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.
The Destructive Future of Vengeance
Vengeance in the Old Testament
The end of First Samuel and the beginning of Second recounts the transition between the reigns of Saul and David. The reign of Saul did not go well. It started disintegrating early for the simple reason that Saul wouldn’t listen to God.
The anointing of David as the new king happened in 1 Samuel 16. A few chapters later, female David fans chant, Saul slew his thousands and David his ten thousands. As that song went viral, Saul chucked a javelin toward David in his palace, wanting him as his own pin cushion. Saul quickly developed maybe the worst case of paranoia of anyone in all history. He obsessed over the violent demise of David.
The narrative contrasts the vengeance of Saul versus the clemency of David. David was an opposite of Saul in this matter. Saul put more into killing David than the larger threat, Israel’s national enemy, the Philistines. With his very large army, he chased David everywhere and with murderous intent.
The Contrast Between Saul and David
On the other hand, David performed harp music for Saul to soothe his bubbling psyche. With all his capabilities for revenge, in his generation David stood out in his non-vengeance. David had two point-blank chances to kill Saul and didn’t. He also thwarted the aggressions of his own men against Saul. Rather than cheer the death of Saul, David ordered the execution of an Amalekite who assisted Saul’s suicide.
David’s man Asahel died at the hand of Saul’s general Abner because he refused to stop chasing him down to kill him. With vengeance, David’s general Joab murdered Abner. David though for an entire day mourned the death of Abner. He protected Saul’s remaining living son, Ishbosheth, from the vengeance of enemies.
The story of Israel in the historical books of the Old Testament brings with it a tale of much vengeance. This vengeance affected the history of the nation in a very detrimental way. The history of the world recounts violence attending the transfer of power from one regime to another. The stain of vengeance colored the future for Israel. It diminished the trajectory of the nation.
God’s Will on Vengeance
Far back in Leviticus 19:18 God establishes through Moses:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
God says in Deuteronomy 32:15, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense.” Many might answer, “It’s easier said than done.” I understand. Even when someone “steals” our spot in traffic, we might decide to do something about it. The Apostle Paul repeats the Old Testament affection in Romans 12:19 as indicative of church submission to the Holy Spirit:
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Two verses later, Paul explains vengeance to “be overcome with evil” instead of overcoming evil with good.
Hedging against Destructive Vengeance
It really isn’t that vengeance itself is wrong. Vengeance is God’s. God isn’t doing wrong when He takes vengeance. God knows that (1) people cannot handle vengeance and (2) they will go astray trying to get it. Vengeance diverts people from their true purpose in life. Love for God and neighbor does not abide in a vengeful heart. Everyone must remain an audience of gospel preaching, as God seeks the redemption of men’s souls.
Vengeance rips apart institutions: family, government, and church. At the same time, in general men won’t heed warnings against vengeance without true conversion. Desire for vengeance holds them in a path of ruin.
When Jesus said the truth will set you free, that includes freedom from vengeful wrath. When God captures a man’s heart, He gives it strength to endure. One who possesses “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” can embrace this fullness as a hedge against revenge in his mind and heart. Rather than vengeance, the ambassador of Christ seeks mediation and reconciliation. “As much as possible, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).
Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5
Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.
You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. 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
Prosecutorial Misconduct, Mistrial, and Dismissal of Charges
I heard someone say recently and smartly, “There are repercussions for telling the truth, but they are never worse than not telling the truth.” It is tough to watch on and see the lies pile up in the United States and across the world. The worst of the lies is that God is not in charge, that this world will end in some other way than with Jesus Christ, Who created everything, owns everything, and will rule over the earth.
Four indictments in four separate locations occurred against President Donald Trump. They all represent a world of lies and lying. Perhaps the title of this post could characterize the future for those indictments: prosecutorial misconduct, mistrial, and then dismissal of charges. A case could end on appeal in a higher court with a prosecutorial overturn. The treatment of these lower courts, the cumulative pressure, grinds down an elderly person.
I am not a lawyer, but prosecutors, as I understand it, are immune to criminal charges for prosecutorial misconduct. They can receive disciplinary actions, perhaps losing their jobs. Prosecutors won’t in these cases because where they work their bosses reward them for misconduct. They want misconduct as their work product. No one in their sphere of authority stops them. Many others encourage their wrongdoing.
