Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 30)
Search Results for: king james version
Keswick Theology: A Day in Keswick, Cumbria, the UK
Derwentwater, named after Lord Derwentwater, who was executed for treason, is a large lake in the English county of Cumbria, part of the Lake District National Park. On the northernmost tip of that lake is the small town of Keswick, a market town which name traces to the 13th century. In the 19th century it became popular for tourism and especially with the building of a trainline there from nearby Penrith.
Church of England in Keswick
In the late 1820s, William Wordsworth, the poet, encouraged John Marshall II, whose father and he earned a fortune in Leeds in the textile industry, to build a house near Keswick. Because Marshall saw a need, first he planned with the architect Anthony Salvin to erect a building for a Church of England parish there, named St. John’s the Evangelist, in the old English style. Frederic Myers, not to be confused with Frederick Meyer (early Keswick theology proponent), became the first vicar there in 1838, then in 1840 after the death of his first wife, married Susan, a daughter of John Marshall.
Shortly before Myers’s death, T. D. Hartford Battersby (biography with preface by H. C. G. Moule) came to join him, having read his theology (1841), which had persuaded him toward evangelicalism. Battersby, while attending and then graduating from Oxford, hungered for greater spirituality amidst confusion of the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement. In 1851 Battersby became second vicar of St. Johns and stayed there until 1883.
Something of great historical and theological significance occurred in Keswick on June 28, 1875 in a tent on the lawn of St. John’s. Under the leadership of Battersby, a prayer meeting began a convention there for a week, which spawned the Higher Life Movement in the United Kingdom, also called the Keswick Movement and the related Keswick Theology.
Trip to Keswick
The beautiful little town of Keswick makes a wonderful day trip of an hour and fifteen minutes by bus from Carlisle. In an entire day and early evening of pouring rain, my wife and I travelled with our umbrellas there Tuesday to look. We walked around the quaint town, first entering a shop of Lucy Pittaway, of whom I had never heard, but found she was three years running the most popular artist in the country. While my wife shopped, I began talking to the two ladies. Something like the following occurred:
Have you heard of the Keswick Movement?
They both nodded, no.
It started here. The Keswick Movement influenced now over 500 million people all over the world. It began here in the 19th century in this town. Do you know what it is?
They both nodded, no. One of them asked, “What is it?”
It is theological, I explained. It relates to the Bible. Do you know the Bible?
They both nodded, no.
Have you heard of the Old and New Testaments?
They both nodded, yes.
The New Testament starts with the first four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Have you heard of those?
They both nodded, yes.
The gospels tell the story of Jesus. Part of what bothers people about the Bible is that Jesus did miracles. He is God. He healed everybody in Judea and Galilee. People want to know, if the Bible is true, why doesn’t that happen today? It’s not a bad question.
I explained the Keswick movement, second blessing theology, and moved into the gospel in a nutshell. They listened in complete rapt attention to everything I said there in that art shop.
Keswick Information Center
My wife and I walked down that cobble stone historical small downtown area and she went into a “bunny store.” Beatrix Potter was born in the lake district, so her books are all over there. We saw a whole section of Beatrix Potter products in the grocery store next to the bus stop. While she looked there, I went into a very old chapel in the middle of town that houses their Keswick information center. Tourists in Keswick today (and probably for centuries) mainly want to hike around the lake, which few to no one was doing in the pouring rain and ‘gale-force’ winds.
When I walked into the information center, it was one woman behind a desk. We greeted one other, she wondered why we were there. I asked if she heard of the Keswick movement. The conversation above happened again. She listened too with riveted attention. She was not religious, but she was so excited that she left from behind the desk to get a co-worker. I began explaining the same thing to him. This was seeming easy. Each time I brought in the gospel.
Walk to St. John’s
I went out in time for my wife to leave the bunny store and we kept walking up that main street. It went up a hill. The lake district is full of steep hills. Water runs down them and forms lakes. If you hike those hills, you get amazing views when it isn’t pouring down rain. My wife and I found St. John’s. I told her this is where the Keswick movement started. Even though the town heard and knew nothing about Keswick theology, I wanted to see if I found evidence for it in that old building.
