be any documentation of their existence in the real world. Even if one is not King James Only, creating straw-men, inaccurate arguments is not what one would want in a treatment of the issue under discussion.
Another example of the many astonishing and inaccurate claims of nutty radicalism by King James Only advocates appears in Dr. White’s discussion of people who allegedly think various people outside of the original writers of Scripture were inspired. (Biblically speaking, even the original writers were not inspired–their writings, not their persons, were authored by the Holy Spirit without any error; but saying “Peter was inspired” or “Moses was inspired,” while not accurate, is not as nuts as what James White is claiming.) What am I talking about? Consider the following arguments James White employs against King James Onlyism:
Anyone who believes the TR [Textus Receptus] to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow inspired … [y]et none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (pg. 96)
We pause only long enough to note that the KJV Only advocate … has to believe that Theodore Beza … was divinely inspired” (pg. 105)
“The KJV translators were not infallible human beings” (pg. 115)
Yet a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, “Why should I believe Jerome was inspired[?] … Do I have a good reason for believing this?” (pg. 181)
No citation of any King James Only advocate who believes in the inspiration of Jerome, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators, appears. James White does quote Edward F. Hills on page 96–specifically denying that the Textus Receptus was produced under inspiration or through a Divine miracle. Quotations by any prominent (or obscure!) advocate of King James Onlyism, or any KJV Only school, or church, or even a kid in the third grade in a KJV Only Sunday School affirming that Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators were inspired does not appear. They do not seem to exist in the real world, but only in the imaginary world that contains King James Only advocates who think that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets spoke Hebrew.
James White’s The King James Only Controversy, unfortunately, has many such inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It does not fairly and accurately present the positions of the belief system it seeks to refute. Consequently, while it may convince people who do not know anything about the King James Only movement that being KJVO is crazy, it will not be very effective convincing those who believe in the superiority of the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and Authorized, King James Version. Rather than being silenced by the power of James White’s critique, they are likely to be disgusted by the inaccurate straw-manning of their belief system.
–TDR
Recent Comments