Prosecuting Crimes, Not People
A prosecutor by nature is one in authority. He can’t prosecute without authority. A prosecutor prosecutes crimes, not people. He doesn’t see a person he’d like to punish, so he looks for a crime to prosecute. A prosecutor sees a crime and he investigates a crime. In the midst of that investigation of a crime, he finds a defendant, someone to accuse with proof of having committed a crime.
People in authority might live above or outside the laws applied to those under their authority. One could use highway patrol as an analogy. In order to catch speeders, they must speed. Prosecutors might think themselves justified for violating the very laws they prosecute. They contradict them even more than those they charge with a crime. They “must” to enforce the law. Highway patrol is not a good analogy for thinking they can use misconduct to prosecute. Law keepers best prosecutes law breaking.
Prosecution Everywhere
Prosecution occurs in almost any institution and even outside of institutional life. In response to prosecution comes defense. Prosecutors may misuse their positions and their authority to prosecute others. You know this happens. Maybe it happened or is happening to you. It has to me.
When someone brings a charge against someone, makes an accusation, this is prosecution. Someone judges another person guilty of some offense or crime. Sometimes they sentence the person to a kind of punishment, becoming both judge, jury, and executioner. In his classic, The Law, Frederic Bastiat wrote in 1850 after and over the French Revolution: “Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” Under “the perversion of the law,” he wrote: “It has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”
Outside of a courtroom, often the prosecutor and the plaintiff are the very same person. It could be several ganging up against one person, agreeing on their charge. Intervention is necessary, a kind of righteous judge or mediator who can represent a defendant. Jesus Christ is the perfect depiction of this Person for an individual charged, a sympathetic high priest. He is an advocate. The prosecutors, it seems, are not advocates, like Jesus.
Purpose of Prosecution
Satan prosecuted his case against Job with an accusation. Job was a righteous man, but he wasn’t sinless. Job himself said that no one is just before God, implying justification by faith. However, Satan made a false accusation. Job really didn’t serve God because of the increased substance he enjoyed.
The Lord Jesus didn’t design the church for prosecution. No doubt churches need to judge, but like Jesus, they desire restoration. The idea of two or three witnesses is not a gang of inquisitors. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus says the point is to “gain the brother,” not “repulse the brother” or “destroy the brother.” The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 6:1-3:
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
The goal in faults is the spiritual restoring in the spirit of meekness. Again, it isn’t prosecution. The ongoing, never ending purpose is restoration. After that it is bearing the burdens. The enemy of these two aims or objectives is a man or men thinking themselves to be something, deceiving themselves.
Prosecution in Real Life
Let’s say the prosecution says, this person did this. It comes with this charge or accusation. He didn’t do this. No evidence exists that he did. He denies it. The prosecution still charges ahead with its prosecution, a rush to judgment. When he denies, the prosecution goes one step further and charges with perjury. Now he is a liar because he said, “I didn’t do that.” He apparently perjures himself because he denied doing something he didn’t do.
At the same time a prosecutor looks for a crime. The pretext for the charge is not a crime, but a desire to prosecute. “The defendant tried to skirt the law.” But he didn’t and no evidence exists that he did.
As a pastor, I have experienced people reporting on others. When they did, I always took their testimony with a grain of salt. I listened, but I did not conclude. Every time I investigated first with the presumption of innocence. “Destroy not him . . . for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ died to save, not to condemn. The goal in every situation is reconciliation and forgiveness.
I counseled at camps. Young people might violate camp rules. My job as counselor wasn’t to catch campers doing something wrong. I wanted to help campers, not kick them out of camp.
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs in more than criminal trials. They also occur in real life. Almost every institution includes forms of prosecution and defense.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Merriam Webster online says that “prosecution” is “the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment.” It is to bring an accusation or charges against someone. A judgment is made, such as guilty or not guilty, and then sentencing occurs.
The prosecutor leads a prosecution. He could represent a plaintiff, the latter one bringing the case against an accused. In ordinary life, outside of the courtroom, the prosecutor and the plaintiff are likely the same person. The prosecutor litigates the case, tries to prove the guilt of a defendant, even if he is also plaintiff.
Spolin and Dukes Law defines “Prosecutorial Misconduct”:
Essentially, prosecutorial misconduct is when the prosecutor commits misconduct, and what that means is when the prosecutor violates one of the rules about how there are certain rights defendants have. There are rules about what prosecutors are supposed to do and the rights that defendants have in a criminal case.
