Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 28)
Search Results for: king james version
The Myth of the Harshness of Right Wing Tone or Hypocrisy from the Left on Tone or Attitude
I warn you that my tone might be sharp in this blog. Some also call it “interesting writing.” However, I want to put a disclaimer on my own blog by saying that the tone that you hear here (luv those homonyms) will be sharper (not as in sharper iron) for effect.
Recently, the boys (and girls) at SharperIron (what I sometimes affectionately call “SharperSpatula”) marked me for a difference than most of them on tone. Dave Barnhart, one of the SI moderators (who I think is also Anvil), wrote:
Well, for example, we would have a pretty good about their attitudes on separation, even if not on the specifics of what was separated from. And, as Joel said, the scale speaks more to “mood” than to certain exact positions. However, I’m sure you can always find specific cases for which the scale doesn’t work very well. That still doesn’t change its general usefulness. Further, it would be more interesting to me when those two meet how they would classify themselves. Personally, from what I know of both those men (and that is admittedly not as much as I probably should), I would classify Schapp as an A+ or A++ anyway. Interestingly, back when he was here, that was Kent Brandenburg’s disagreement with the scale as well — that he would be lumped in with the Hylesites when he was nothing like that. Although the positions (and probably methods) differ greatly, I think the “mood” would be pretty similar.
No one disagreed with him (not that anyone would defend me at SI) about my tone. Only because of my “tone,” I’m categorized with Jack Schapp. How ’bout those apricots? Where can I get my official tone judge certificate? On a historical note, I was given a “guest” pass (no posting privileges) on SI by King Tone for identifying poor tone in one of their articles written by the mellowmeister himself, Douglas Kutilek. That’s why Dave wrote, “back when he was here” in his comment, because I is not visibly there any more. Among other of his customary and egregious tone violations, Mr. Kutilek essentially called all King James Version supporters “lemmings.” In a private note, the Tone CEO at SI said that he agreed with Doug’s particular tone in his essay. They privately like harsh tone. Very fun when it agrees with them.
First, regarding the quote, I’m far different doctrinally than Schapp, further from them than SI. I would rate Joe Roof (one of the male moderators) a bedfellow doctrinally with the Hyles group compared to me based on most of what he says (for which he gets a free pass over there, incidentally [see political correctness {1}]). Regarding methods differences, Dave says “probably methods.” Probably? “Probably” quite understates the western hemisphere, the solar system, that separates the Schapp and Brandenburg methodology. By the way, I don’t put Jason Janz and Red Rocks as that far away from Schapp/Hyles in methods. I especially don’t see very much at all different in methodology between Hyles and SI’s beloved Dan Burrell. So, we get to tone, becoming the chief categorical factor (I think to myself, “are you kidding me?”). We pass doctrine and methods, don’t even collect our 200 dollars, and go directly to tone.
Well, here’s the difference between Schaap and me in tone. I give evidence. I open my Bible. I say it directly, but use the Bible, exegesis, that kind of thing. Schaap spews out propaganda, psychological warfare. Our sameness might be that we are both direct. In other words, we might say it right to the person (and I say “might” only because he “might not” go direct). Our sameness is that very likely he thinks he’s right. I think I’m right. The left of us would say that they are nuanced. That they have a sophistication about them. They give latitude. They are accepting.
Well, I don’t have the time right now, but I’m going to provide examples how that this “tone” thing is, well, garbage. It isn’t even true. Both sides think they’re right. It’s just idealogical differences, really a worldview. Culture is more at the root of it. It’s part of the culture war. Tone sounds better. But it isn’t tone.
{1} Wikipedia says: “The term “political correctness” is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate “party line”, commonly referred to as the “correct line.” Those people who opposed (or were seen as opposing) the “correct line” were often punished. A similar term has been used in communist countries, such as China.”
The Third Rail of Fundamentalist Politics
You’ve heard of the third rail of politics. Social Security. Anyone who deals with the Social Security issue touches the third rail and dies. The third rail, in transportation terminology, is the one that carries the deadly electricity. All around the third rail are warnings not to touch. People don’t touch if they know what’s good for them. Now and then you read about the guy who touches the third rail and dies, and you just wag your head. If you want to dig your own political grave, touch the third rail, Social Security, and they’ll be writing your epitaph.
The Waldenses Controversy
Who They Were
The Waldenses were Bible-believing Christians who remained separate from Rome during the Dark Ages and who were bitterly persecuted for their faith. The name Waldenses in English is from the French Vaudois, Vallenses in Latin, and Valdisi in Italian, and these words mean “men of the valleys.” They refer to several valleys in Europe where these Bible loving and practicing people lived.
