Do We Need Evidence Outside of the Bible or Do Biblical Presuppositions Count as Evidence?
This post relates to the Ross-White Debate and the Related Subject of Landmarkism
In numerous ways God established the truth and authority of His Word. Believers rely on scripture for their faith and practice. They trust the Word of God as evidence. God said it, so it is true.
Scripture talks about Noah, so there is a Noah, Abraham, so there is an Abraham, and Moses, so there is a Moses. You don’t have to find something outside of the Bible about these figures to believe what God says about them in the Bible. It is self-evident. Whatever scripture says is true.
The Bible teaches justification by faith. Does evidence show that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, forgives all our sins, or justifies us by faith? I can’t point to the truth of this outside of the Bible. I believe it because God’s Word says it.
Was there a tree of life? Yes. Did the sun stand still in Joshua? Yes. Was there a Samson? Yes. How can we answer “yes” to any of these questions without something outside of the Bible?
Authentication of Scripture
Authentication of scripture exists outside the Bible. Men investigate the people and events recorded in it, outside of it. Nothing men find contradicts what it says. They can’t confirm everything, but for what they can find confirmation of the Bible outside of the Bible, it confirms it.
The Bible makes thousands of predictions. These are most often layered predictions with many different details to the prophecies. For the prophecies to come true, much happens that involves many different people and places. Fulfillment of every prophecy occurred.
Extra-scriptural written materials validate people and events in scripture. Archaeology confirms people and events in the Bible. When comparing one part of the Bible with another, one part or more confirms another part. Different sections confirm each other with their agreement. Fulfilled prophecies authenticate the truth and authority of what scripture says.
Copying Scripture
Scripture so impressed its readers and adherents that they copied it more than any other document. More hand copies exist than any other document in all of history, and by far. Hand copies of the Bible far exceed any other book. Many, many throughout history accepted it as true.
We can look at this world and know that it didn’t occur by accident. What we witness in nature requires more than naturalistic explanation. The supernatural explanation of the Bible matches what we see in the world. The comparison of passages within the Bible attest to their explanation of the origins of the world, people, nations, nature, civilization, events, and language. It provides a cohesive view of the world in which we live.
The Bible is its own evidence. By itself, it is a standard. The writings themselves ring with authority and truth. No one could just make them up.
Scripture Is Evidence
With everything that I have written so far, a reader of the Bible can depend on its contents to believe its doctrine. Where there is no sure evidence outside of scripture, scripture is the evidence. If God says holy men of God wrote the words of God under verbal, plenary inspiration, we believe that. If He says He will preserve all of those same words and how He will do that, we believe that. Whatever might contradict what scripture says, we hold to scripture and reject what contradicts it.
Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, so they didn’t. Jesus said His Words would not pass away, so they didn’t. Believers deny whatever contradicts what God said. They deny modern textual critics who deny the perfect preservation of scripture. Believers deny the disappearance of true churches outside of the state church. They deny alterations of the creation story in Genesis 1 through 3. True Christians accept the table of nations in Genesis 10. Everything God says is true and every man a liar.
Scripture is the test of truth. Jesus said, God’s Word is truth. As an example, today so-called experts talk about climate change and the end of life on earth. We reject those claims. Even the evidence outside the Bible challenges their assertions, but the Bible presents a different view.
The Bible Guides the Right Interpretation of History
The Bible provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history. If a view of history contradicts the Bible, believers accept the Bible over the view. Isaiah 40 to 48 talks about the interpretation of history. Isaiah calls these “the former matters.” Isaiah, because of God, could relate former matters with present and future ones. God sees it all at all times. He knows it all.
Since the Bible is true, it is also evidence. This is a matter of faith. We believe it, based on that evidence. It guides our interpretation. When we look back at what happened, we start with presuppositions based upon the Bible. Our interpretation of history must conform to the Bible.
In the recent debate with James White, Thomas Ross started with scriptural presuppositions. They are true. God said what He would do with scripture. We might not prove the fulfillment of these presuppositions outside of scripture. They’re still true.
If God said He would preserve every word, God would make all of them available to every generation of believers, and He would use the church to do it, that’s what we believe. What God said provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history. I believe what God said He would do, because what He said is true.
What Pleases God
When people come up with other points of view on preservation that reject or deny what God said, I reject those. They may say they have evidence. I will look at it, and I have. Their so-called evidence is an interpretation of history. That’s all it is. They say this and that about Erasmus or Beza or Athanasius that all conforms to their naturalistic point of view. I listen to it, see how it fits into a biblical view of history, and if it doesn’t, I don’t believe it. That is what pleases God.
How I look at the history of the preservation of scripture is also how I look at the history of the preservation of the church. It is how I look at the history of Christian doctrine. Because I don’t believe in an apostasy of orthodox doctrine and practice, I reject that it happened. History seems to say it did in certain instances, but how trustworthy is history before the printing press?
Example
James White uses the example of Athanasius as proof that the Comma Johanneum (important part of 1 John 5:7) did not exist at that time. Athanasius didn’t quote it apparently. First, we have to depend on Athanasius. Then we have to rely on the report of Athanasius. Did someone report him accurately? And then we have to trust the preservation of the report of Athanasius. Why was this report preserved and other reports not? To the victors go the spoils.
On some doctrinal content, not necessarily this one, did the Roman Catholics control the flow of information and destroy what did not confirm its doctrine? Someone can say it’s true, because they read something. James White did that. It works today for his point of view. Did what he say fit with scriptural presuppositions? He says it fit with Athanasius, and what scripture says, be gone. I reject his interpretation of it because it contradicts scriptural presuppositions. That is how believers should interpret history.
Greeks Seek After Wisdom
Paul said the Jews seek after signs. They validated with signs. He said, Greeks seek after wisdom. They validated with wisdom. For something to be true, was it accompanied by signs? For something to be true, does wisdom confirm it? Believers say, the foolishness of preaching, which is the substance of preaching from scripture. That glorifies God.