Prosecutorial misconduct should lead to a mistrial and then dismissal of charges. If you’re a prosecutor, the goal is not to win. It is justice and fair treatment. If you see those latter two did not occur, you yourself want mistrial and dismissal of charges.
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
Almost All Historians Get History Wrong
Habakkuk as a Paradigm
In the first four verses of the book of Habakkuk, the prophet questions God, “Why does He permit evil in Judah?” God answered Habakkuk in verses five through eleven by saying, “I am raising up Babylon to chastise Judah.” Habakkuk wanted Judah punished for her sin. How could God use Babylon, a more wicked nation even than Judah, to punish Judah? Habakkuk further complained (verses 12-17), “If You will chastise Judah, LORD, then why would You not do worse to Babylon?”
The answer from God to Habakkuk is one of the most famous and important verses in all of scripture. In Habakkuk 2:4 the LORD says to Habakkuk:
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
It is a kind of message in a message from God to Habakkuk. All of history has two essential groups, one that lifts up its soul so it is not upright and the other that is just or righteous by faith. To put it more simply, someone either doesn’ t believe or he does believe. Babylon is the former.
Babylon and Judah
When someone or a nation like Babylon or Judah lifts itself up, which is not believing, it will not be just, neither will it live. Judah had its opportunities and still didn’t believe, so God sent her into captivity. Babylon could have turned to the LORD by faith too. It didn’t, and the Lord destroyed it.
God expects faith especially from Judah and especially Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s response to God is a microcosm of what God expects of every soul. If Judah would believe, definitely Habakkuk should. Upon the hearing of the Word of God, the righteous respond by faith.
In the end, the righteous live. They live by and because of faith. No one lives without it. Faith is a conduit for the saving grace of God.
But how does all this have to do with the title of this piece? God raised up a great world empire like the Babylonian or Chaldean empire. God also destroyed that empire using Cyrus and the Persians. He also used the Chaldeans to chastise or punish the Southern Kingdom of Israel.
Cyrus and the Persians and Reading History
Read history. Which historian says God used Babylon as an instrument in His hand in the 6th century B.C.? Furthermore, name a historian who says that God designed Cyrus to defeat Babylon to fulfill prophecy? God said in Isaiah 45:1-7:
1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God told the name of Cyrus and predicted what he would do over 150 years beforehand. Every historian should point to this truth.
Caesar Augustus and the Correct Viewpoint of History
Which historian will say that God produced Caesar Augustus to tax the world (Luke 2:1) to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2? God sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem when she was nine months pregnant. He used Caesar Augustus to do it. The emperor of Rome was a pawn in God’s hand. That’s a historical truth.
The LORD, who is sovereign over history, talks about the correct viewpoint of history. He wraps it all up in Isaiah 41:22, when He says:
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
God connects the former things, history, with what they be, the present, and then the latter end of them, when He declares things to come. Former, present, and future interconnect. God does that.
Considerations
Consider the American Indian. Historians will not consider the paganism of American Indian tribes as a reason for their fall. Historians treat the American Indians as true owners of North America, because they were here first. They do not trace their downfall to idolatry or rebellion against God.
The just shall live by faith. And then there is the alternative — cursing for those lifting themselves up and against the one and true God. Overall, blessing comes by faith. Cursing comes by unbelief. This is our Father’s world. God will sometimes use wicked people to punish other wicked people. No one will get away with wickedness, because God is the Final Judge. Almost all historians get history wrong.
The Expectations of the Apostle Paul for the Visit of an Unbeliever to a Meeting of the Lord’s Church
Seeker Sensitive?
Maybe out of spiritual sensitivity someone seeks to visit a church meeting. Such seeking happens though in far less frequency today. A tension exists about the issue of seeking.
On the one hand, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:11, “There is none that seeketh after God.” That must be true. God said it.
Yet, on the other hand, twenty-nine times scripture says “Seek (ye) the Lord.” As if someone can seek the Lord when scripture says not. A classic location for this is Isaiah 55:6. It reads: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”
One might ask, “How could God command someone to seek Him, when none can seek Him?” Although by nature dead to God, He enables men to seek Him through His revelation. When man seeks God, God caused that. He wants man to find Him.
The Grace of God and Seeking
With the grace of God that appears to all men, men can seek God. Without that grace, they would not. A good overall understanding of this truth, the Apostle John writes in 1 John 4:19, “We love him, because He first loved us.”