Why and How Their History Is Questioned or Attacked
The enemies of the true and historic position on the Waldenses will often slander the motives of those who hold that the Waldensian history is ancient. They explicitly and implicitly charge that those with this “trail-of-blood”(i) view alter history in order to preserve their historic position. On the other hand, the English separatists and others who deny this position, have their own bias against the truth of the Waldensian testimony. This understanding of the Waldenses is questioned or attacked under four primary influences: (1) the view that the truth came out of Roman Catholicism during the Reformation, (2) the undermining or elimination of a manifestation of the perpetuity of the church (“Baptists come from the line of the first century New Testament church, originating with Christ”), making room for an English Separatist view (“Baptists originated out of the Reformation”) of Baptist history, (3) abolishing the evidence of an old and consistently used received text for a history of the preservation of Scripture, and (4) the predisposition toward catholic church “scholarship.” Perhaps the question is: Who is fabricating or inventing a history? Our contention, of course, is that the English separatists are. They have a bias that is not based upon Biblical presuppositions as those who teach a pre-Reformation Baptist history. A very sad reality is that the English Separatist colleges and seminaries purposefully leave out the abundance of evidence for a pre-twelfth century orthodox Waldenses, essentially fitting their history with their bias. It is not the politically or theologically “correct” view of history.
The Reformation Baptists (English Separatists) and others (some Catholics) would argue that the Waldenses were a kind of cultic group of pseudo-Christians that arose with Peter Waldo in the twelfth century, who have little to no connection with the first century Jerusalem church. On top of this, they contend that the Waldenses had unorthodox beliefs that refute their legitimacy. These arguments manifest the nature of interpreting historical material. Anyone can piece together any history he wishes for any person or group. One will see a definite historical bias in data dating from the long period of Roman Catholic dominance, during which time they often destroyed the writings of the true Christians and kept them so preoccupied with persecution that they did not have the opportunity to leave a thorough historical record. The Roman Catholics, however, left plenty of “evidence” from their point of view, in many cases creating a “fake” history that would show them to be the true descendants of the Lord Jesus Christ, a position that one can easily see is false by examining the source document for Christianity, the Bible. Romanism contradicts Scripture, so it cannot be the posterity of Christ. Historians should take note and look elsewhere in historical record for the true church, discarding the position endorsed by the long time state church.
Evidence of Who They Were
Evidence of their Pre-Twelfth Century History
Par Jean Leger in his General History of the Evangelical Churches in the Piedmontese Valleys (1669) wrote concerning their Confession of Faith to Francis I in 1544 (p. 163): “This Confession is that, which we have received from our ancestors, even from hand to hand, according to their predecessors, in all times and in every age, have taught and delivered.”
Robert Olivetan (c. 1506-1538) in the preface to his French Bible, 1535, writes: “[S]ince the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois, and has never since been extinguished.”
William Gilly in his Waldensian Researches during a second visit to the Vaudois of Piemont (1831) summarizes (on pp. 118, 119) the work of Pierre Allix (1641-1717) in his Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Piedmont, first published in 1690: “The method which Allix has pursued, in his History of the Churches of Piedmont, is to show that in the ecclesiastical history of every century, from the fourth century, which he considers a period early enough for the enquirer after apostolical purity of doctrine, there are clear proofs that doctrines, unlike those which the Romish Church holds, and conformable to the belief of the Waldensian and Reformed Churches, were maintained by theologians of the north of Italy down to the period, when the Waldenses first came into notice.”
J. A. Wylie, Presbyterian historian, in his History of Waldenses (1860), on p. 3 writes: “Their traditions invariably point to an unbroken descent from the earliest times, as regards their religious belief. The Nobla Leycon [Noble Lesson], which dates from the year 1100, goes to prove that the Waldenses of Piedmont did not owe their rise to Peter Waldo of Lyons, who did not appear until the latter half of that century (1160). The Nobla Leycon, though a poem, is in reality a confession of faith, and could have been composed only after some considerable study of the system of Christianity, in contradistinction to the errors of Rome.”
Evidence of their Orthodoxy
They were separatist, New Testament Christians who continued from the first century, but were they orthodox? Some groups of these were not, as is the nature of churches, passing along the truth to another generation, but some departing from the faith. The Waldenses as a whole should not be judged according to an evaluation of the least orthodox of them. If someone were to document the nature of Christianity today by looking at the worst examples, they would not get an accurate picture of what was happening today. Reinerius Saccho, a persecutor of the Waldenses in the 13th century, had lived with the Waldenses 17 years previously, and in 1250 he was ordered by the pope to make a list of their errors. The original Latin of his catalog of errors can be found in Remarks upon the Churches of the Piedmont by Allix. Following is a summary of what he said they believed:
1. They rejected the Roman church, believing it to be the whore of Babylon. 2. They claimed that Rome erred in yoking with the secular government in the days of Constantine. 3. They rejected the mass and claimed that the bread is only symbolic. 4. They rejected infant baptism because babies cannot believe. 5. They rejected the Catholic priests and bishops. 6. They rejected extreme unction, saying it is a curse rather than a sacrament. 7. They rejected purgatory, believing that the dead go either to heaven or hell. 8. They rejected prayers to the dead. 9. They did not believe in the prayers of the saints. 10. They rejected confession of sins to a priest, believing that sins should be confessed only to God.
Others have expressed their similar beliefs, including William Jones in his The History of the Christian Church, from the Birth of Christ to the Eighteenth Century; including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albigenses (1819), with similar quotes from Aeneas Sylvius, who was an inquisitor against the Waldenses in Bohemia and later became Pope Pius II.
One should also consider these Confessions of Faith of the Waldenses from 1120 and 1544.
Evidence of their Bible
Frederick Scrivener, one of the 19th century’s greatest textual scholars, says that the old Latin version was likely translated from Greek around 150 AD.
Allix in Churches of Piedmont (1690) on p. 37 says that the old Waldensians used “texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick.”
Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) spent twenty-eight years studying the history of the Italic version and he writes in 1815 in his classic volume, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of The New Testament: “In fine, a very short process enables us to prove that the tradition which supports the authority of this text has continued unbroken since the age of the apostles. The coincidence of the Vulgar Greek of our present editions with the old Italic translation, enables us to carry up the tradition to the times of St. Jerome. . . . The particular manner in which the Western Church delivers its testimony, in confirmation of that of the Greek Church, seems almost decisive in evincing the permanence and purity of the text of Byzantium. The Brescia manuscript, which contains this testimony, possesses a text which, as composed of the old Italic version, must be antedated to the year 393, when the new version was made by St. Jerome.”
In the preface (pp. xvii, xviii [not found online]), Nolan writes: [T]he author thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized.”
Another translation associated with the Waldenses was the Tepl Bible, which came from Bohemia. Martin Luther used this as one of his resources when he translated the Bible into German in the early 16th century. Emilio Comba in his History of the Waldenses of Italy: from their origin to the Reformation [1889] (pp. 190-192) says that the Tepl was a Waldensian translation. Comba cites two authorities, Louis Keller and Hermann Haupt, and states that the Tepl was based on old Latin manuscripts rather than Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
John T. Christian writes in his The History of Baptists: “There had been more than one translation of the Bible into German before Luther’s time. The Baptists used with great power their heritage of the Waldensian Bible, and they hailed with delight Luther’s translation of the Bible. Their own leaders, such as Hatzer and Denck, translated the Scriptures out of the originals into the vernacular of the people. Among the skilled artisans, journeymen and better situated peasants of the early sixteenth century, there were not a few who could read sufficiently to make out the text of the German Bible, whilst those who could not read would form a circle around those who could, and the latter, from the coigne of intellectual advantage, would not merely read, but would often expound the text after their own fashion to their hearers.”
Par Jean Leger, Waldensian pastor in the 17th century, in his General History of the Evangelical Churches in the Piedmontese Valleys (1669), wrote: “I say ‘pure’ because all the ancient exemplars, which formerly were found among the Papists, were full of falsifications, which caused Beza to say in his book on Illustrious Men, in the chapter on the Vaudois, that one must confess it was by means of the Vaudois of the Valleys that France today has the Bible in her own language. This godly man, Olivetan, in the preface of his Bible, recognizes with thanks to God, that since the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois (or the dwellers in the Valleys of the Alps, two terms which mean the same), and has never since been extinguished.”
Conclusion
We look at Scripture and God says He would preserve His church (Mt. 16:18) and His Words (Mt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35). When we look at history, knowing God’s veracity and power, we assume that His churches would continue, following His preserved Words. We reject the bias of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. They claim that His church used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. His church instead used the text received by the churches, having been passed down to succeeding generations. Those copies culminated in a printed edition of Scripture, the textus receptus, which is the basis for the standard English translation, the King James Version. The New Testament in the Greek language in which it was written and passed down through Christ’s churches represents God’s perfectly preserved Words in fulfilment of His promises.
(i) English Separatists mock the history presented in B. H. Carroll’s little booklet Trail of Blood, which is a brief presentation of the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18 in history. Several fuller editions of this history are found in the many Baptist histories which remain in print. Beginning with the presupposition that the Lord would preserve His churches, B. H. Carroll presents a history of groups who existed that remained separate from Roman Catholicism and were loyal to the Word of God, leading all the way to the Anabaptists, separatists before and during the Reformation that affiliated neither with the reformers or the Catholics.
Atonement (Part One): An Old Testament Term
The middle letter of T-U-L-I-P in the five points of Calvinism is “Limited Atonement.” Before anyone can decide what he believes about atonement, he should know what atonement is. What do you think atonement is? Are you confused as it relates to the death of Christ? It seems that men think this term “atonement” is very important, and the more important the term, the more imperative is it that its meaning is clear. Wouldn’t you agree?
The term “atonement” has long been employed in theological language. It has been used in Old Testament theology and to designate the work of Christ on account of sin. Should it truly be used to describe the work of Christ? Did Christ atone for our sins? If animals atoned for the sins of people in the Old Testament, does Christ also atone for sins in the New Testament, or was what Christ did more than atonement? I believe the uncertainty of meaning of atonement occurs mainly due to the fact that atonement is solely an Old Testament term. It does not appear in the New Testament.
The King James Version uses the English word “atonement” in Romans 5:11. However, the English word at that time could be understood in the sense of reconciliation. Shakespeare himself uses the word atonement to mean at-one-ment or reconciliation. This is not the sense of theological understanding of atonement. The Greek word (katallage) is used four times in the New Testament and it is translated “reconciling” (Romans 11:15), “reconciled” (2 Corinthians 5:18), and “reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Some have argued that the NT Greek text equivalents for “atone” are found, and they support this by pointing out that the same terms which “the Septuagint” translators used for the word “atone” as it occurs in the OT. The truth is that they used about a dozen different words to translate “atone” and “atonement.,” showing that they found no uniformity of meaning than have the authors of the many theories of the atonement that have come down to us.
There are certain NT words that are more or less akin to the meaning of atonement. “Ransom” (lutron) comes pretty near to its meaning, and perhaps “propitiation” (hilasmos) comes even closer. The fact remains, however, that no true synonym or equivalent for atone or atonement is found in the NT. Do you think this might just be because the word “atonement” limits what Christ did on the cross in its description?
The way to understand “atonement” must come from the etymology and Scriptural usage of the Hebrew original. To get the Scriptural conception of “atonement,” we can’t forget that the Old Testament was not revealed in English. The Hebrew verb kaphar without doubt means “to cover.” Its piel form kipper is generally used in the OT. The first time the word occurs in the OT, it is translated “pitch” in Genesis 6:14.
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
The original meaning of the word was “to cover.” However, most of the time in the OT, unlike this usage in Genesis 6, the term is not used in a literal way, but in a metaphorical or spiritual way. The ritual covering in the OT was not literal, but metaphorical. In most cases, blood was not actually laid on the object covered. The blood is instead brought before God and in the ceremony it is the sight of the Lord that is covered.
The verbs kasah (“to cover”) and machah (“to blot out”) are used synonymously with kipper. It seems clear that while the word “atone” means “to cover,” this covering was in a figurative sense, and it is this metaphorical usage that gives rise to its many shades of meaning. There could be no word in another tongue that would mean all that the Hebrew metaphor conveyed in its usage. The English word “atone” must be understood in light of all the Hebrew word expresses, not vice versa. Some of the concepts that are communicated for “atonement” are actually far more the results of the covering, making them a secondary, not a primary meaning.
Atonement does what David prayed for in Psalm 51:9, “Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.” Atonement hid sins, put them out of sight, or invalidated them so that they no longer offended. Atonement expressed by its figure that sin was removed from God’s sight and so its effects were also undone. This figure of atonement is not competent in portraying all that Christ achieved through His sacrifice for our sin, which is why it is not a NT word. If “atonement” were sufficient, no doubt the NT would have used it. Of course, the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew, but still the character and scope of the work of Christ is too vast to be portrayed by the figurative term “atonement.”
(This begins a series on atonement in Scripture as it relates to the work of Christ.)
What Do You Think?
Something keeps bugging me. Do you ever have that? There is more than this, but here it is. A few years ago, our church published a book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them, which is a Biblical theology of the perfect preservation of Scripture. I graduated from Maranatha Baptist Bible College in Watertown, Wisconsin. I wanted to let all of the graduates know about the book.
I was in Watertown from 1973 to 1987. Maranatha started in 1968, so I lived there through a good chunk of its history. I want to ensure you that I wasn’t in college that entire time. My family moved from Indiana the summer after my sixth grade year for my dad to attend college. By the time I left, I was one of the few, if not only, graduates who graduated from Calvary Baptist Christian School, Maranatha Baptist Academy (2nd in my class), the college (3rd in my class), then with an M.A. and M. Div. from the graduate school. Not only that, but I was president of my senior class in high school, president of my freshman and sophomore class in college, vice president then president of the student body my jr. and sr. years, and finally president of the graduate school student body. My junior year the faculty awarded me Mr. Maranatha. I lettered four years in football, basketball, and track. I won the preaching contest and the award for top Greek student my senior year. I was on the adminstrative cabinet my last year of graduate school as the student activity director. Anyone who was there at that time will remember that year of student activities. My dad, sister, and brother also graduated from Maranatha. My mother for several years was in charge of the employees in the dining hall. I could give much more, and I’m not attempting to pump myself up, but to say that I have quite a Maranatha heritage. It would be no wonder that I would want to let the Maranatha alumni know that I had written a book. As far as I knew, no other Maranatha graduate had written a book.
On the Maranatha (MBBC) website was a free alumni email list so that the graduates could write the graduates. I guess I could have sent everyone a personal letter, but I decided to send them all the same notice of the book. I learned my position on preservation at Maranatha. When I was a senior in high school, Maranatha had the very first Dean Burgon Society meeting with Dr. Donald Waite and Dr. David Otis Fuller. Two of the faculty, Dr. Strouse and Dr. Hollowood, were on the board of the society. Maranatha herself published two books in its history, the first a two volume set of Armitage’s History of Baptists, and the second a little green and yellow paperback that was a comparison of the King James Version with the modern versions, Evaluating of NT Versions, by Everett Fowler, of which Dr. Cedarholm wrote a strong TR/MT introduction. So on the top of my email notice, I wrote something like: “Takes the Same Position as the Founder.”
My only purpose was to let graduates know. Did I want to sell books? Yes. Our church had put quite a bit of money into the printing costs, and I wanted us to be able to get it back. I felt responsible to do so, since I had led in this project. Personally, I have not made a cent from either of the two books that I have written. Our church has received every cent of profit, which hasn’t been that much. We also don’t have a marketing machine to let people know about the books. However, when I sent this news to our graduates, it created a huge firestorm that I truly was not expecting. That little phrase at the top sent them ballistic.
So is this what still bugs me? No. What bugs me is that I am being accused of doing something at the least unethical and at the most illegal because I used that email list to send report of the book. Everyone on the other side calls it an “advertisement.” The email list was voluntary. The list was for graduates. The common refrain was that I SPAMMED the alumni with an advertisement. Know this. For years, I got regular unsolicited mail requesting money as well as persistent unsolicited emails from MBBC also asking for funds. I never complained about these. Maranatha had a public and private email list. Everyone on the public list was allowing his name and address. Would you see that as inviting email from a fellow graduate? I would. I wanted my name on the list so that other graduates could send me things. I sent one heads-up about my book, and I am attacked for this.
Mike Sproul in his book, without ever checking with me about the veracity of the story, reports this in a footnote on page 149: “Ironically, the e-mail that advertised this book (sent uninvited to multiple members of this author’s church) to promote it among the Maranatha Baptist Bible College alumni purports this book as representing the theology of a man, Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm, the late founder of the college. According to this citation, Brandenburg does not believe what any one else ever taught is important, but then in the “press release” attempts to attach himself to Cedarholm.” I don’t have to attempt to attach myself to Dr. Cedarholm. I am attached to him. I have several personal notes from him in my collection. I sat next to him on administrative cabinet and with another cabinet member voted together with him on most issues in opposition to things that were being voted at that time. I had several one-on-one personal conversations with him. My friend and colleague, Dr. Thomas Strouse, also testifies that he got his TR position from Dr. Cedarholm. Many others tell me the same thing.
Sproul and others try to smear me with certain words like “advertised,” “uninvited,” and “press release.” Interestingly enough, Mike Sproul himself has sent me at least a dozen uninvited emails through the years. I didn’t care if he did, but he did. He skews my motive by saying that I sent it to his church members uninvited as if I was targeting his church members. I sent it to MBBC graduates, wherever they may be. He also twists me into attempting to look to Dr. Cedarholm’s name in order to elevate the credibility of the book. My motive was to identify the position of the book with a particular era in Maranatha history. Graduates of the Cedarholm era would be piqued in curiosity. That was the entire point.
As a result of the firestorm and then this quote in his book, one young graduate of Maranatha who is heavily promoted on Sharper Iron will not allow me to comment on his blog. He says that I need to apologize for spamming the Maranatha alumni before he gives me permission. I won’t miss commenting on his blog, but the issue hangs out there even though I believe I am innocent of any wrongdoing. However, I want to know what you think. Do you think that I have sinned and need to repent of something here? Or is Sproul guilty of something here? What do you think is actually happening in this situation? My conscience is clear, but this keeps being mentioned. People aren’t forgetting it. Should I be concerned about this?
What do you think?
Something You’ll All Want to Hear
Mark Twain said he could live for two months with a good compliment. Solomon wrote: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). From my point of view, I think people have a form of amnesia about nice things that are said. They remember one vague criticism much easier than one flowery praise. Not me of course. I love people that get on my case. I especially like someone who will nag me in a condescending manner. OK, get the smirk off your face. All of us need improvement, but encouragement often is a better way to get it. (This is for you, not an article to copy and give to Mr. Sandpaper.)
You might be surprised to hear that the English word “encouragement” isn’t found in the King James Version of the New Testament. I hate to break it to you, but the word there is “comfort.” I knew you weren’t going to like that, especially seeing how much you enjoy discomfort. I thought that comfort might be a hard sell after hearing the word “encouragement.” I’m being a bit sarcastic in this little essay, because I do know how much we all like comfort, whether it be a soft pillow, a lazy-boy recliner, or some words spoken by someone at an appropriate time. 1 Thessalonians 5:11 commands: “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” After Lazarus died, “many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother” (John 11:19).
Reminding one of my children to do something is fine, but I could be more effective in their lives, show them more love, with a verbal compliment. When he takes out the garbage, I can tell him how much I appreciate it. When she finishes cleaning the kitchen, I can mention to her how thankful I am she does that. When that homework assignment gets completed, I can give positive notice with a big smile. Encouragement, this type of comfort, requires empathy, seeing the world from someone else’s perspective. They like hearing nice things. I know they do, so even if I struggle to give out compliments, I do it anyway. “Speaking the truth in love” is not always some form of confrontation. Many times it is parading the accomplishments of others, speaking some life words to fill someone’s emotional tank with love.
Some say that talk is cheap. Well, I know that gas isn’t these days, so why not fill up someone’s tank with encouragement. It’s an alternative energy source all of us can afford to invest in.
Where Are the Words?
I wrote this as a post on SharperIron, and it was so much work, I thought I’d double up and put it here too.
I think the original questions were (cut and pasted): “The thing that still plauges my understanding of all this is…did God promise to preserve EVERY word or not? If so, then where are they?”
I did not read the replies super carefully, so you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t actually read an answer or answers to his questions. I’m not counting “read so and so’s book” as an answer. That would mean we’ve gone four pages of text, including some very, very long posts without giving him an answer. Perhaps we forgot the questions or we just don’t like them. They are good basic questions, and obvious ones too. On every single doctrine, I start with: “What does the Bible teach?” I never start with: “What do famous ‘fundamentalists’ say?” Or, “What does history tell me?” When someone starts with the latter questions, they reveal a historico-rationale apologetic.
Answer to first question. Yes, he did promise to preserve every word. The Bible teaches this clearly, at least as plainly as it teaches inspiration. I guess I should assume that you want to know where the Bible teaches that. You will find a Biblical theology for the perfect preservation of Scripture cumulatively from Matthew 5:17-19 (especially v. 18), 4:4; 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Psalm 12:6,7; and 1 Peter 1:23-25, among other places. This bibliology is also taught through the perfect passive of grapho (it is written). As well, inspiration implies preservation. Someone who agrees wrote in 1984: “Inspiration ensures the preservation of God’s words regardless of the destruction of individual texts by wicked men.” He was none other than Dr. Mark Minnick, and wrote this in the 1984 Biblical Viewpoint, Focus on Jeremiah. The renouned liberal, Bart Erhman, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, once a conservative theologian and confessing born again, writing in his most recent book on textual criticism and giving testimony to his watershed moment, said, “I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals!” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Answer to the Second Question. Another doctrine within the framework of preservation of every Word of God is availability. God also promised availability of every Word. That is a doctrine I have assumed as I read Scripture, because it smacks of the plain reading of the Bible. Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Matthew 4:4; John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 1:17, and Isaiah 59:21, among others, cumulatively express this teaching. If God says they will be available, then we would assume that we would know which ones they are. How do we determine that? Scripture teaches us, for one, in the doctrine of canonicity. The Bible teaches a canonicity of Words, not books. The church (generic singular), that is, churches have agreed on the words, like they agreed on the books. God uses the church as His pillar and ground for the truth, and since the Holy Spirit works through churches, we look to see what He did. People have believed they had a perfect Bible. The London Baptist Confession has an identical wording as this in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” That is what churches had believed, believed, and still believe. That statement in the confessions was chiefly revised hundreds of years later by Benjamin Warfield, a Presbyterian at Princeton Seminary. He understood that the modern view of textual criticism didn’t fit with the Biblical doctrine of preservation, so he spun the confession into textual criticism. Many have just taken Warfield’s position as historical. I think is one good reason why to put quotes around the word history. I have taught history for 15 years and I will often say “history.”
What words did the churches agree upon? They agreed on the King James Version. Someone says, “But that’s English!” Sure, but there are Greek words behind the King James Version, and today that is published in Scrivener’s 1894 and Trinitarian’s TR. They are essentially found in Beza’s 1598. The Bible doesn’t say they’ll be available in one Greek edition. It says they will be available. Some might not like that answer, but the alternative is rejecting the doctrine of preservation and availability, and please don’t tell me either the “preserved in heaven” view or what I call the “buried text” view. The book mentioned, God’s Word in Our Hands, says that God preserved His Word and that the Words are in all of the manuscripts. Of course, first, all of those words aren’t available, and, second, that book doesn’t even agree by the admission of the authors, at least privately, that they don’t believe that their thesis is even true. They believe certain parts of the Old Testament Hebrew are still not found or don’t even exist in a preserved form. They use the “Greek Septuagint” to back translate into the Hebrew to correct the Masoretic text. These are the same people who have a problem with preservation in a translation. Doesn’t sound consistent, does it? The KJV and the text behind it was received by the churches for at least 350 years. To say those were not the words is to say that the Bible wasn’t preserved and wasn’t available. I reject that view based on the teaching of Scripture, just like I reject evolution based on the teaching of Scripture. I’ve never seen a worldwide flood or the ark, but I accept the Genesis account of the flood. I accept that I have every word, and I believe there was a miracle of preservation that matched a miracle of inspiration. Quoting Ehrman again in his trek toward liberalism, he wrote: “The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.” Too bad, isn’t it?
One more thing, Dr. Sproul’s book has a “review” of our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, in the addendum. That chapter is actually a total hatchet job written by the same Dr. Gephart. Dr. Gephart, incidentally, uses Bruce Metzger to provide almost half his chapter in God’s Word in Our Hands (an ironic title). Bart Ehrman calls Metzger his “father-professor” in his book. It isn’t coincidental that Metzger taught at Princeton Seminary, where Ehrman attended, and also the school of Benjamin Warfield. Connect the dots: Warfield…Metzger…Ehrman and Gephart. Actually, it’s all very sad. He really doesn’t argue away the points, just takes pot shots, and very poor ones. He wants to discredit the exegesis enough to cause reasonable doubt, like a defense lawyer attacking the prosecution. I wish I could say differently, but that’s what he does. It doesn’t read like someone who wants the truth of those passages. What else I have noticed is that they offer no alternative. What do we get when they’re done? Doubt in the Word of God.
The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV
Another Video from Mark Ward
Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).
I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.
Changing Tune
Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.
Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.
My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video
Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.
I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.
Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.
Underlying Text Different
The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.
Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.
More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV
So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.
I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.
Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.
With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?
Matthew 9:17
I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.
KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.
More to Come
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 3)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
Introduction for Point 5, the Next Point
Long ago, I completed the answering of every question from opponents on the issue of preservation, versions, etc. Nothing new has arisen for many years. What keeps me writing is the accusation that our side does not answer questions. I have written long, very complete answers. The norm of the opposition focuses on one little piece of an answer and takes it out of context. This happens in a lot of debate situations, so I understand it.
This series of posts again tries to help someone understand, who still doesn’t. The writing through the years has helped some. They’ve testified of that. For most though, they don’t care. It seems like a waste of time to keep talking to them.
My Approach for this Series
My approach for this series of posts is presenting scriptural principles, presuppositions, or promises as premises to a conclusion. I could further show how that these points represent historical biblical doctrine, interpretation, or application, but I won’t for this series. I’ve done that many times. I want to keep it simple here.
What I’m writing for this series, I’ve never seen from the critical text and modern version side. I still have not read a work that attempts to lay out a doctrine or biblical defense of naturalistic textual criticism to prove it is the historical Christian position. None do that because it’s absent from scripture. I’m not a reconstructionist like him, but I agree with this statement by R. J. Rushdoony:
Consider what happens when the Received Text is set aside and scholars give us their reconstruction of the text. The truth of revelation has thereby passed from the hand of God into the hands of men. Scholars then establish the true reading in terms of their presuppositions…The denial of the Received Text enables the scholar to play god over God. The determination of the correct word is now a scholar’s province and task. The Holy Spirit is no longer the giver and preserver of the biblical text: it is the scholar, the textual scholar.
The critical text and modern version side just takes shots at our positions. They have written several books like this, among the notable by D. A. Carson, James White, faculty from notable Bob Jones University grads, and then the Central Baptist Theological Seminary faculty. They don’t show biblical presuppositions or a presence in historical theology, because they don’t exist.
Without further adieu, I continue.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
In 2017, I wrote the following:
Evangelicals and fundamentalists argue for the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is important to them. With the qualities of canonical books present, how would the church recognize them? Because men are depraved, they couldn’t assess the divine qualities of canonical books except by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is not as private revelation, but to help people overcome the effects of sin so that they might distinguish actual scripture. Even evangelicals believe that the consensus of the church is a key indicator of which books are canonical.
Scripture has divine qualities characteristic of its author, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells believers. Believers respond to what the Holy Spirit wrote, because He knows what He wrote. That’s how the argument goes. The Holy Spirit was not only at work in the origination of the Bible, but He also is at work within the people who receive the Bible. Donald Bloesch writes (p. 150, Holy Scriptures):Scripture is a product of the inspiring work of the Spirit, who guided the writers to give a reliable testimony to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Its canonizing is to be attributed to the illumining work of the Spirit, who led . . . . the church to assent to what the Spirit had already authorized.
Spiritually Discerned
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Unity of the Spirit
Saints of the first century knew the books the Holy Spirit inspired and the ones He didn’t. They copied the ones He inspired. They received those as the Word of God. The saints agreed on what the books and the words were. They copied and distributed them.
The agreement of the saints or of true churches resulted in a multitude of almost identical copies. As history passed the printing press era, they agreed or settled on the text of the Bible. One could and should call the agreement, “the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3). What is that?
Every true believer possesses the Holy Spirit in him. He guides, leads, reproves, teaches, etc. The Holy Spirit will not on the inside of a believer lead, guide, or teach in a different way. He won’t contradict Himself. He is One.
The same Holy Spirit, Who inspired the Words of God, knows those Words still. He does not need to reinspire Words. Instead, He can direct His people to the correct one, when a copyist errs. The churches for hundreds of years did not agree on the critical text. That text did not make its way to God’s people. They received the, well, received text. They thought that the work of the Holy Spirit.
What I just wrote above is not mysticism. It is what we read in scripture. It is how we see the Holy Spirit work. Providence and the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit fulfilled God’s promise of preservation.
Historical Agreement
Related to the above, The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 reads:
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
The Gallican Confession (1559) reads:
We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books.
Thiessen wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament:
The Holy Spirit, given to the Church, quickened holy instincts, aided discernment between the genuine and the spurious, and thus led to gradual, harmonious, and in the end unanimous conclusions. There was in the Church what a modern divine has happily termed an ‘inspiration of selection’.
All the above statements fall within the teaching of many different scriptures on the Holy Spirit and the Words of God. The Holy Spirit leads through the agreement of His people. This is a reason Paul tells Timothy that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
How Does The Testimony of the Holy Spirit Work?
When believers recognize the work of the Holy Spirit, they attest to scriptural presuppositions, principles, and promises. Those will not contradict the Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of testing whether something is of the Holy Spirit. Naturalistic explanations don’t pass the test.
A true church is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The unity of Spirit is seen in the agreement of a true church. Churches received the received text (the textus receptus). At the end of an era, they agreed to stop publishing editions of the textus receptus. Was that the Holy Spirit testifying through the churches that believed and practiced the Bible? This fits the scriptural teaching and the model.
This principle, presupposition, or promise of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the only one of these. It is crucial though.
More to Come
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 2)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
Ahhh certainty, what some people call “epistemic hubris,” but I digress. One thing that modern version and critical text supporters are certain about? You can’t be certain about the text of the New Testament. They’re certain of that. And how do they know with such certainty so as to call people dangerous and extremist, who are certain? They know the same way that any one of you are certain that Covid arose from an animal in a wet market in Wuhan, China. You can’t be certain about the text of scripture even though scripture teaches certainty on the text of scripture. No, only a degree of confidence somewhere less than the efficiency of Tide detergent.
So I can get behind a keyboard and be a tough guy. That’s easy. But what about putting a blog where my mouth is. Let us continue.
Meaning of Kept
In His high priestly prayer in John 17, Jesus says in verse 6, “They have kept thy word.” “Kept” is the Greek word tareo, which BDAG says means:
1. to retain in custody, keep watch over, guard . . . . 2. to cause a state, condition, or activity to continue, keep, hold, reserve, preserve someone or something.
Jesus uses the word tareo a few verses later in verse 12, saying:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The word kept that Jesus uses in verse 6, He defines in verse 12. Twice he says He “kept them.” And then He says, “None of them is lost.” If someone keeps something or someone, then nothing or no one was lost. If something or someone is lost, it or he was not kept. Let’s say Jesus originally saved 100,000 people, but in the end only 99,995 or so were saved. He couldn’t say, “None of them is lost.” Five of them were lost. If you were one of the five, you would take a change in the definition of “kept” very seriously.
Consider this dialogue.
“I gave you those fifty marbles. Did you keep them?”
“Yes.”
“So how many do you have?”
“I have 48 of them.”
“I thought you said you kept them.”
“I did.”
“No you didn’t; you lost two of them. That’s not keeping the marbles. That’s losing.”
That’s a basic tutorial on the concept of keep or preserve.
Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words
The Bible promises preservation of what God gave, inscripturated, or inspired. What He gave were words almost exclusively in Hebrew and Greek, and a few in Aramaic. What He gave He also kept or preserved. God didn’t give, inscripturate, or inspire English words. He gave Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words and those were the ones He also kept or preserved.
What Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 corroborates this obvious idea of kept or preserved. Jesus said:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus was speaking of the Old Testament and a jot and a tittle were both Hebrew letters, not some other language. Again, this was not a promise to preserve one particular manuscript or physical scroll. In its context (Matthew 5:17-20) it did mean that scripture, its letters and words on pages, would remain available to read and heed.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
Availability or General Accessibility
Keeping means availability. Availability means general accessibility. Scripture shows this again and again. God kept the words for people to know and obey. Keeping them for His people to whom He gave them means their availability for those people to use.
Saying “general accessibility” means that someone may not have his own copy of scripture at home. The words were available in general for believers in general. Words not generally accessible were not the words God kept for His people. Because a single ancient manuscript was on earth somewhere does not mean it was available or generally accessible. It wasn’t. God’s people did not have it to read and heed.
Versus Buried Text View
A doctrine of availability accompanies a true doctrine of preservation. I call the alternative a “buried text view.” Critical text proponents are still searching for lost hand copies and ancient translations for the sake of restoring a lost text. Every time a person or organization announces that he or it found a very old page of scripture, critical text scholars relish with great expectation to find new information for possible purposes of correction.
Those who believe in perfect preservation for every generation of believer do not expect to find a buried or lost text that will correct the present text of scripture. They believe in preservation and availability. That lost copy was not available. It couldn’t be what God preserved or kept.
New Testament Language of the Received Text
The language, “received text,” elicits the truth of availability. Something not available was not received by anyone. “Received text” itself, as a description of the preserved New Testament text, comes from scripture.
Gospels
Matthew 13:19-20, 22-23, “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
Luke 8:13, “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.”
John 17:8, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”
Acts
Acts 2:41, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”
Acts 8:14, “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.”
Acts 11:1, “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.”
Acts 17:11, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Epistles
1 Thessalonians 1:6, “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
James 1:21, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”
How could believers or churches receive God’s Word or Words if they were not available? They couldn’t. But this was not the case. They could receive His Words because of the general accessibility of them for every generation of believer.
More to Come
Recent Comments