When James White and others present their wisdom, who is glorified? They are. When we speak, they say it sounds like foolishness. Does this sound familiar when you think about what the Apostle Paul said?
God’s Purpose to Redeem Men from All Nations
Jehovah, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had a purpose to redeem sinners from all nations from eternity past, in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. I have had the privilege of preaching the Missions Conference at West Coast Baptist Church in Oceanside, California this week. They are a church that seeks to glorify God and follow His Word, and I thank the Lord for their faithfulness to Him and their hospitality to us.
We (often, and properly) emphasize that the Great Commission teaches that the churches must go into all the world and make disciples of men from all nations. However, God has had a purpose to reach all peoples on the earth in every dispensation, both in those in the past and those that are upcoming. In the conference we looked at God’s purpose to reach all nations in those other dispensations that, at times, we do not think about as much, before we began to analyze the Great Commission for this period of time. So if you have never thought much about Jehovah’s heart to save sinners from all nations in all periods of time, and how that works out, perhaps the messages below from their missions conference may be a blessing. In their weekday services there are two preachers; the other preacher’s message from the Monday, Pastor David Sutton, certainly preached a great message well worth listening to, but it does not as directly relate to the theme of this blog post. After listening to these messages, be encouraged to participate in a greater way in the Great Commission yourself, and start doing more to contribute to God’s eternal purpose that “every creature” hear the gospel and that people from “all nations” give Him eternal praise.
Message #1: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Creation and into Israel’s History
Message #2: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Israel’s History through the New Testament Dispensation into the Future Tribulation, Millennium, and Eternal State:
Message #3: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations Settled in Eternity Past:
–TDR
Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 3
Religious or Spiritual Ecstasy, Soft Continuationism
Again and again through the years, I wrote on religious ecstasy, a perversion of true spirituality experienced in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:1-3) [see here, here, here, here, here, and here]. In 1 Corinthians 1, when Paul said that the Jews seek after signs (1 Cor 1:22), they were seeking for some experiential means of authenticating their spirituality. God settled the faith once and for all (Jude 1:3) with the completion of scripture. God chooses to use the oracles of God and that glorifies Him (1 Peter 4:11).
With true signs not available, except for something demonically manufactured to impersonate them, men use cheap, superficial counterfeits. Usually these are a form of what some termed, “soft continuationism.” What Paul confronted in Corinth was ecstatic experience. Ecstasy means: “an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence” More than any other way, to give this mystical feeling that the Holy Spirit is working, what is religious ecstasy, comes through music.
Asbury “Revival”
A Description
Someone seeking to justify the recent Asbury, Kentucky experience as revival, challenged what I wrote in part one in the comment section, to which I wrote on March 2:
I watched the earliest posted meeting at Asbury and zoomed through a very long period of Charismatic style emotionalism, repetitious, rock rhythmed, sentimental, superficial, doctrinally ambiguous, led by women, ecstatic music before getting to the “sermon,” which was nothing like Edwards or Whitefield. Maybe the aesthetic and spirit of the so-called worship means nothing to you, but it clashed with the biblical nature of God. It more reminded me of a Corinthian style revival.
If Charles Finney were alive, he would likely be proud of it. Everyone appeared in the egalitarian, postmodern casual, sloppy, and disordered dress (ripped blue jeans, etc.), giving no indication of anyone in authority. The man I heard used a few verses from a modern version, but at best you would be unsure what salvation was. It sounded more like Jesus as therapist. His list of sins that you put into your makeshift cup to give to Jesus included racism and terrorism. No one would even know who Jesus was, why or what it meant to believe in Him.
In Contrast
I continued.
I heard no biblical exposition. This is an updated kind of revival for today’s generation, like one of those Bibles with a hippie cover, to show how relevant the Bible could become. All of what I saw and heard conformed to the spirit of the age, would not dare distinguish itself, probably could not do that and be acceptable to that crowd.
It seemed that people in the audience were stirred to a certain degree. They were affected. I saw some emotion. Is that indications of the Holy Spirit? I have seen the same spirit, aroused by music in Charismatic settings, giving the impression that something spiritual is going on, but it choreographed by the feelings led by the music.
Similar Comments at the Shepherd’s Conference on March 8-10
After I wrote that on March 2, in the Q and A at his Shepherd’s Conference (the conference was March 8-10), someone asked John MacArthur about the Asbury so-called “revival.” The host referenced Jonathan Edwards and his historic and biblical teaching on the marks of revival. If it is revival, Edwards would say it must bear certain marks, or else it is fraudulent, a kind of impersonation like I said above. He said one assesses a true work of God based upon the Word of God and not emotion or feelings.
John MacArthur and Scott Aniol
MacArthur commented then on the Asbury Revival:
For most of those kids, it was not about Christ, but about the chords. It was about singing the same words for twenty minutes in a row in some kind of mesmerizing pseudo-spiritual experience that had no relationship to sound doctrine, to the depth of the gospel. I would like to know if that same revival would have occurred without the music. Shut the music down and find out what God is really doing.
I’m glad to hear MacArthur say essentially the same thing I said. Scott Aniol also picked up on this with an excellent article, you all should read, written on March 13, entitled, “Christ or Chords? The Manipulated Emotionalism of Hillsong, Asbury, and Pentecostalized Evangelical Worship.” He picked up on the comment by MacArthur, “not about Christ, but about the chords.” This is such an important theme for today.
Strange Fire?
MacArthur in the past gave a pass to contemporary style worship, using it in his own conference again and again. If anyone, like myself, criticized it, the MacArthur allies came out of the woodwork to attack me vehemently. In his now renowned Strange Fire Conference, MacArthur said the following, actually in contradiction of much of his own historic practice:
The contemporary evangelical church has very little interest in theology and doctrine, so you’re going to have a tough sell. It’s about style. And style is the Trojan Horse that lets Charismatics in the church. Because once you let the music in, the movement follows. It all of a sudden becomes common.