Seeking based on the grace of God begins not with a worldly temptation to attend a church service. That seeking is not seeking God. That person follows his lust to a meeting, because a church drew him with it. The worldly or fleshly enticement is not God’s love. God doesn’t allure or entice.
The attraction of God is either God Himself or the things of God. Those surpass any worldly or fleshly allure. Yet, unbelievers still seek worldly or fleshly allure. Church leaders know this. To increase attendance, they use other attractions besides God and the Word of God. Those don’t seek God.
Unbeliever Visits a Church
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
If an unbeliever sought after God and went to a church as a part of his search, what would he find? The Apostle Paul writes what he should find in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25:
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Carl Trueman wrote about this in World magazine:
Second, the church is not called to mimic the world. Far from it. There is only one description in the New Testament of how an outsider should react when he blunders by accident into a church service. It is in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25. Paul tells us that such a person will be convicted and fall on his face, knowing that God is there.
Presumably, this is because he finds himself in the presence of a holy God and is overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness. Turning worship into a comedy skit seems unlikely to produce the same result. In fact, far from being sensitive to the needs of any seeker, it sends a clear signal that the gospel is unworthy of attention by any serious-minded person, believer or unbeliever.
The Apostle Paul describes the random visit of an unbeliever to a church. Trueman calls it, blundering by accident into a church service. Paul’s description of a church meeting provides authority for what should characterize one. These verses open a window into the worship of the first generation church.
Psalm 40:3
1 Corinthians 14:24-25 remind me of what David wrote in Psalm 40:3, depicting the worship of God’s people:
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
In this one verse, unbelievers witness the distinctive or new song of believers. They see their praise and what? Fear and then trust in the LORD. These unbelievers aren’t excited, entertained, enchanted, or mesmerized when they join a meeting of God’s people. Instead, they are shaken by “seeing” this praise from the mouths of a believing congregation.
Experience of Visitors with True Worship
When unbelievers choose to join a church meeting, 1 Corinthians 14:25 says the experience includes secrets of the heart made manifest. Gill writes that these visitors are shown “the naughtiness of” their hearts,
discovering the lusts that are in it, detecting the errors of the mind, and filling the conscience with a sense of guilt, and a consciousness of deserved punishment; so that the person looks upon himself as particularly spoken to.
He falls on his face, speaking of a visitor’s shame over sin. It also humbles him. The first experience of a true seeker is “worship.” God seeks for true worshipers (John 4:23-24), which is why they can seek Him. The first act of true worship means the offering of a soul to God. He converts or restores the soul of the one who offers it by faith. Jesus called this, losing one’s life for His sake.
Contrast with Contemporary Evangelical Experience
Qualities of 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 and Psalm 40:3 do not depict what most evangelicals offer an unbelieving visitor. These churches or “communities” long ago departed from the true nature of a New Testament church. They know their so-called “seekers” aren’t seeking those biblical, holy qualities. Instead they give them something else more to their liking or better, lusting. Then when they get a crowd of “seekers,” they attribute that to God working, which is a lie. It is nothing like the work of God.
Trivialization of Worship
Trueman continues his rebuke:
Such trivialization of worship rests ultimately upon a trivialization of God Himself. It is a function of the same culture where sports stars refer to the Lord as “the big man upstairs,” as if God was just one of their drinking buddies . . . . one more example of a world that does not take the holiness and transcendence of God seriously.
It raises the fundamental question of whether some pastors even understand what the nature of worship is and why the church exists. When worship is turned into a clown show with a religious patina, Christianity and Christians are infantilized and God is mocked.
Our God, our New Testament God, is a consuming fire and to be approached with awe and reverence, as the book of Hebrews teaches. And those incapable of acting in accordance with that have no place in the pastoral ministry.
Finding a Sweet Spot
Some churches are very good at the “clown show with a religious patina.” Other aren’t, but they still use the same strategy, only a lesser version. Sometimes, they modify the show to avoid the extreme. They attempt to find a sweet spot between reverence and lust. In either case, it’s a show. Sometimes it’s a show led by a natural showman. He just can’t help himself. He offers a show in the name of God. It’s still a show though.
In John 12:25, Jesus said:
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If someone wants life eternal, he hates and loses this life. A true seeker, who hates this life will stop seeking someplace to satisfy his lust. A true church will stop providing a show to attract seekers by lustful allurements.
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments