Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 29)
Search Results for: king james version
The Relationship of the 2024 Total Eclipse to the End Times
Eclipse and Path of Totality
My wife and I live in the path of totality. Yes, that’s right. We live in the path where for three or four minutes we will see a total eclipse. For that reason, this rural area with a relatively small population will grow in population over the next few days with people who want to be here too. For those coming into our parking lot, our church will offer eclipse glasses through which to look at the eclipse when it shows itself in the most significant fashion.
Many people think the eclipse is an eschatological sign. Even unbelievers around this area speak in a wary way about what’s happening in the sky and what it means for their future. I’m happy that it has them thinking about their lives.
Signs of the Times Are Everywhere?
I grew up in a small Baptist church in rural Indiana, and I’m not endorsing the song, but I have the words in my mind of one we sang then:
Signs of the times are everywhere,
There’s a brand new feeling in the air,
Keep your eyes upon the eastern sky,
Lift up your eyes, redemption draweth nigh.
For many, that sounds about right. Signs of the times are everywhere. Except they’re not. Signs won’t appear until after the Antichrist reveals himself (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10). On April 8, if you keep your eyes upon the eastern sky, you better at least be wearing your eclipse glasses.
I know people are writing and producing youtube presentations about the eclipse as a sign of the end times. I have not read any of these works but just have heard people asking and talking about it as such. So here goes. The total eclipse on April 8 is not a sign of the end times. It isn’t.
Seeking After Signs
What gets people’s attention, I believe, is the weird or earie astronomical nature of the eclipse. It’s obvious and odd. Jesus’ own birth provided a star, a sign in the sky for that event. People who followed Him around also wanted astronomical signs from Him, but He said He wouldn’t give them. He said in Matthew 16:4:
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
The sign of the prophet Jonas was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. So He says, besides that, He would give no more signs to that generation. The message of Jesus was that scripture was sufficient. “But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Blessing came to those who believe the word of God without having or seeing signs. Signs are not for them who believe, but believe not. Believers don’t need signs. They believe, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17), not from signs.
Era of Astronomical Signs
Jesus in Luke 21:25 says that during the Tribulation period on earth, Revelation chapters six through sixteen, God will give astronomical signs:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.
Peter references these occurrences in Acts 2:20 on the Day of Pentecost:
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
This references Joel 2:31, which also also says this is when “the great and terrible day of the LORD come(s).” These signs mark the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when He opens the seals of His judgment. People on earth will know they have little time for salvation at that point.
None of us need signs, because nothing needs to occur for the rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Neither do unbelievers need signs for sufficiently knowing they’ll be left behind for God’s judgment. Not just that, but it is already appointed unto man once to die (Hebrews 9:27), and no man knows when that will occur (Proverbs 27:1, James 4:14). In the next second, eclipse or no eclipse coming, the Lord could descend through the clouds to meet true believers in the air.
Signifying Nothing
This total eclipse signifies nothing. Eclipses happen. The fact that we could predict this one indicates that God created astronomical bodies with mathematical precision. Ships navigate by the movements of celestial bodies. This testifies already to the glory of God, eclipse or no eclipse.
Eclipses testify to man’s helplessness and the immensity of God’s creation. The sun is just one star of many, not even the largest. It is a fiery, hot mass that God created just the right distance away for enough heat without burning up men. It’s not always going to be this way though. Everything in the future will burn with a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10), annihilating everything, and God will create a new heaven and a new earth. Only those who believe in Jesus Christ will make it to the other side and a whole new and eternal and blessed era.
Reminder of Opportunities
Man does not have interminable opportunities for salvation. If the eclipse helps him remember this, the eclipse offers a great blessing to him. No doubt an eclipse gets people’s attention and makes them think. If men continue in their sin, never listening to God’s Word, then the eclipse serves very little purpose for them. Perhaps it just makes men more proud, because they saw it with their special glasses. Now they can say they’ve done another thing that makes them more special.
The total eclipse does provide an opportunity. It parallels with future astronomical events that will be signs. They provoke men to think about the last times. On April 8, 2024 and even before and after that day, let everyone consider what Jesus warned in Matthew 24:44:
Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
The eclipse is not a sign, but Jesus said always to be ready. Be ready for His return. Paul says that it will occur in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:52-54). Behold now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Books By David Cloud Read Aloud: Can You Help Truth Get Out?
Way of Life Literature, run by Bro David Cloud, has many excellent resources. David Cloud has also written many excellent books, as well as useful videos one can find on his website. While not infallible, of course, they are well-researched, sound in doctrine, and something I could recommend highly to almost any Christian. I am very thankful for David Cloud’s works. His books, along with those published by Bible Baptist Church Publications, helped me to become a Baptist separatist instead of a mushy evangelical after I was converted by the grace of God.
Today, sadly, many people do not read. Brother Cloud has given me permission to have at least some of his books read aloud and then made available on fora such as YouTube, Rumble, and Audible.
If you would be interested in reading aloud some David Cloud books, such as his works on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions:
Faith vs. The Modern Versions
For Love of the Bible
The Glorious History of the English Bible
Bible Version Question and Answer Database
or some of Cloud’s other books, such as:
Dressing for the Lord
The Future According to the Bible
History and Heritage of Fundamentalism and Fundamental Baptists
and you have a good reading voice–speaking clearly, with expression, and not one that will put people to sleep–and enough commitment to finish something once you have started it, please contact me and let me know.
Thank you.
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14
My fourteenth debate review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Biblical preservation or King James Onlyism goes through John 13 and examines every single variant between the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is valuable to those who watched the debate, since it proves that Dr. White cannot be consistent when he attempts to prove the superiority of the Nestle-Aland text and modern English versions by attacking the Received Text based on one word in Ephesians 3:9 and one word that is in some TR editions in Revelation 16:5. His text has orders of magnitude more minority readings than does the Textus Receptus, so his attacks are not just like him pointing one finger at the KJV while four fingers point back at his LSB; rather, it is like a millipede pointing one leg at the KJV while all his other legs are pointing at the LSB.
However, the analysis in this video is also very helpful for those who never end up watching the debate. (I discussed debate-specific matters that relate to what is examined in video #14 in video #13.) While I do not doubt that I am biased, since I created the video, I believe it would be valuable for anyone who is entering the Baptist ministry and is going to confront textual-critical issues, valuable for any student of Biblical Greek who wishes to understand the overall differences between the TR and the NA/UBS Greek text, and valuable for any Christians who wish to have a level of understanding of the matter of Biblical preservation beyond what is rudimentary.
In this video, I demonstrate that in John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times
95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times
99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times
99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times
100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.
Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times
90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.
I also demonstrate that in vast numbers of short sections of text the Nestle-Aland text does not look like any known Greek manuscript on the face of the earth, and that even Nestle himself, from whom the Nestle-Aland text is named, recognized that the critical texts extant in his day were a patchwork that never existed in real space and time in textual history. The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text is indefensible Scripturally, historically, and rationally.
I would encourage all defenders of God’s preserved Word in the Textus Receptus to learn, understand, and use these facts as they stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture. I believe these facts are not as well known in King James Only circles as they should be.
I also demonstrate in this video some facts about the Textus Receptus and how it compares to printed Majority Text editions that are not well known. While there certainly are minority readings in the TR–approximately 1% of the time when there are variants–and there are good reasons to follow the TR in this small percentage of Greek text for Scriptural and historical reasons–there are also plenty of places in all printed Majority Text or Byzantine Priority editions–whether that of Hodges / Farstad, Robinson / Pierpont, or Pickering–where the printed Majority Text follows a minority of Greek manuscripts while the Textus Receptus follows the majority. In fact, in John 13, while the TR and the Byzantine priority text editions were very close to each other, the TR actually follows the majority of Greek manuscripts in more letters in the chapter than does any printed Majority Text edition. The fact that the TR frequently follows a majority of Greek manuscripts when printed “Majority Text” editions do not is also a fact that is not well known enough in King James Only circles.
You can watch the video using the embedded link below, or view it at FaithSaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube.
These are important facts. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of God’s Word can rejoice in them. Those who defend modern English versions and the corrupt United Bible Society / Nestle – Aland Greek text from which they are translated need to both understand and explain why these things are so, and why they are defending as God’s Word a patchwork text that never existed in real space and time in the history of textual transmission.
–TDR
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Three)
Jesus Is Scriptural
Everything that Jesus said in His sermon from Matthew 5:1 to 5:16 was a scriptural concept. Nothing Jesus taught contradicted God’s Word. Jesus is God. On the other hand, the religious leaders in Israel were “making the word of God of none effect through [their] tradition” (Mark 7:13). If anyone was destroying the belief and practice of the Old Testament, that is, the fulfilling of the Old Testament, it was them, not Jesus.
Believing and practicing the Old Testament was letting light shine before men. Jesus did that and He called upon kingdom citizens of His to do the same. Proof that He didn’t arrive to earth to destroy the scripture He inspired, Jesus promised perfect preservation of every letter of it.
If Jesus would preserve every letter of written scripture, surely He also expected His people to do all of it too. His teachers would also teach men to do everything scripture said. One could say at this point: in other words, you’ve got to be better than the Pharisees. The righteousness of the Pharisees is not saving righteousness. It is their own version of righteousness that comes from human effort. They couldn’t produce the righteousness that would get them into heaven. That righteousness comes from above.
Righteousness and Saving Faith
Righteousness, which is from above and by the grace of the Lord, exceeds the faux righteousness arising only from man’s works. It doesn’t rank scripture into majors and minors, because it can’t keep everything that He said. Like Jesus, it fulfills written scripture. James in his epistle later says the same. True believers are both hearers and doers of what God said.
Saving faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Someone is begotten by the Word of Truth. It would follow that He would also be a keeper of scripture, like Jesus said. That supernatural righteousness of God produces obedience to scripture. You can detect the unrighteous servant of unrighteousness by His diminishing of scripture.
Here is a professing teacher of God. Someone disobeys scripture. He doesn’t want to offend that person by saying something. He lets it go. This is not doing the least of the commandments and teaching men so.
Ranking Doctrines or the Triage Approach
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day ranked doctrines. Their unity revolved around a triage approach. Instead of following the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, they pervert into just the opposite of what He taught. Unity on the least commandments, what they call, non-essentials or minors. These teachings are not a “hill you want to die on.”
Left-Winged Legalism
Professing Christians especially today practice a left-winged legalism more often than the more commonly highlighted right-winged type. The left wing calls its legalism, “grace.” It is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Since you can’t keep everything scripture says on your own, reduce its teachings to what you can keep. This is left-winged legalism.
Those practicing left-winged legalism relish pointing out more consistent practice of scripture than theirs as legalism. They do it all the time. How you know they aren’t legalists in their estimation is by their inconsistent practice of scripture. People who try to follow everything like Jesus taught and teach others to do likewise, they aren’t the greatest in the kingdom to left-winged legalists. Instead, they’re “legalists.” Again, it’s in reality just the opposite.
As Jesus moves on in His illustrations in chapter five, you can see how much a truly righteous person strives to love God and His neighbor. It’s not the get-by-ism of the Pharisees and modern evangelicalism, so they can keep their crowds. They’ve dumbed down scripture so that it is unrecognizable as Christianity. This follows the same tack of the Pharisees. There is nothing new under the sun.
What Is the “Mind Virus” Of Which Elon Musk Alludes?
Elon Musk and the Mind Virus
Civilizational Threat
Not until very recently did I hear the terminology, “mind virus,” and it came from Elon Musk (the wealthiest man in the world) in various podcast interviews. In a few of those by various individuals, he talks about the “mind virus” as a civilizational threat. When asked why he bought Twitter (now X), even though it was an apparently very bad investment, he explains that he did it to ward away again, “civilizational threat.” He saw a particular mind virus, which took the world in a trajectory that he assessed would result in the destruction of humanity. His purchase of X would push that back for a time, Musk surmised.
Elon Musk could be right, depending on what the real “mind virus” is. The terminology hearkens to a biblical truth that gets at the crux of the real problem in the world. The actual mind virus is not, however, we know, the same one of which he speaks, based on scripture. Yet, mind virus as a concept, I would agree, depending on its definition, is the greatest civilizational threat.
Richard Dawkins and “Viruses of the Mind”
It seems that the words “mind virus” originated with Richard Dawkins with a 1991 article, entitled, “Viruses of the Mind,” originally delivered as a lecture. Others that then used the terminology equated a similar concept. Dawkins saw religious faith as the chief mind virus, but really faith itself, people with which he calls “faith sufferers.” His point, albeit very false, was that faith bypassed evidence, so it mainly blocked or impeded evidence.
In most recent times, maybe the most common usage of “mind virus” refers to the technical terminology, “woke mind virus.” Googling those three exact words brought me 123,000 hits. This seems to be where we’ve settled in the realm of “mind virus.’ “Woke mind virus.” References to “mind virus” now mean “woke mind virus.”
Meaning of Woke Mind Virus
Musk’s Definition
At the top of a google search is an article at Rolling Stone, titled, “Elon Musk and Bill Maher Fear the ‘Woke Mind Virus’.” When asked, Musk defined this virus as “anything anti-meritocratic and that results In the suppression of free speech.” He said the main cause of it is “the amount of indoctrination that’s happening in schools and universities.” One man, I think, accurately described the woke mind virus with the following quote by G. K. Chesterton:
We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening mob with the news that grass is green.
Some of that to which Musk refers is what I also believe is the mind virus, including in his assessment of Netflix. Commenting on the hemorrhaging of Netflix subscriptions, Musk said Netflix was “unwatchable” because of its “woke mind virus.”
The Real Woke Mind Virus
“Woke” became contemporary terminology to describe a state of totally subjective enlightenment, untethered to objective reality. Someone woke is awake to something probably invisible to almost everyone. An apparent woke person can see someone is a racist like a Geiger counter picking up radioactivity. No evidence of racism is necessary. His inner Geiger counter detects racism; therefore, it must be there. A woke practitioner also sees more than two sexes and even fluidity in gender identity, where someone can label himself a woman, when he is a man, even depending on the day of the week.
A Reprobate Mind
What Musk called the “woke mind virus” is what Romans 1:28 calls “a reprobate mind,” that does not “like to retain God in [its] knowledge.” Concerning the same, 2 Timothy 3:8 says, “these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” It’s what 2 Thessalonians 2:11 calls a “strong delusion.” In modern vernacular, someone infected with the woke mind virus is delusional. 2 Corinthians 3:14 and 4:4 say these people’s minds are blinded, so that they cannot see the light of God’s truth.
Musk himself rejects the light of the gospel. He considers the earth billions of years old and that man emerged from naturalistic evolutionary processes. Musk also contends that an extinction event for earth is inevitable. He says, “An extinction event is inevitable and we’re increasingly doing ourselves in.”
Public schools keep teaching lies of the most fundamental and foundational nature. These lies are the root that poison every fruit on the entire tree. They are what Paul calls, “imaginations that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). These ways that seem right unto man, Solomon says are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).
Prevenient Grace
How do Musk and other’s like him, themselves deluded, correctly identify the woke mind virus? In a default manner, God gives every human “the law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15). The same verse says, “the conscience also bearing witness.” In the previous chapter, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:19: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” C. H. Spurgeon said in a sermon entitled, Prevenient Grace, preached:
PREVENIENT GRACE, or the grace which comes before regeneration and conversion. I think we sometimes overlook it. We do not attach enough importance to the grace of God in its dealings with men before He actually brings them to Himself. Paul says that God had designs of love towards him even before he had called him out of the dead world into spiritual life.
That grace doesn’t end in salvation for everyone, as seen in Romans 1:18. Even though they know God through many general means, men still suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. As a result, they become “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). This is another description of the “woke mind virus.”
The virus also creeps into churches. Churches accommodate the world system. They subjugate themselves to conventional wisdom, what James 3:15 calls “wisdom [that] descendeth not from above, earthly, sensual, devilish.” These are what the Apostle Paul calls in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “the words which man’s wisdom teacheth.” He also calls it “the carnal mind [that] is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7).
The True Woke Mind Virus
Musk doesn’t know or understand the true woke mind virus. Yes, the god of this world deludes most men, including Musk, and God turns them over to a reprobate mind. They are bewitched like the Galatians, “that they should not obey the truth” (Galatians 3:1).
The only escape from the woke mind virus is what Paul calls ‘the law of the mind’ (Romans 7:23). This is akin to replacing the “heart of stone” with a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26). With this change of nature, man can and will think characteristically how God wants him to think. This is the only true and real cure for the woke mind virus. God can and will deliver through the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul writes (Romans 7:25):
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God.
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority
Galatians 2 and Paul Withstanding Peter
Apostleship
In Galatians 2:11 the Apostle Paul writes:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
One could say at that point in church history, Peter was the greatest apostle. Peter saw Jesus’ glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter was the first to the empty tomb. Jesus said directly to Peter, Feed my sheep. Peter preached the great sermons in the first half of Acts. God saved at least three thousand at Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost. He got the vision from God in Acts 10, overturning Old Testament restrictions. The Jerusalem church sent Peter to Antioch to assess what happened there. Yet, Paul withstood Peter to the face.
In the context of Galatians 2, Paul defends his apostleship against false teachers. They attacked Paul because they opposed the gospel he preached. These false teachers at least added circumcision to Christ in their false gospel. Paul deals with that in Galatians but also spends almost two chapters showing his authority to preach the true gospel.
The false teachers attacking Paul in Galatian churches said Paul didn’t have the authority of the original twelve. In addition to many other arguments for his own authority, Paul wrote that he withstood Peter to his face. On his own, he could challenge Peter. This showed Paul’s direct authority received from Jesus Christ Himself (Galatians 1:12, 16).
Withstanding
“Withstood” comes from a compound verb, composed of the two words, “against” and “stand.” Paul stood against Peter. Paul explains why. Peter ate with Gentiles in Antioch until a faction claiming association with James came to visit. Because of their presence, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles. Paul regarded this as a type of gospel perversion by Peter. Through Peter’s dissembling, he confused the lost about the gospel.
Paul stood against Peter because of a possible gospel corruption. He did not confront him to show his authority. He opposed Peter with authority, not over authority. Paul wasn’t showing Peter who was boss.
The authority of Paul rose to challenge corruption of the gospel. That issue motivated the authority of Paul. Paul explains this intention in Galatians 2:5: “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Paul wanted the truth of the gospel to continue with churches.
The Gospel the Bedrock Issue for Authority
The gospel is the bedrock issue of the church, even as Jesus said in Matthew 16:16-18. Peter’s salvation confession of Matthew 16:16 was the rock upon which Jesus built the Jerusalem church. The gospel calls out the saints that make up a church. It is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it.
Issues other than the gospel do confront church leaders. However, gospel ones raised the altercation of Paul with Peter. The continuance of the gospel brought contention between Jerusalem and Antioch churches in Acts 15. Nevertheless, the churches stayed unified, because they paused to address their dispute between one another.
During the Acts 15 controversy, not one man made himself chieftain over the existing churches. Church leaders settled their discord together. A doctrinal issue did not become a personal one, rival factions vying for greatest positions. It could have gone that direction.
Teaching of Jesus about Vying for Authority
Close to his death, the disciples asked (Matthew 18:1), “Who is the greatest in the kingdom?” Jesus answered, “The one who speaks with the most authoritative voice and acts the big shot.” No, He didn’t. He said in essence, “The one who will humble himself like a little child.” Not long after, the mother of James and John told Jesus (Matthew 20:21):
Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Jesus answered in essence, “You don’t know what you’re asking, because it’s going to be someone who will drink the cup that I will drink from.” That cup, of course, was His suffering.
When the other ten heard the request for John and James, “they were moved to indignation” against them (Matthew 20:24). Jesus said to all of them (verses 25-28):
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Some had in mind that they that are great “exercise dominion over” other people. Jesus said, “But it shall not be so among you.” True believers do not covet authority. They won’t grasp after it. They have other priorities than who gets the final say in matters.
Diotrephes
Again, division and contention may and should arise for more than the gospel. Jesus cleansed the temple over desecration of true worship, probably a gospel issue. However, should men turn on each other over the issue of authority itself? In 3 John 1:9-10, the Apostle John writes:
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Diotrephes was an authority-for-his-authority-sake person. He saw himself at the top of the pecking order, the biggest rooster in the coop. No doctrinal issue manifests itself in verses 9-10 except for the doctrine of authority. Why did he cast people out of the church? To make a point that he was in charge, which is not a good enough reason.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in authority. God gave authority to the church. Churches send people. Members fit into Christ’s body. God sits at the top of the entire flow chart, so “Peter and the other apostles” said, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Whatever little seats of authority God gives men on earth, He still sits at the top. It’s not about “whosoever will be chief among you” in your little pond.
Not As Lords Over God’s Heritage
In mid to late 2021 my wife and I joined another church, one other than the one God used us to start. We enjoyed our year there very much. Shortly thereafter, another pastor called my pastor to pressure him to prevent me from continuing “What Is Truth.” He saw my writing here as a violation of authority. I understand if you think you see some irony there. Since I wasn’t in authority, he tried to use authority to stop me from writing this blog.
I heard from someone when I was young, “If the mortar’s thin, you must fling it hard.” Without a good scriptural foundation, people might rely on force of personality. I know intimidation can work. If he’s not stopped, the biggest kid in the nursery will always have his favorite toy.
Before I started pastoring and early in that office, I committed to Peter’s teaching (1 Peter 5:2-3): “taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage.” The point of pastoring was not having people do what I told them to do. Christ is Lord. Every pastor should willingly back down from what he wants to stop offending someone else or to keep unity in the church.
Every church should stand on the teaching of scripture. Pastors have authority. However, churches don’t stand on the authority of a pastor. Jesus is the Head of the church. Pastors should not rule a church with their authority, they should rule it behind the authority of the Word of God. That means very often giving liberty when it comes to their own opinions.
More to Come
God the Highest and Its Ramifications
Our Father, Which Art In Heaven
The model prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11 begins with the words: “Our Father which art in heaven.” Very often, I will follow this model and pray something like the following: “Dear Father, I ask that you will be praised. You are high and far above us.” What does this describe?
Separate from Sin
That God the Father is in heaven says that He is separate from sin. He is far away from anything sinful, because the third heaven, the location of His heavenly throne room, is at least as far away as the furthest space, which we know is many light years away.
The Highest
That God the Father is in heaven says that He is the highest. “Highest” is a scriptural name and description of God the Father.
Psalm 18:13, “The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.”
Luke 1:32, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”
Authority
God the Father’s highness relates to His authority. He is over everything. Numbers 24:7 says,
He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.
“His king shall be higher than Agag.” He has greater authority than Agag. Psalm 89:27 also states this truth:
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
He is better. He has greater authority than the kings of the earth. Highest means the highest authority.
Immutability
That God the Father is in heaven reflects James 1:17:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Nothing can effect God the Father’s perfection. Without anything able to effect Him, He is immutable. Everything is relative to Him, but He is absolute. Whatever comes from Him is good. It is untainted.
Majesty
That God the Father is in heaven reveals His majesty. Majesty relates to His holiness. He is separate by being the highest. However, He is not common or profane. God the Father is distinct. He shows forth the perfections of all His attributes, manifesting His glory. Everything about Him is greater.
Judgment
God is judge. That God the Father is in heaven gives Him a vantage point. He can see everything. God perches above all. If God is higher and better, than something can be judged to be so. With things higher, better, and distinct, God requires judgment. He will judge, but so should we.
The Ramifications of God, the Highest
When God is highest, He is higher than anything. That is the automatic enemy of egalitarianism. God is of the highest value. Nothing is better than Him. He is far above anyone and everyone.
For people to do what they want to do, it helps if no one or nothing is above them. It is a Satanic version of utopianism. Every man is his own god. No one is better, greater, or higher than anyone else. No one wears a different uniform. Gender or sex doesn’t exist.
Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” God is incompatible with communism, because He is the ultimate authority, higher than everyone. When people judge according to God, this act overthrows communist thinking.
If one individual cannot be better than everyone, then he at least wants no one to be better than anyone else. Everyone has his own truth, his own goodness, and his own beauty. Every standard is relative to himself. Nothing is absolute. Of course, all of this is a lie.
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)
Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant
Differences
Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show. Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship. I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.
Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism. Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these. These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.
I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism. Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God. Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today. Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.
Perversions in True Worship
Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship. She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective. Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship. It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship. She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals. Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere. This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.
God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9). Beauty is objective. It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes. Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God. This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God. This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.
The Gospel
John 3:5
Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is. He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5. Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation. It reads:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation. He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing. At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace. He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it. Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved. He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2
Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV. She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it. Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation. She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.
Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works. He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace. The child can’t resist. He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven. Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace. He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.
Stuckey makes two arguments. She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world. Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again. When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2. It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer. He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved. He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol. This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant. He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.
Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics. She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her. She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works. Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer. I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs. However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder. They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.
Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements. He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing. He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic. It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity. False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.
Final Comments
John 3:5
I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5. Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it. Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it. Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid. In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit. He explains the new birth or being born again. A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.
James 2 and Romans 4
Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2. Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20. Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5. In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.” A man shows his faith by his works. James explains this.
Galatians and Hebrews
I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10. A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10: 9:27-28, 10:10, 14. Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified. These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.
I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace. Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace. Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
Preparation
This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism. Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness. She might not be able to be friends with the other two. And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has. I don’t know.
Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion. It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice. Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.
Addenda
I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon. Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace. He said this was scriptural. Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling. It’s not in the Bible anywhere. She could have gone to a number of places on this.
Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition. When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything. Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places. I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized. Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.
The Hypocrisy and Deceitfulness of the Chief Critical Text Attack on the Received Text of Scripture
The Ross-White Debate produced at least one major and helpful revelation. It showed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the chief modern critical text attack on the received text of scripture. I want you to understand this. White called the USB/NA textually superior because the Roman Catholic humanist Erasmus in 1516 had one extant manuscript for one variant in Ephesians 3:9. He said that variant opposed nearly the entire manuscript tradition.
Erasmus, Humanism, and Roman Catholicism
Roman Catholic?
Before I dig into White’s assertion, let’s consider the information about Erasmus, a major part of his and other’s contention. In 1516 Erasmus published a printed edition of the Greek New Testament, essentially the same text used for every translation of the New Testament for any language for hundreds of years. True believers called this their Bible. They broke from and stood against Roman Catholicism because of it, which advocated a Latin text, not an original language one. It also opposed in general the Bible in the hands of the populace.
Erasmus was Roman Catholic in 1516. Who wasn’t Roman Catholic in 1516? Martin Luther still was. John Calvin, albeit a boy, still was. Ulrich Zwingli was. William Tyndale was. No one was Protestant. Erasmus at least conflicted with the Roman Catholic Church when that was rare. The English Reformation didn’t start until 1534. This point should be a laughable one. Almost every historian considers Erasmus a key forerunner of the Reformation.
Humanist?
Erasmus was a humanist, but that is not by a modern definition, where man is the measure of all things. Secular humanists don’t believe in God. Erasmus believed in God. His humanism was a defense of the humanities. This advocated for the study of the classical languages, literature, grammar, rhetoric, and history. Regarding scripture, he promoted the study of the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek. Part of Erasmus’s humanism was Philosophia Christi, a simple, ethical Christianity without the rituals and superstitions of then Roman Catholicism.
The trajectory of the text of Erasmus moved through then to Stephanus and Beza, becoming the basis of the translations into the common languages: English, German, Spanish, French, and Dutch. Churches received this text and translated from it into their languages. This did not become anything acceptable to Roman Catholicism. They continued embracing the Latin. The Roman Catholic Inquisitions ordered the destruction of Bibles in the vernacular.
What is White doing with his use of humanist and Roman Catholic? I believe he is doing at least two things. One, he is attempting to mute the reality that the titans of the critical text, they’re unbelieving. Modern textual criticism proceeds without theological presuppositions and with solely naturalistic ones. He wants to frame Erasmus into the same category.
Two, White wants to paint an unsavory association of the received text with humanism and Roman Catholicism. He doesn’t want his audience to think of the humanities, but of secular humanism. He doesn’t care that this isn’t the kind of humanist Erasmus was. He’s hoping for the chaos or confusion of the deception. White doesn’t care if Erasmus was Roman Catholic. That doesn’t bother him about Athanasius or Augustine. He knows too about the reality of Erasmus. This is a mere rhetorical tactic.
Extant Manuscript Support for the Received Text or the Critical Text
Majority Text
On many other occasions and in the Ross-White Debate, James White said the received text (TR) was inferior because of lacking textual support. Until Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published their “Majority Text” in 1985, many, if not most TR advocates and others, called the TR, the majority text. Men stopped referring to the TR as the majority text because people would think they referred to the Hodges-Farstad publication. Why did men call the TR the majority text and the critical text, the minority text?
The TR is based on the majority of the manuscripts. It is a Byzantine text. A majority of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament come from the area of the Byzantine Empire. The TR agrees 99 percent with a majority of the manuscripts.
Hypocrisy and Deceit
White pointed to one word in Revelation 16:5 having no extant manuscript support. This is his favorite argument against the TR. He says that it is a conjectural emendation of Beza. He points to one word in Ephesians 3:9 having the support of one extant manuscript.
Ross exposed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of White’s chief argument against the TR and in favor of the USB/NA (critical text). He showed how that in over a hundred places a line of reading in the USB/NA has no (zero) manuscript evidence. White has one example. Ross had over a hundred.
In addition, the entire critical text relies on a minority of the manuscripts, which is why men called that text, the minority text. How could the TR be worse because one percent of it has support in the minority and the critical text does that for its entire text? The USB/NA relies on very few manuscripts. If that’s worse, as seen in White’s attack on the TR, how could he support the USB/NA over the TR?
In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support. This should end White’s manuscript argument. Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion. White would not recant of his position.
Ad Hominem
Instead, as he almost always does, White used ad hominem argument, attacking Ross personally, and then he tried to confuse the audience about what Ross said. With no evidence, he told the audience this just wasn’t happening. In essence, he said, “Don’t believe Ross, he doesn’t know what he’s doing and what he says really isn’t the truth,” followed by zero proof of that.
By writing this post, I could be associating with someone who is ignorant and a liar. I should be careful. This is what White wants his followers to believe about Ross. Joining me in an association with Ross’s arguments is Jeff Riddle. He and I do not know each other, but he too supported what Ross said.
I didn’t hear or see one person on White’s side, which would be in the thousands, debunk with any proof at all what Ross showed in the debate. Since the debate, I read more of the White technique of slandering his opponent. They focused on how many slides he had and how fast he talked. They said the KJVO position was awful, not understanding that Ross showed in the debate how that according to White, the KJVO position fits a wide spectrum of possible positions.
A Choice
White and others have a choice. They can concede to Ross and those who believe like him, including myself. Or, they can go back to the drawing board to try to get better arguments. I would say, get arguments period. The Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 examples do not qualify as an argument from someone who supports readings with zero manuscript support.
The future bodes tough for White and his associates. The situation is not going to change. They have what they have. Nothing new is arriving for them. Personal attack, hypocrisy, and deceit are the best they have.
Textual Criticism Related to the Bible Bows to Modernity
Christianity is old. There is no new and improved version of it. It is what it started to be. Changing it isn’t a good thing. Let me expand.
Modern and Modernity
Right now as I implement the term “modern” I am using it in the way it is in the word “modernity” or “modernism.” I think modernism is a perversion of something good that occurred, which is the advancement proceeding from the printing and vastly greater distribution of the Bible after 1440. It fulfilled a cultural mandate lost with the domination of Roman Catholicism, “subdue and have dominion.” Feudalism went by the wayside. Quality of life improved.
In Judges in the Old Testament, Israel turned away from God, which resulted in bad consequences both indirect and direct from God. Israel cried out to God. God delivered and Israel then prospered again. Prosperity led back to turning away again, the bad consequences, and the cycle begins again.
The prosperity brought by the printing, distribution, and reading of the Bible brought the modern life. With all the massive new amounts of published material to read, people saw themselves as smarter than they were. They thought they could take that to God, the church, worship, and to the Bible. In essence, “let’s take our superior knowledge and apply it now to the Bible.”
Evidentialism
Modernism included evidentialism. Something isn’t true without exposure to man’s reason and evidence. No, the Bible stands on its own. It is self-evident truth, higher than reason and evidence, at the same time not contradicting reason or evidence.
Modern textual criticism arose out of modernism. The prosperity from the fulfillment of the cultural mandate proceeding from publication and distribution of scripture brought this proud intellectualism. Like in the days of the Judges, it isn’t even true. It isn’t better.
People have cell phones today, but who right now thinks that we are superior to when men believed the transcendentals? Objective truth, objective goodness, and objective beauty? We have a 60 inch television with a thousand channels, but we lost the greater transcendence. Modernists put the Bible under their scrutiny, undermining its objective nature.
Sincere Milk
The Apostle Peter called the Word of God “the sincere milk,” which is “the pure mother’s milk.” Like James wrote and identical to God, the Word of God is pure with neither “variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). This is why true believers of the gospel message of scripture are begotten “with the word of truth” (James 1:18). God inspired His Words and He preserves His Words using His means, His churches.
Modernists came to the Bible to improve it with their humanistic theories. They would say, textual variants prove its corruption. They would restore it to near purity using modernistic means of the modern academy.
The text of true churches, they believed “God . . . by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.” They received that text. The modernist academy came along saying, that text is not the oldest, so not the best. The better text is shorter for ideological reasons. Therefore, everyone has a basis only for relative and proportional confidence, not absolute certainty in the Words of God. Scripture became subject to modern intellectual tinkering.
Proud Intellectualism
Even in an evidential way, the critical text, a product of critical theories, is not superior. It allured the proud intellect of modern academics. It shifted scripture into the laboratory of the university and outside of the God-ordained institution of preservation.
Textual critics cherry pick words and phrases, attacking the text received by the churches, saying, this is found in only one late manuscript. Meanwhile, 99% of their text comes from two manuscripts. A hundred lines of text have no manuscript evidence. They admit themselves educated guessing. They elevate the date of extant manuscripts above all criteria, including scriptural presuppositions.
Call to Consider Former Things
I ask that we reconsider the spoiled or poison fruit of modernity, arising from a corruption of the prosperity of the printing and wide distribution of the Bible. God through Isaiah in 41:21-22 says:
21 Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
“Former things” relate to the present and to the future, “the latter end of them.” To understand the present and the future, we need to look to the past. When did we go off the rails into modernism and now postmodernism? I call on churches to turn back the clock to former things in a former time. See the cycle of the Judges, repent and cry out to God. Like James wrote later in chapter one (verse 21):
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Recent Comments