We sound like the Charismatics, sing like they do, have the same emotional feelings that they have. It’s a small step from doing the same music to buying into the movement. So the tough thing is you’re going back to a church that is thinking like that. It’s hard to make sound doctrine the issue when style is much more the interest of the leaders of the church.
Later he said:
I don’t think it has to do with what the teachers are saying. I think it’s the music. It’s like getting drunk so you don’t have to think about the issues of life. If you shut down the music, turn on the lights, and have someone get up there and try to sell that with just words, it’s not going to work. You’ve got to have some way to manipulate their minds.
Consistency and Discernment
The people MacArthur used in the Shepherd’s Conference in the past use a Charismatic style of worship, led by women very often, and giving the same kind of trance-like ecstatic experience. I believe he’s changing on this, and Scott Aniol latches on to that in his article.
Independent and even unaffiliated Baptists regularly produce their ecstasy in a kind of soft continuationism. It is a huge lack of discernment and it is very often ignored completely as a matter of fellowship. In other words, they encourage false worship through these forms of strange fire. Let this be a serious warning to us all and for the glory of God.
The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?
Watch the Debate
White and Ross Arguments
White’s Presentation
In mid-February, James White debated Thomas Ross about which was better, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) or the King James Version (KJV). White argues with an entirely naturalistic presupposition, saying that only manuscript evidence shows the underlying text of the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), is worse than that of the LSB, the Nestles Aland critical text (NA). Furthermore, he says the KJV uses archaic words and has less information for an accurate translation of certain technical words. He also tries to demonstrate some translation errors in the KJV, not in the LSB.
Ross’s Scriptural Presuppositions
Ross argues with a scriptural presupposition. The TR is superior to the NA based on the doctrine of preservation. The TR meets God’s promises of preservation in His Word. Ross asserts and then proves that scripture teaches verbal plenary original language preservation by means of true churches for every generation of believers. He also shows this identical teaching is the historical position clearly believed by the church, relying on the same passages. The NA is absent from its confessions or published materials. The TR only fits a scriptural and historical presupposition.
On the other hand, Ross shows that we know that the NA text was not in use for at least 1000 years. That isn’t preservation. Founders and proponents of the critical text, such as Wescott and Hort, deny the scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. Like White, they take an only naturalistic presupposition and method. This alone is enough to say the TR/KJV is superior to the NA/LSB, because the latter does not proceed from biblical presuppositions or methods.
Naturalistic, Manuscript Evidence
Conjectural Emendations
In addition, even using naturalistic means, the sole criteria of White, Ross shows the NA is inferior to the TR. Ross gives evidence that the editors of the NA 27th edition, the underlying text for the LSB, used over 100 “explicit conjectural emendations.” He provides two examples of this in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. This debunks the one apparent example of conjectural emendation in the TR in Revelation 16:5.
Over 100 conjectural emendations is worse than the one example of White. Reader, do you understand the truth here? It’s a hypocritical argument that doesn’t work. Please do not give a blind eye to this out of sheer loyalty to White and his winning a debate. This is the truth. It shouldn’t matter how fast Thomas Ross said it. Speaking fast is a red herring as an argument.
No Manuscript Evidence
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
How could textual critics publish a text like described? Even as a so-called science, textual critics don’t see their work as a science at all. Ross quotes this from Metzger and Ehrman in their foremost book on textual criticism. They don’t see anyone able to refer to the text as an original text. This strongly contradicts the position of the church based on biblical presuppositions. Ross quotes White himself in his debate with Douglas Wilson, that we will never have a certain text.
On the issue of the text alone, Ross blows away White. The TR is by far a superior text. When White mentions the papyri, Ross shows him the earliest, P52, a piece of the gospel of John that is identical to the TR. After praising the papyri, White changes tunes and says that it was a very small fragment, attempting to have it both ways. Relying on Pickering and Hoskier, Ross shows how that there are long sections of identical readings of the TR in the manuscripts. He includes photos of these.
White Attacks on Ross
White tries to attack the KJV by bringing up one possible conjectural emendation, one for which apparently Beza says he had a manuscript. One word in Ephesians 3:9 has limited manuscript support. He attacks the TR reading in 1 John 5:7. White doesn’t rely on scriptural presuppositions. Counting manuscripts and their age, that’s what he’s got. This is not how believers approached this issue. White himself says that the NA wasn’t available for hundreds of years. He speaks like this is a good thing. It is an obvious admittance, that Ross pointed out, that God did not preserve his text.
To be honest, White should accede to the Ross argument about no manuscript evidence for NA readings in 41 places in Matthew and Mark. Instead, he starts talking like they don’t matter for the translation. This shows a double standard. He attacks the TR in Revelation 16:5, one place, and excuses 41 places. He even apologizes for the NA27, the basis of the LSB, what he’s trying to defend in the debate. White says he doesn’t trust the editors, but he does his own textual criticism.
The Translation Issue
White spends some time on the translation issue. Ross answered him. The Granville Sharp rule doesn’t hurt the translation of the KJV in Titus 2:13. The LSB is fine there. Ross makes the point that Jude 1:4 fits the Granville Sharp in the KJV, while in the LSB, it does not. That point received crickets from White. Relating to the lexical issue of technical terms, Ross says that they’re still difficult to understand for identifying what those animals and minerals were. The lexical aids can help in understanding, but they do not resolve this issue in either the KJV and LSB.
Ross and White spent time discussing the translation of the Hebrew of Yawheh or Jehovah (or LORD) in the Old Testament. Ross referred to the pronunciation of the vowel points, a fine argument. Ross also gave a good answer on “servant” or “slave.” The Hebrew word is not always our modern understanding of “slave.”
Other Problems for White
White said he believed we have all the words in all of the manuscript evidence, and yet he contradicts himself in 1 Samuel 13:1, pointed out by Ross. White doesn’t believe there is a manuscript with the wording of that verse. I guess people don’t care about that contradiction. He doesn’t believe in preservation, we know that from his Douglas Wilson answer, exposed by Ross in the debate.
As well, White referred to a Hebrews reference to the prophet Jeremiah. He said the author quoted the Greek Septuagint, essentially arguing that the author of Hebrews and then Jesus in the Gospels used a corrupt text. Modern critical text advocates use this Septuagint argument as a kind of scriptural presupposition.
Ross gave White a good answer on the Septuagint question, referring to the theology of John Owen. Owen answered this point in his writings. He also quoted the introduction of a standard academic text on the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, taking the same position as Owen espoused. This debunks the false view that Jesus and other NT authors would have quoted a terribly corrupted text and translation of the Old Testament.
Style Points?
In the end, White had to attack Thomas Ross for his style, reading too fast and having too many slides. Come on. Keep it to the subject at hand. Easily, someone could attack White for style. White broad brushes TR and King James supporters with inflammatory language all the time. When Ross shook his hand at the end and gave him a book, White sat there looking disdainful. White attacked his character after the debate, saying he was showing off. He almost always name-drops and mentions his debate of Bart Ehrman and his 180 debates as automatic winning credentials.
In the comment section of the videos, people attack Ross for mentioning winning the debate. They are debating. If White won, his followers would say this again and again. It’s a picky criticism. There is criteria for a debate. Ross negates the affirmative of White and puts him on the defensive. That’s the definition of winning a debate.
Answering Questions
Some people have said that Ross didn’t answer White’s questions. I ask them, which did he not answer? They are silent. White, attacking Ross for perfect preservation, something the debate wasn’t about, tries to catch Ross in a gotcha moment by asking about Revelation 16:5. Ross says that he sympathizes with Beza’s having a manuscript with the word there. That is an answer.
White asks Ross if the King James translators could have done a better job in Acts 5:30. Ross said they were both fine, but KJV wasn’t wrong. That is an answer too. Like Ross, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. That doesn’t mean I or he wouldn’t translate it differently.
On sheer content alone, Ross crushed White in this debate. He wins because of his scriptural presuppositions. The Bible is the truth. Where the Bible speaks, that is reality. Anything that contradicts it is false. Even on the evidence, Ross won, because based on White criteria, he showed the NA had weak to no manuscript evidence. White tried to avoid this, just by saying that Ross misrepresented the evidence. Ross didn’t. White was not prepared for this argument. It’s not going to change either, because that evidence is still true.
James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version Debate (KJV vs LSB) is Now Live!
I am happy to report that you can now watch the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Bible versions (the King James Version Only debate)! The 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.”
James White was in the affirmative.
Thomas Ross was in the negative.
The debate can now be viewed on the following sites (click for your choice): FaithSaves Rumble YouTube
It can also be watched using the embedded video below:
Please “like” the video on YouTube and Rumble and share comments about it on those websites as well as on the blog here.
I am thankful for the work put in by the follower of James White who edited the video. I would like to have a somewhat improved version where one can see both the debaters and the slides at the same time, instead of only one or the other, and if that project gets completed, we will definitely plan to inform the blog readership about it.
May the truth of the perfect preservation of His infallible Word be more widely received as a result of this debate. Soli Deo Gloria!
Please also read the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version debate review, part 1, here (with more to come) or watch the video on FaithSaves, Rumble or YouTube. Lord willing, there are more parts to come reviewing the debate and its arguments.
–TDR
Done. Yes, But….
REVIEW OF BOOK BY CARY SCHMIDT
Many times through my life, someone said, “Christianity is a ‘done’ religion, not a ‘do’ one.” Or something very close to that. I gravitate toward that message; done, not do. Sounds right. It is, insofar you treat “done” right.
Many who write “done” don’t give it the right definition. Let me explain.
Cary Schmidt and Done.
Cary Schmidt came from Hyles-Anderson in the Hyles days. He went to Lancaster Baptist Church, which is also West Coast Baptist College. Then he left there to Newington, Connecticut, where he still is. He wrote the booklet, “Done,” which many churches hand to the lost in evangelistic packets and to new converts. Many, many. Hundreds of churches hand out thousands of this book. It’s a tiny little book. It’s short, small, and easy to read.
I have never joined the West Coast and Lancaster, spiritual leadership and striving together, orbit. I’ve explained why here in the past. It relates to doctrine, the gospel, and ministry philosophy. I would not send anyone else into that sphere of influence either. If someone was in it, I would encourage him to get out. This does relate to the book, “done,” among many other things.
Before I talk about the problems of a false view of “done,” what is right about it?
What Is Right about Done.
Nothing is wrong with the general idea or concept of Done. It’s good. Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive). Jesus did everything on the cross for any person’s salvation. He completed the work of salvation. It’s results are ongoing (perfect tense).
Hebrews 10:12 says about the Lord Jesus Christ: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Four times the book of Hebrews records that Jesus sat down (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:2; 12:2). He sat down because His work on the cross paid the penalty for sin. He sat down too because of His burial, bodily resurrection, and ascension, all included and necessary for “done.” The gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).
No doubt, Jesus did everything. We needed what He finished. Religions and people in those religions, which teach and preach salvation by works, need to hear this “done” message. They say “do” instead of “done.”
So, what’s wrong? What’s wrong with “Done”? Nothing is wrong with the word “done.” We like it. Does Schmidt represent it properly though? He does not.
What Is Wrong
A False Presentation
One, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus did everything, but how do we access what He did? Schmidt in his little booklet says you’ve got to take the gift Jesus gave like opening a gift on Christmas morning. He makes the reception of the gift then, a two step process (p. 83): (1) Believe the gift is free, that it doesn’t cost you anything. (2) Receive the gift.
The way Schmidt describes it, the gift is under the tree, there wrapped and ready to take. People do not get the gift because they won’t believe that gift is free and then because they think they might have to pay, they don’t take it. Children know their gifts are free under the tree. People in evangelism, however, according to Schmidt can’t or don’t believe salvation is free.
The way you get the gift, Schmidt says, is ask for the gift. You believe that the gift is free. That is believing. Jesus paid for the gift, you don’t have to do that. It is done. Then you’ve got to receive the gift. Schmidt makes those the two steps for receiving the free gift of salvation. That is false. This is the major way that “done” fails. It is a big falsehood. There really is very little different between what he says and 1-2-3, pray with me. It’s a lengthier presentation of 1-2-3, pray-with-me.
Misuse or Perverting of Scripture
To make his completely false assertion about the gospel and salvation, Schmidt misuses verses of scripture: Romans 10:9, 13, Acts 16:31, and John 3:16. He leaves out important exposition of those verses. He makes them mean something other than what they mean. As a result, he twists all of the gospels and their presentation of Jesus Christ. I would call it a very carefully crafted falsehood.
The deceit of the “done” message comes from getting one portion of the message of salvation right and twisting another vital part of it. Many false religions do that, present some truth with error. People understandably love the “done” part of the gospel.
If you ask almost anyone in the United States, “Did Jesus die for you?” He will answer, “Yes.” In all my years of evangelism, almost everyone believes Jesus died for them. Schmidt leaves out the part of the plan of salvation that is the biggest stumblingblock to the lost, the most offensive part. He eliminates the hard part, maybe on purpose or maybe because people deceived him in the past (perhaps Hyles and Lancaster?).
Head Knowledge/Heart Knowledge?
Schmidt (pp. 86-87) says the problem for people is that they get the ticket of salvation (head knowledge) but they won’t get on the plane (heart knowledge). This is a false dichotomy about head knowledge and heart knowledge. It’s useful to make it sound right, even though it isn’t.
Schmidt is right that some people think they need to earn their salvation. They add works to grace. That is not the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge though. They will not acknowledge ( in their heads) that Jesus paid it all, because their religion says they must contribute to what Jesus did. However, that is not the biggest stumbling block today for English speaking people.
At the end of his book, Schmidt challenges the reader to become “done” instead of “do” by praying a prayer, which he records at the end to pray. He might argue, “I argue that someone who prays that prayer, the way he receives the gift, he will become a new creature.” When you read that short chapter, you find out that you become a new creature in that God takes your sins away as you pray that prayer. You are new now. You are forgiven, because you have prayed that prayer. The change is a removal of sin. Then you will grow as a Christian, whatever that means.
No Repentance or Lordship
“Done” says absolutely nothing about repentance. Schmidt excludes repentance from the presentation. When he quotes Romans 10:9, which says, “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” he says nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ will do everything for you. You just need to pray that prayer. That is the way you receive the free gift after believing it is free. Heaven is free for you, just pray the prayer.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To receive the kingdom of heaven, someone needed to receive Jesus Christ as King, which is to receive Jesus Christ. They needed to relinquish their own kingdom for His. This is not like asking for and receiving a gift. The kingdom of heaven is a gift, but it requires repentance. Where is that in this presentation? It isn’t there.
What About Believing in and Receiving Jesus Christ?
“Done” leaves out receiving Jesus Christ for who He is. “Done” leaves out a presentation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Nothing then is done, because someone does not know who Jesus is or receive Him.
Schmidt makes “done” about receiving the gift. No. Absolutely not. “Done” is about receiving Jesus Christ. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 both say, “believe in Jesus Christ.” Schmidt leaves that out. He quotes the two verses and says they mean, “Pray a prayer.”
Like John says at the end of his gospel, ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To get into the kingdom, you must receive the King. You are not in charge anymore, Jesus is. Schmidt leaves all that out, which is the biggest difficulty that people have with the gospel.
By doing what he did, Schmidt deceives his reader on the gospel. Most people reading what he wrote will not know what salvation is. He perverts the gospel of Christ by leaving out what scripture says about believing in and receiving Jesus Christ.
More to Come (I will deal with problem number two of “Done”)
Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 2
When someone speaks of revival, built into the terminology is a return to something right, that was wrong. A change takes place. True revival is not the invention of something new, not seen before in the history of true, biblical Christianity.
Hippie Movement from Haight Ashbury, San Francisco
In the 1960s, especially centered in Woodstock, New York and the Haight Ashbury District, San Francisco, a hippie movement began. Called the flower children, they distributed flowers or floral decorations to symbolize their peace, love, universal belonging and protest the Vietnam War. They formed their own counter culture.
Men of the culture at large still wore short hair, which conforms to biblical teaching (cf. 1 Cor 11:14). God willed men to keep this gender distinction. Male hippies rebelled against God’s design by growing long hair — not just long, but not combed or neat either. Today some might call what hippies wore, “casual dress.” They spurred this informal appearance, a kind of egalitarianism communicating that no one was above anyone else. More than that, they appeared slovenly, unkept, disordered, and ragged, some now might call “authenticity.”
Being hippy also meant sex, drugs, and rock n roll for adherents of the hippie lifestyle. Christians at no point in history would permit those as “Christian liberty,” a manifestation of God’s grace. Hippies practiced free sex, ignoring the conventional and biblical requirement of marriage. They took drugs like LSD and marijuana apparently to enhance their experience. While others sat on chairs, they went so far even to forego those for the floor or ground. Many wouldn’t wear shoes, embracing their noble savage, uncorrupted by civilization.
Jesus Freaks
Northern California Move to Southern
With the growth of hippiedom, some went into the Haight Ashbury district of San Francisco to bring the Bible to the hippies. I’ve met some from that time period and they believed that their drugs took them out of their bodies into a greater God consciousness, an ecstatic experience that transcended themselves. Then they tried to take this novel Christianity into some Northern California churches. When no churches accepted, this branch of religious hippies, known as Jesus Freaks, moved to Southern California.
Lonnie Frisbee
The Jesus Freak hippies, who migrated South, were under the influence of a leader named Lonnie Frisbee. Randall Roberts, reporter for the Los Angeles Times, wrote about Frisbee in an article titled, “Jesus, drugs and rock ’n’ roll: How an O.C. hippie church birthed contemporary Christian music”:
The birth of contemporary Christian rock and pop music in America can in part be traced to a vision received by a 17-year-old runaway from Costa Mesa named Lonnie Frisbee.
After stripping naked and taking LSD in 1967 near Tahquitz Falls outside of Palm Springs, the young man called to God.
As water from the falls crashed, Frisbee, who wore his hair and beard like the archetypal Jesus Christ, saw himself standing beside the Pacific Ocean, Bible in hand, staring out at the horizon. But instead of water, the sea was filled with lost souls crying out for salvation.
“God, if you’re really real, reveal yourself to me,” Frisbee, who died of AIDS in 1993, later recalled pleading. “And one afternoon, the whole atmosphere of this canyon I was in started to tingle and get light and it started to change — and I’m just going, ‘Uh oh!’”
Frisbee dressed like the popular, secular notion or stereotype of Jesus with flowing robe and long hair, using soft-spoken tones also ala the flower children. It played well with the rebellion of the hippy subculture. At first the hippies met on the beach and baptized in the ocean. They used 1-2-3 pray-with-me evangelism, where someone prayed the prayer and was dunked under the waves shortly thereafter. Their view of grace brought forgiveness and eternal life, while still being and living like a hippie.
Rejecting the Historical Church, Its Doctrine, Practice, and Worship
Chuck Smith
The Jesus Freaks found a welcoming host in a buttoned down traditional four-square Pentecostal church with Chuck Smith as its pastor. He had 25 in his congregation in 1965. His church sang hymns. He wore a dark suit and tie. That changed.
Smith’s encounter with Lonnie Frisbee offered the opportunity to take these hippies into his customary church. Smith did not come from a historical line of Christian churches. His trajectory came from the early 20th century heritage of the modern Charismatic or Pentecostal movement, founded on the continuation of sign gifts for today. Smith could embrace further deviation from orthodox, historic doctrine, practice, and worship. In 2018, John MacArthur described Smith’s predicament:
What’s he going to do? What’s the church going to do? So they had a meeting and they decided that, “We’ll lose them [speaking of his whole congregation] and they’ll [the hippies or Jesus Freaks] leave if we don’t accommodate them.” They didn’t like the music; they didn’t like the dress code; they didn’t like anything. For the first time in church history that I can find, an aberrant, small, deviant, subculture redefined the character of a church.
Acquiescing to a Youth Culture
On another occasion and I agree with him, MacArthur said, characterizing this Jesus Revolution:
That was already being discussed a lot of places, because the hippie movement caught fire across America – the movement of rebellion against authority, responsibility, duty, expectation; rebellion against right, honor; it caught fire. So the church feared, “We’re going to lose these people if we don’t acquiesce.” So for the first time when the Jesus people came to church, first time I can find in church history, the church began to redefine its own identity and worship based upon the wishes of a rebellious subculture. That definition started then and spread; started in California, spread clear across the country.
Prior to the ‘60s, nobody expected a church service to be rock concert. Nobody expected a church service to be entertainment, . . . worship to be physical stimulation, emotional feelings without engaging your mind, . . . church to be a manipulation of people’s desires to fulfill their own self-styled identity. A church was a church, and it was a place where there was thoughtful, prayerful, biblical, sober-minded hearing from the Word of God, leading to conviction and edification and elevation. It was a heavenly encounter.
Modern Generation
MacArthur continued:
But to this modern generation of young people – serious, sober, thoughtful, scriptural preaching about God, and confrontation of sin, and a call to holiness, and a call to separate from the world and from iniquity is far too absolute and far too offensive. People who want to feel good about themselves the way they are don’t want that, so the . . . church caved in and gave them what they want. And now pastors continue to accommodate those same people – irresponsible, lazy, undisciplined rebels who want what they want – and the church, instead of confronting it, conforms to it. No preaching on sanctification, no preaching on holiness can be done in those environments; they’d empty the place.
Broken People?
Professing Christian leaders now justify the Jesus revolution as ‘God using broken people.” He used Samson and David, is the explanation. God used Peter, but Peter was a believer, filled with the Holy Spirit, obedient to Jesus Christ, when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. He does not use unbelievers, these “broken people,” for a flurry of conversions.
God does not use believers, who are living in sin. They are vessels unto dishonor, who are not meet for the Master’s use. The Jesus revolution was not a blessing to Christianity, to the church, or to the world. This revolution started something new and wrong. It was a bad revolution, like many other revolutions in the history of the world.
David Wilkerson and Historic Confrontation of Jesus Freaks
David Wilkerson was a mainstream evangelical in the late 1950s and through the 1970s. He is known for the popular Christian book, The Cross and the Switchblade. Youtube above showed a historic confrontation he had in the 1960s with the Jesus Freaks that indicates how much they clashed then with even evangelicalism. These men present a deviant view of biblical sanctification, however, a false view that has become much more mainstream today in evangelicalism.
The Jesus Freak argument with Wilkerson represents a neo-libertine view of sanctification. It combines with a portion of early woke or social justice warrior. For instance, in the video above these men contradict Wilkerson by judging him by the standard Jesus imposed on the rich young ruler. Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. They see righteousness in their disheveled look, which someone could pose just as easily as any external or formal appearance. Conveniently, they evince faith parallel with the lifestyle preferred by hippies.
More to Come
James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Video #1
After my debate with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, James posted his post-debate thoughts. (I have also written a few thoughts.) I was quite surprised to hear him make affirmations about my character such as that he “knew” I was “not intending to” bring the audience along with me, that I had a “really, really deep disrespect for the audience,” that “Ross didn’t care. He wasn’t debating for us,” that I did not understand what a text type was, or even “anything like that at all,” and so on, rather than expositing Scripture on its own preservation or demonstrating that even one quotation in my presentation, or one fact I pointed out, was inaccurate. I believe that the fact that he spent his post-debate analysis attacking me instead of dealing with my arguments may tell you something about how the debate went–I was very thankful for the blessing of the Lord in the debate itself for the cause of God’s truth. (Let me just add that not one of the thoughts James claims that he “knew” about my motives and so on, to my recollection, even entered my mind one time before I heard him make them in his post-debate analysis.)
The debate video itself, Lord willing, will be live soon; it takes a lot more work to get a video like that done than it does to create a video where I am just ruminating about the debate. Feel free to subscribe to my Rumble and YouTube channels to get notified as soon as the video becomes available.
You can watch my initial post-debate response, giving my thoughts on how it went, as well as responding to James White’s allegations, with the embedded video below, at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.
My sincere thanks again to those who prayed for me and for those who helped in many other ways.
–TDR
Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury
Other Work By Me On This Topic (Here1, Here2, Here3, Here4, Here5, Here6, Here7, Here8, Here9, Here10, and Here11)
What do you think is worse? Fake Revival or No Revival? I would say, fake is worse. I’ve got, I think, good reasons for fake being worse than no revival. Fake revival does far more damage than nothing happening. True revivals through history occurred. Probably more fake ones though.
Jesus Revolution and Asbury University
In recent days, attention focuses in the United States among religious folk especially about an apparent revival in the 1960s, called the Jesus Revolution in Time Magazine. Descendants of Calvary Chapel made a movie, which is in mainstream, secular theaters. Another apparent revival presented itself in Asbury, Kentucky, at Asbury University, a historic Wesleyan/Holiness institution. I see it as a great interest that these two so-called revivals dovetailed like they did.
Revival moved up as a conversation topic. Conservative podcasts even among non-believers discuss the two, Jesus Revolution and Asbury. I think Fox News mentioned the two in various instances. Because Emmy award winner, Kelsey Grammer, starred as Chuck Smith in the Jesus Revolution movie, that brought greater coverage and consciousness.
Asbury reads as Woke or somewhat woke, which modified its revival in the traditional sense. In the history of the United States, historians point to two revivals they call “the First Great Awakening” and “the Second Great Awakening.” Before the second, the first was just the Great Awakening, like the first was just the Great War until a second World War occurred.
The two, the first and second Great Awakenings, were much different in nature and in effect. A big chunk of professing Christendom rejects the second Great Awakening and says only the Great Awakening in colonial America actually happened. I would be one of those. I agree the Great Awakening was a revival. The second was a fake one.
Controversy of Calling Something “Not a Revival”
Calling a professed revival, not a revival, is as controversial as denying the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. People who accept the revival, like those who say the Covid vaccinations were wonderful, want to hear only positive affirmation of their revival.
Questioning a revival is very close to questioning salvation, which is taught in scripture. If you read either 1 John or James, those two epistles among other places in the Bible, you see challenging or questioning a salvation profession. John does it. James does it. Paul does it. And Jesus does it. Some will stand at the very Great White Throne before Jesus, professing salvation, and He will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
Revival, as I see it in scripture, is a larger than normal flurry of true conversions. The idea of revival indicates something dead becoming alive, which speaks of regeneration. People are getting really saved in large numbers and based upon true gospel preaching.
The Asbury leaders say that God brought a revival there starting on February 8. They also say they can’t stop it, since God brought it, even though they did stop the regular meetings there just this last week in part because of a case of measles. As you might comprehend already, I don’t think the Asbury “Outpouring” or the Jesus Revolution were revival. I don’t need to wait to see on those two. I’m saying right now. They’re not.
My Experience
School Camp
As a senior in high school, I experienced my only gully-washer so-called revival experience. My academy had school camp, which it also called “spiritual emphasis week.” We got revivalistic style preaching morning and night. In long and emotional invitations, weeping students knelt at the front. Thirteen made professions.
The week ended with a session of emotional testimonies. Then we headed home. It did not translate into anything lasting. Not long after, it was the same-old, same-old with rebellion, apathy, and lack of biblical interest. The effects of school camp and spiritual emphasis week, despite the “revival,” didn’t continue.
Jack Hyles
When Jack Hyles was alive and in his heyday, in many instances I was in meetings where almost everyone in massive auditoriums came forward at his invitation. They streamed forward with only a few people left in their seats. I would think that Hyles could easily vie with any revivalist in his production of effect. If immediate outward manifestations measured revival, Hyles did better than anyone I’ve ever seen and on a more consistent basis.
At one point, independent Baptist, revivalist churches in the Hyles movement were the largest churches in the world. Huge crowds gathered to hear a line-up of revivalist preachers. They were pragmatic and doctrinally errant, but people felt intense closeness to God. I’m telling you that I’ve seen it.
Jack Hyles compared his gatherings to the Day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This recent “revival” at Asbury University its advocates also call an “outpouring.” This reflects a particular viewpoint about the Holy Spirit, that since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, more outpourings of Him might occur.
Mexico
I took a trip to Mexico after my Freshman year in high school, and we drove into remote mountain villages around Monterrey to hold revival meetings. I didn’t know Spanish except for six or so verses I could quote then. Dozens and dozens made professions of faith with the pragmatic, emotional manipulation that occurred by my group. I would contend that much greater fake revival occurred in the 60s and 70s through revivalists than the Asbury one. These revivals did not get popular media attention of Asbury or the Jesus Revolution, but they resulted in explosive numerical growth as significant as the Jesus Revolution and much greater than Asbury.
Revival?
In listening to a few evaluations of the Jesus Revolution, a significant effect of this revival, mentioned by supporters, was the rise and popularity of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) and informal or casual dress in church attenders. I could add others from reading and observation. I’ve read Calvary Chapel Distinctives and the Philosophy of Calvary Chapel. I got especially interested, because of one of the largest evangelical churches in the state of Oregon is in Applegate, very close to where we started our church in Jackson County there. Many people involved with the movement, it’s obvious have no true conversion and don’t even understand the gospel.
I listened to at least one of the revivalists running the Asbury revival in one of its earlier video recorded services. I would not characterize what I saw as revival. I wouldn’t call it gospel preaching. It was so shallow, superficial, sentimental, worldly, woke, and Charismatic that I would have nothing to do with it. I hope someone gets saved through it, like Paul hoped in Philippians 1 with men who opposed him. Of course, I would want the salvation of people in Kentucky in the Asbury vein and through the Jesus Movement out of California. I believe both hurt the overall cause of Christ like any fake revival would.
Many years ago, Ian Murray wrote the classic Revival and Revivalism, distinguishing between true revival and only revivalism. Almost everything today is revivalism, which is fake revival. People want God to do something. God is doing something. Instead of being so overtly concerned that He does something, they should surrender to what He has done, is doing, and will do in the future.
More to Come
Trail of Blood and Landmarkism
Men use the terms “Trail of Blood” and “Landmarkism” as a kind of mockery, almost never with evidence. They use them in the same manner as calling someone a “Flat Earther.” If I said I was “Trail of Blood” and “Landmark,” what would I mean? Should I embrace those terms in light of potential derision?
Trail of Blood
“Trail of Blood” refers to a booklet written by James Milton Carroll in 1931. Carroll did not originate the words “trail of blood” as referring to the persecution of churches. Others before used “trail of blood” to describe the ongoing record of atrocities of Roman Catholicism through the centuries in its opposition to the truth. I like the metaphor of Carroll, which is saying that you can detect true churches in the historical record through findings of state church persecution.
Carroll would say that the trail of blood started with the Lord Jesus Christ and that suffering marks the trajectory of true churches. I use this exact language all the time, “There have always been true churches separate from the state church.” I also ask this question, “Do you believe the truth was preserved in and through Roman Catholicism?” Men find it difficult to answer “yes” to that question. If they answer, “No,” then they essentially take a Trail of Blood position. I say, “Well, then we take the same position, don’t we?”
Whitsitt Controversy and English Separatism
Opposition to the Trail of Blood started with a liberal president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William Whitsitt (read here, here, here, and here). The work of Whitsitt is less famous than Carroll’s Trail of Blood, but if someone does not accept the Trail of Blood, his other option is called, “English Separatism.” Can we mock someone as “English Separatist”? The Trail of Blood position predates the English Separatist one. If someone rejects Trail of Blood, he is left with the Roman Catholic position on church perpetuity or succession. He denies the promise of Jesus, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Whitsitt took from his European training a modernistic view of truth. He wrote and said that if it does not have primary source historical evidence, it isn’t true. From this, Whitsitt said that the earliest Baptist churches trace from 1610 in England.
A split occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over Whitsitt. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under the presidency of B. H. Carroll started in a major way because of the Whitsitt controversy. Most Southern Baptists then distinguished themselves from Protestants. Carroll’s brother wrote Trail of Blood.
The Application of Modernistic Historicism
Did you know a historical gap exists between the completion of the New Testament and the doctrine of justification? With that historical position, justification did not exist until after the Protestant Reformation. No primary source evidence exists for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. I’ve been to Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank area, and the best historical evidence outside of scripture for Jesus’ birth is secondary and vague. It starts around 325 with Constantine’s mother Helena visiting there.
The mockery designated for Trail of Blood reminds me of the mockery by scientists of a God Hypothesis and intelligent design. Trail of Blood is true, but it is institutionally inconvenient. Intelligent design or a God Hypothesis puts people out of business. Trail of Blood is a strict ecclesiological position that undermines free-floating free agents, who function outside of church authority, like for instance, Alpha and Omega ministries. “Ministries” function outside of a church, not something we read in the Bible, and cross denominational lines on a regular basis.
Landmarkism
The attack on Landmarkism dovetails with the one on Trail of Blood. Landmarkism did not originate local-only ecclesiology. The Landmark movement began in the Southern Baptist Convention because of an ecumenical drift in the Convention. Modernism began affecting the Convention. Compromise grew. Baptist churches began allowing Presbyterians in their pulpit and accepted their “baptism” for transfer of church membership. The Landmarkers stood against this.
The Landmarkers believed local-only ecclesiology like most of the Southern Baptists in the middle 19th century, but they stressed and influenced a stronger practice. They rejected what they called, “alien immersion,” baptism without proper authority. They were saying, “Don’t accept Presbyterian baptism,” or any other Protestant baptism. The Protestants arose from Roman Catholicism with a continuation of state church doctrine. Baptist churches should reject their baptism, Landmarkers claimed, practiced, and encouraged all Baptists to join that.
Many today define Landmarkism with a giant falsehood. They say Landmarkism is chain-link succession of Baptist churches. Furthermore, they say that Landmarkism requires proof of a chain-link succession of Baptist churches all the way to the Jerusalem church. That is not what Landmarkism is.
In a more simple way, you should understand Landmarksim as, first, since Christ, true New Testament churches always existed separate from the state church. Second, churches start churches. Third, baptism requires a proper administrator. Authority is a matter of faith, but scripture recognizes the importance of it. It does not proceed from Roman Catholicism, so it also does not come from Protestantism.
Authority isn’t arbitrary. It is real and it is somewhere. We should not eliminate it. This arises from the rebellion of men’s hearts. Men don’t want authority, especially church authority. I see this as the primary cause of the controversy over Landmarkism and the Trail of Blood.
Recent Comments