Bridget and I opened a very old gate and took a path up some steps around the front of the edifice. Three men walked very quickly in front of us into the building in heavy rain gear. We took some pictures on the outside. We entered and walked around, while those three talked.
Two of the three men were trying to sell internet services to St. John’s. The other man was the present vicar, Charles, only the 13th since 1833. I had a long talk with him about Keswick theology, the Church of England, and the gospel, until an elderly man entered with whom he needed to meet. The Keswick Convention continues today, but doesn’t believe Keswick theology that still continues in various forms it introduced and propagated.
The theology from the first few decades of the Keswick Convention generated the Charismatic movement and a wide range of corruption in evangelicalism and through ecumenism. This includes many varieties of higher life and second blessing theology infiltrating fundamentalism and Baptists, including independent ones in the United States. The town itself and many surrounding communities today is mainly irreligious, non-religious, atheist, and in great need of the gospel.
Battersby
What engendered the spiritual hunger of Battersby in 1875? Why did he need more spiritually than what he already had?
Before conversion, everyone falls short of the glory of God. After justification by faith, no one does. Even of the church at Corinth, Paul wrote, “Ye come behind in no gift” (1 Corinthians 1:7). True believers have every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). Among saved people, there are not spiritual haves and spiritual have nots, only spiritual haves.
Believers do not need more Holy Spirit. The fulness of the Holy Spirit is not more Holy Spirit. Those who believe in Jesus Christ receive all the Holy Spirit. In fulness, the Holy Spirit has all of you, not your having more of Him.
The Church of England says that faith and repentance are necessary for the reception of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, which are generally necessary to salvation. It says infant sprinkling people regenerates and makes members of Christ and children of God. Someone depending on more than Christ for salvation will not receive the Holy Spirit, so he will always hunger for spirituality. Anglicans like Battersby, sprinkled as infants, even if later confirmed, are not saved. Conversion comes by faith alone through grace alone.
Paul wrote that we are complete in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:10). Baptism and the eucharist add works to grace, thereby Christ is made of no effect unto them (Galatians 5:4). The Church of England says that the bread and the drink of the eucharist preserve a soul unto everlasting life.
Everyone who trusts in more than Jesus Christ will hunger for spirituality that is a basis for seeking for a second blessing. It is not a second blessing they need, but a first. It isn’t higher life, but life itself. More spiritual experiences, especially invented, conjured, or manipulated ones, will not and cannot replace true salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Are there answers?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, the gospel is not “good news,” but absurd deceit. As 1 Corinthians 15 explains:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. … 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
What are the Major Objections to Christ’s Resurrection?
How would you respond to someone who denies the resurrection of Christ, making one or more of the following arguments:
1.) “The disciples stole Christ’s body.”
2.) “Christ did not die, but only swooned/passed out on the cross and appeared to be dead. Then He came out of the grave after the cool tomb revived Him, and so appeared to have risen from the dead, when in fact He never died.”
3.) “The post-resurrection appearances of Christ were just hallucinations or visions.”
4.) “Christ did not rise from the dead because it is a miracle. ANY explanation is more likely than a miracle, because David Hume has proven miracles are impossible when he wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.… Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.… [I]t is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior. (David Hume, Of Miracles)
A version of argument number four came up in my PATAS debate with the president of the Philippines ATheist/Agnosticism, and Secularism organization in the Philippines (also on Rumble here).
The atheist argued that aliens stole the body of Christ and made it look like Christ really rose from the dead. His point was that anything is more likely than a miracle–making David Hume’s argument above, albeit in a less sophisticated and even more problematic way than Hume made it. (We posted about the PATAS debate on the blog here, while Shabir Ally also attacked the gospel accounts as discussed here.)
How would you answer these objections?
In my series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, we discuss these objections in the class sessions starting with 4.8, the eighth study on how to teach Bible study #4, on the gospel–the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So if you would like answers, please click here to check out the teaching sessions starting with section 4.8. Written material dealing with the resurrection can also be found here.
The Who-Is-Nicer or Who-Is-Meaner Argument for the Text of Scripture
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
I am calling this post a part of my discussion on critical text versus textus receptus. So much air time, so much ink is spilt for style and tone in debate, that it becomes an argument to be addressed.
You want to determine the preservation of scripture. You weigh textus receptus versus critical text. What is your criteria? Just by sheer mention from notable critical text supporters, such as James White and Mark Ward, the following is a major argument. You want to come to the right decision about the text, have the correct thinking? Ask this question. Which advocates are either nicer or meaner? From the sheer volume of talk about who-is-nicer or who-is-meaner, it must be the critical text is right. In almost every presentation, at some point James White or Mark Ward will talk about how mean the other side is, implying that James White and Mark Ward are nice, so the critical text position must be right.
I wonder of ecclesiastical text, standard sacred text, confessional text, or traditional text men, who thinks that James White and Mark Ward are nice? Perhaps you’ve seen a child come running to his mother, saying, “He wasn’t nice to me.” Or, “She wasn’t nice to me.” If you are a dad, and your little boy does that, you really, really don’t want to hear it. Maybe you just ignore him or you say, “Just go back and play.” Maybe when the little girl says it, you weigh it, and maybe you say, not really believing it, “Children, be nice.” I wouldn’t be convinced that the one protesting is the nice one.
We live in an era, where “he wasn’t nice” is an argument. It isn’t, but you would think it is by the sheer number of times critical text proponents mention it. I say, “Stop already. Both sides say mean things.” James White and Mark Ward are at least as mean or at least as not nice. Fun, isn’t it?
Condescension, eye rolling, sarcasm, and a certain kind of smarmy tone someone might consider to be mean or not nice. Even the constant mention of “you’re-not-nice” isn’t nice. When two men are having a discussion, they might get a little rough. Neither side should call the “whaaaambulance” and claim injury, as if they are a strip mall defense lawyer. “You’ve been injured in a biblical text discussion, call Mark Ward or James White, and they’ll represent you.”
When you were a child and you played games with friends, did you think it was nice when someone just rose, walked off, and stopped playing, because he didn’t like how it was going? Or did you think that was in itself, a mean or not nice act? Adults do this pulling the game board, taking the toys and going home.
A hard discussion, where the other side isn’t as nice as we want or doesn’t follow our preferred rules of decorum, will often occur. Very often both sides, when in disagreement, don’t like how the other side disagrees. That isn’t persecution though. Entering a boisterous give and take with someone, where we feel the other side hurt our feelings, is not persecution. We don’t deserve sympathy for a rugged debate.
Maybe 35-40 years ago, I remember reading letters written to one of my professors, Thomas Strouse, from Peter Ruckman. No one said things as harsh as Peter Ruckman. Dr. Strouse never said anything about the Ruckman style in the argument. Ruckman would straight out insult and call derogatory names. Ruckman was so nasty, that he was funny. No one had hurt feelings. They just laughed. I think this was just a different generation of men. They were less touchy feely. I wonder if you agree.
White and Ward both imply some spiritual problem or lack of sanctification in their opponents. They are the judge, jury, and executioner. They are nasty and harsh too. They weaponize the criticism though.
I think I could have better style or tone. I could speak to my opponents in a more sensitive way. When I argue, I could take more consideration of the opposition’s feelings. When two people disagree, it’s better if they try to get along too. I agree with that assessment.
What I wish is that the two sides could also take the meanness or niceness criteria out of the debate, especially the one side that nearly always brings it up. I don’t think Jeff Riddle wants to be mean. He’s nicer than me. And yet Mark Ward says he’s not nice either. He’s nicer than others, but he’s also too mean. Mark Ward might pull the game board on him. We’ll see.
What really happened is that Riddle exposed Ward and Ward didn’t like it, so Ward pulled from a contributor for Riddle’s most recent book, “Satan’s Bible,” or something like that, speaking of the critical text (see comment section). This is the meanness or niceness argument being utilized. Riddle had already taken a preemptive strike with “toxic review,” speaking of Ward’s use of toxic to describe the book.
Can we just debate and stop bringing up who is nice and who is mean? Both sides will say things the other does not like. In my recent writing, I mentioned that Ward made a mocking argument, using tone and facial expressions and giggling type glee. He did. It’s easy to see in the video. He won’t admit it, because he can’t cede that high ground he believes he has based on his own judgment of himself. Then I came out and called him on that and I said he put his foot in his mouth. I said it was a dumb argument for a PhD. I am debating on an equal rhetorical plane as Mark Ward. James White and Mark Ward won’t admit it, but it’s just true.
Ward often mentions how gracious he is. He does that at least as much as he says how mean the other side is. People on our side have not talked about this (that I know of), but Ward uses straw men. He misrepresents positions. He employs ad hominem. When his position is answered, he talks his way out of admitting it. He very often won’t concede when he gets it wrong or the other side is right. When he does concede, it’s difficult to tell. It doesn’t sound like he conceded on important points.
At one point, Ward said that the NKJV came from an identical text as the text behind the KJV. I showed him five places. He tried to explain them away. I gave him five more. He did the same. I gave him five more. He did the same. He finally conceded, but not to the point that he made originally. When I gave the first five, that should have ended the discussion, and for sure after the second five. Why didn’t it? I think he thought I would shortly run out of examples and he could explain it away. However, he just couldn’t concede. He changed the rules right in the middle of the discussion. This is Mark Ward, ladies and gentleman, the very, very nice man by his own admission. If I told him he wasn’t nice, I know we would have started a not-niceathon, trying to top the other in who was less or more nice. You could picture two jr. high girls.
Living in Utah right now, a normal, every occasion argument from LDS is the sameness between historical, biblical Christians and LDS. They try to take that posture right away. They will treat me like we’re the same. Half of them get offended by refuting the sameness. I find critical text the same. Critical text men want the other side to say that they too believe in the preservation of scripture. They too hold an orthodox position. Both sides should agree to disagree. Can we instead say that we don’t agree and that both positions are not the same? We really do believe they are attacking a true doctrine of scripture that is important. That doesn’t mean we don’t like them. We just disagree with them and believe that for God we need to oppose what they’re saying.
When I bring up the style and tone of Ward, I don’t do it for the same reason as White and Ward do. I do it, because I wish they would stop bringing it up. We both use tone and style in disagreement that the other side doesn’t like. I wish there was a moratorium on mentioning it. Just leave it alone and continue the debate. I don’t expect it though. It works well to their audience. Maybe it’s a replacement for real persecution for men who don’t face actual persecution.
I have an opinion about the criticism of meanness or lack of niceness. It is in the realm of ‘gird up your loins, like a man,’ something God said to Job twice. This is a battle and both sides just should put on their big boy pads and expect contact.
Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (Part One)
My last post of last week, the shell game with Bible words, if you followed the links, referred to a session Mark Ward did at Bob Jones Seminary, where he did refer to Thomas Ross and myself. Someone sent that to me, and in my path to watching it, I became curious in another of his videos. I’ll deal with both here. One I essentially agreed with, and the other, no.
******************
Chronologically, Mark Ward first made a podcast from his greenhouse about attending an IFB meeting close to where he lived. An IFB pastor invited him because R. B. Ouellette was going to preach on the King James issue. He didn’t say which church this was. It was surely revivalist in the Hyles/Sword realm. Ward started out ready to deal with KJVOnlyism, but it turned into something else. Here’s the podcast.
Ward traveled to a special meeting at a revivalist IFB church to interact with KJVO. Based upon a heads-up from its pastor, he expected something promoting KJVO. Ward reported much he liked about the service all the way up to the Ouellette sermon. Ouellette opened to Job 31:35-36 to defend KJVO. A plain reading of Job 31 does not appear to do that.
Ward and Ouellette both graduated from Bob Jones University. In his criticism, Ward distinguished between using the Bible for what a man wants to say and preaching what the Bible does say. By his account, Ouellette did the former. He was not a herald, who delivers the Word of the King. Ward titled his podcast, “The Biggest Step the IFB Needs to Take.” He treats IFB with generosity, more than what I would. Instead of the KJVO issue, he found a “preaching” one instead.
YES
Bad Preaching
I wrote, “Yes,” in this title. I agree with the criticism of this typical, popular IFB preaching. If IFB apparently cares for the perfection of its Bible, then preach the Bible. Its leaders very often preach like Ward described. He reported loud “Amens” shouted all around, which supported a message that twisted the Word of God. Ward exposed a reason for someone to separate from IFB churches and men. I say “Yes” to Ward. I agree with him.
What causes a man to preach like Ouellette? It’s not that he is unable to preach the Bible. Why would he settle for something entirely not what the passage says? Underlying doctrinal problems exist especially regarding the Holy Spirit. Keswick theology, second blessing theology, or revivalism, all similar error but with a nuance of difference, affect preaching.
Many IFB believe the preacher becomes a vessel for a message from the Holy Spirit. They believe that through the Holy Spirit God gives the preacher something others can’t even see in a text. This is called “preaching.” God uses “preaching,” but by that they don’t mean the Bible. The Bible is used, but the preaching is something unique. They trust the man of God has been given something they haven’t ever seen and can’t see.
However, I dispute preaching as the biggest step for IFB. It isn’t the “I” (independent) or the “B” (Baptist) in IFB that’s the problem. “F” for Fundamentalism is at the root of the problem. Actual preaching of the Bible isn’t a fundamental of fundamentalism. In general, IFB does not confront bad preaching. It allows it and even encourages it. If someone spiritualizes or allegorizes a passage and reads something into a text, it doesn’t bring condemnation. However, the biggest step for fundamentalism isn’t its preaching.
False Gospel
Fundamentalism is rife with a corrupted gospel. Ward commended the evangelism of IFB. What is the evangelism of IFB? Look all over the internet at the gospel presentations. Most IFB removes biblical repentance and the Lordship of Christ. Let’s say Ouellette rejected KJVO and started using the ESV, or even just the NKJV. Would he become acceptable to Ward, reaching his primary goal? Ouellette argues against repentance as necessary for salvation (I write here, here, and here). When you read doctrinal statements and the plans of salvation of those churches most associated with Ouellette, they’re the same.
A few years ago, James White participated in an interview with Steven Anderson. In White’s many criticisms of Anderson, he never mentions his false gospel. Anderson hosts an anti-repentance website. Anderson is worse than Ouellette, but both fall short of a biblical gospel. As White ignores Anderson’s gospel, Ward does Ouellette’s. This diverges from the often stated emphasis of evangelicals, the gospel of first importance. The version issue stokes greater heat than the gospel does.
Some IFB churches preach a true gospel even as some preach biblical sermons. Yet, a false gospel subverts IFB unrelated to the version of the Bible it uses. Years ago IFB allowed and even promoted the introduction and then acceptance of a false doctrine of salvation. I am happy Ward noticed the bad preaching of Ouellette, but his focus harms his ability to see the biggest IFB problem. Ward doesn’t mention the wrong gospel.
Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar
In conjunction with the Christian and classical Latin college course discussed here, I am working my way through Dr. Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020). (Learn how you can make charitable donations at Amazon.com when you buy books there by clicking here, and learn here how to save money on Internet purchases in general.)
Dr. Cooper and Zondervan were kind enough to supply me with a complementary review copy of his grammar, as well as of his Dr. Cooper’s video lectures on his grammar:
although, with CDs going the way of the dinosaurs, I had to find a way to get the material off the CDs and believe that I will find the videos of his lectures on Logos Bible Software much more user-friendly. (You can also purchase his book on Logos–I got it there as well as utilizing the physical copy he supplied to me.) There was no compulsion or pressure at all to write a positive review in exchange for a copy of his book.
Positives about Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
First, Derek Cooper knows Latin well. He is associate dean of the faculty and associate professor of global Christianity at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is also managing director of Thomas Institute. A long-term foreign language instructor, he has taught Latin, Spanish, and Biblical Greek. Dr. Cooper is the author of many books, and has offered professional Latin translations for the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, the Martin Luther Handwriting Font Book, and is the translator of Philip Melanchthon’s Commentary on Proverbs. I was looking forward to meeting Dr. Cooper as part of a faculty tour of Greece with Tuktu Tours, but that tour, unfortunately, got cancelled because of COVID. (By the way, Tuktu Tours does a great job getting extremely knowledgable scholars to lead their tours. We have done faculty tours of Egypt and Turkey with them, and they were excellent. If you want to visit Bible lands, you would do well to go with Tuktu. Lord wiling, I will get posted on the KJB1611 YouTube channel relatively soon videos from Dr. James Hoffmeier, our tour guide in Egypt and a leading evangelical Egyptologist, discussing a variety of fascinating things relating to the intersection of Israelite and Egyptian history that he kindly allowed us to record during our tour of Egypt with him.) So Cooper’s grammar is written by someone who knows what he is talking about.
Second, the grammar covers the Latin of Christendom–which is what interests me in the Latin language. It is fine to be able to read Virgil in Latin, but I am interested in Latin as the language of Christendom for most of Christian history, as the language of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate Bibles, of John Owen and Augustine of Hippo, of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, of the confessions of the Reformation and the polemics of Tertullian. In addition to focusing on the Latin of professing Christianity, I appreciate that he does not limit himself to Catholic Latin. A work like John Collins’ A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985) will cover the Latin of the Vulgate, of the patristic writers or so-called “Church Fathers,” and of the Roman Catholic medieval tradition, but Reformation and post-Reformation Latin is excluded. Cooper certainly does not exclude Catholic authors, but neither does he exclude Protestants who rightly identify the Roman Catholic “Church” as the Whore of Babylon associated with the Antichrist.
Third, all of Cooper’s exercises are from actual Latin writers; he does not include made-up sentences to learn Latin. This is a great way of doing things, and it copies the method that William Mounce uses in his Basics of Biblical Greek, where all the exercises are from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Koine sources, instead of being made up.
Fourth, Cooper’s Latin text is appealing in its formatting. Zondervan has done a good job making the book look nice. The exercises, with an answer key, are included in the volume. Useful chapter summaries are included. The book is well laid out and a pleasure to read.
Fifth, Cooper’s lessons begin with an interesting historical notice illustrating the Latin to be learned in that chapter and ends with a Latin prayer. The historical information keeps students’ interest as they work through the book.
In summary, there is much to commend in Dr. Cooper’s Latin grammar.
Areas to Improve Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
There is only one major area of improvement I would suggest for Dr. Cooper’s Latin Grammar. There are not nearly enough exercises after each lesson to actually learn the Latin in the chapter. The exercises that are present are from actual Latin sources and are very interesting, but there simply are not nearly enough of them. As a comparison, in the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series, which I am working through in conjunction with Dr. Cooper’s grammar, chapter 12 discusses 3rd declension adjectives and 4th declension nouns. There are 23 sets of exercises (combining the exercises in the textbook and the exercises in Exercitia Latina I), each exercise generally having ten or more questions. One is in no danger of not having enough exercises–it may not be necessary to complete them all, but if you do complete them all, you will actually know the new grammatical material in the lesson of the Lingua Latina series. By way of contrast, there are only fifteen questions, total–three groups of five–to learn the material in chapter 12 of Cooper’s grammar. The exercises are interesting ones connected to extant historical Latin sources–that is great. But there simply are not nearly enough of them to actually learn the Latin.
An experienced Latin teacher could use Dr. Cooper’s Basics of Latin as a stand-alone text only if he supplied many exercises of his own to supplement those contained in the grammar. Perhaps a genius linguist could learn Latin from Cooper’s grammar on its own, but for the rest of us, it would simply not be possible. Thus, unfortunately, despite is many positive qualities, I cannot recommend Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition as a stand-alone Latin textbook, at least unless Dr. Cooper writes a supplementary workbook or in some other way provides students with a lot more exercises.
However, I do recommend, and recommend highly, utilizing Cooper’s grammar as a supplementary text to those who are actually learning Latin some other way. For example, one could (as I am doing) actually learn Latin grammar from the Lingua Latina series and then use Cooper’s grammar to review grammatical material already learned, with Cooper also serving as a transitional text from the classical Latin of the Lingua Latina series to the Latin of Christendom. For those who are actually interested in Christian Latin, the interesting historical material spanning the millennia of the use of the Latin language in Cooper’s grammar is interesting and motivating. Reading Cooper is a motivating reward for working through the material in the classical Latin textbook.
Concluding summary: my view of Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
So, in light of all of the above, how would I view Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition? As a supplementary text to Latin grammar learned through another method, I recommend Cooper highly. As a stand-alone text to learning Christian Latin, I cannot recommend it, because it does not include enough exercises.
–TDR
Note: Links to Cooper’s grammar at Amazon are affiliate links.
LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists
The visions or revelations of Joseph Smith came about in America at a time in this country when many others were receiving their own visions or revelations, paving the way for Smith’s and the acceptance of his by others. The United States was a land of equality, equal opportunity, and populism. It despised a king and state religion. It liked, loved really, democratic society, where everyone’s voice was heard, and it was, therefore, acceptable to get your own personal revelation from God as a part of your personal relationship with God. That spirit is still very alive in America. Americans distrust their own institutions and this is woven into the fabric of being an American. That includes the institution of the church.
In early nineteenth century, especially on the frontier, people operated in many unconventional ways, depending on superstitions in medicine, farming, and predicting the weather. It was not unusual to use dowsing to find water with a special, forked stick. People could see signs everywhere, giving them guidance from above or within. Snake oil salesman got their name in this era, literally selling snake oil, promising cures to almost anything, circumventing the conventional manner of tending to one’s health.
Joseph Smith was 14 years of age when he had his first vision or revelation from God, and the Smiths, Joseph Smith Sr. and mom, Lucy, weren’t members of a church. Joseph Jr. didn’t come up with the idea of getting visions. It was a thing to have. Only special people had them.
The Smiths couldn’t find a church they liked or agreed with, were still looking, and then Joseph ‘heard from God’ that there was no true church to join. Convenient. Churches have set beliefs and if you are a rank and file non-clergy, you might disagree, your opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and you don’t have a means of having your own in those situations. You might not want the church doctrines and practices imposed on you and also their financial obligations. You want a church where perhaps everyone could share, like is seen in the first church in Jerusalem in Acts chapters 2 and 5. That’s what churches should do, accept your way and then take care of you with little expectation.
On top of everything above, even though there was freedom, it was tough to navigate the new world, especially if you were not born into wealth, grinding it out to earn a living. Many made it through subsistence farming, sometimes succeeding, perhaps enough to invest in a cockamamie get-rich-quick scheme, lose everything and start over again. People still are very allured by the suggestion of some easier path to success, willing to subject themselves to whatever comes along that promises to work better, reinventing the wheel.
Joseph Smith lived in an environment, a culture, that someone could believe that God was talking to him directly. All of the new, astounding doctrines and practices of LDS came by this manner, contradicting doctrines and practices hitherto already established in the history of Christianity: the preexistence of human souls or spirits, God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood, celestial marriage, polygamy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same being, God organized the world but did not create it from nothing, and proxy baptism for dead people. It was also revealed to him through a story that all of these beliefs were the original truth that had been lost and buried for 1400 years. On many occasions, Joseph Smith and then other Mormon leaders received revelations at a time that fit whatever it was they needed to hear from God to make a pronouncement to deal with that situation.
Matthew Bowman writes in The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (pp. 10-12):
The Smiths had unwittingly moved into an ideal location for a family with unresolved spiritual yearnings, the center of what one historian has called “the antebellum spiritual hothouse” and another “the burned-over district.” . . . . The optimism, instability, and freedom of the New York frontier were life’s blood to the eclecticism and experimentation always to be found at the margins of mainstream Christianity. The Shakers, for instance, so named for their physical worship services, had fled to America from a disapproving Britain under the leadership of Ann Lee, whom they believe to be Christ reincarnated. In the United States, they found fertile ground for both converts and settlement, and in 1826 they established a colony less than thirty miles from Palmyra. . . . North of Albany, the farmer William Miller sat by the fire in his home in Low Hampton, New York, feverishly working out the precise date of the Second Coming from the book of Daniel for his thousands of followers, who were convinced that they needed no trained pastors to interpret scripture for them.
But the Smiths had always been drawn — particularly Lucy — not to such visionaries but to the more mainstream ecstasies of evangelical revivalism. The force behind revivalism was the Methodists, who . . . urged potential converts to embrace Christ in a personal divine encounter. At Methodist camp meetings, itinerant preachers, though frequently uneducated and even unlettered, learned how to muse the Holy Spirit among their listeners. Between rousing and sometimes raucous gospel hymns, they offered not prepared sermon on doctrinal topics but emotional appeals, promising forgiveness, warning of hell, reaching their hands to the heavens, and pleading with the crowd to leave sin behind and walk forward to be saved in the arms of Christ. . . . “Men are so spiritually sluggish,” declared Charles Grandison Finney, the great revivalist of the age, “that they must be so excited that they will break over their countervailing influences before they will obey God.” Finney’s talents shone in a month-long revival in 1830-31 in Rochester, a few miles from Palmyra, in which he converted hundreds. . . .
The sort of spiritual manifestations the Smith family had already experienced were not new to most revivalists. Portentous dreams were common particularly among itinerant Methodist preachers, as were the type of healings and providential manifestations Lucy had experienced. . . .
It was in this atmosphere that Joseph Jr., then a young teenager, began thinking about religion.
The ecstasies and visions of revivalism were the seedbed or hothouse for Joseph Smith and the new religion. What makes this acceptable? Some might say, because what they revealed was not false. I don’t know that they can say, that what they’re saying is in fact true. How do you know it’s true, if it is? Someone could say, it’s scriptural. Well, then you don’t need a vision or a revelation from God. It’s already in the Bible. If cannot be proven to be false, then it is an acceptable vision or revelation.
If someone can hear revelations from God, how do those differentiate from scripture? If they are from God, that is equal to scripture. One cannot accept visions and revelations as from God. That opens up Pandora’s box. It’s not acceptable. And yet it is today. You really can’t question it. You’ve got to accept whatever version of it. How does a LDS today distinguish evangelical visions from their LDS ones? It really just buttresses the point of Mormon visions and revelations, that God is still talking to men. He’s still talking to Mormons.
LDS do not have a kind of closed canon of scripture. They have their continued visions, their continued revelations, even if they don’t like the LDS teachings, which many LDS has a problem with, and with their prophets. What has pushed LDS along is their continued revelations. I had a long talk last Saturday to an LDS man, coming out of the garage of his big house, a CEO of a small software company, and he disconnects from LDS doctrine, but he’s got his own testimony, his own experience, his own way of connecting with God, so he can pick and choose. LDS is fine with that. They encourage it. They might call it “the burning in the bosom.” Before Joseph Smith got his first vision, he prayed James 1:5, and that’s become the pattern of LDS since then.
I estimate that a majority of Baptists still get direct messages from God. They call it different things, but these impressions are authoritative, nonetheless, very often for some of the major decisions of their lives. When they give testimony to the important decisions, they don’t say, it was scriptural, my church was fine with it, so I had the liberty to do it, so I did. They say, I knew, God told me. Sometimes God also told the spouse, as a validation. Both knew. Both heard.
The one who questions the experience is the one who says he’s in authority, he’s a king, taking away from the egalitarian nature of receiving visions. Some kind of exegesis of an authoritative book is not sufficient for a genuine Christian experience. Obviously there are contradictions, because many have been excommunicated for contradicting the vision of someone in authority, Smith or Brigham Young. The acceptance of a democratic community fine with your receiving your vision or revelation is the level playing field. Revelations aren’t just for the elite few, but for anyone. This is the “antebellum spiritual hothouse” that we still live in.
The Circularity and Wholeness of the Beatitudes As a New Covenant Corollary to God’s Law
God is One and His Law Is One. One could say the Old Covenant is One. The New Covenant doesn’t differ than the Old Covenant. It is a corollary to it, so in the same way the Law is circular and whole, the Beatitudes of Jesus are.
The New Covenant assumes that man has broken the Old Covenant. Is he now hopeless? Is God’s purpose for man now permanently ruined? When God went to find Adam and Eve in the Garden, He introduced the New Covenant to them as the only pathway forward.
While Jesus’ ministered on earth, His audience tried to force the Old Covenant into something it could not do without the New Covenant. Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it through the New Covenant. He starts the Sermon on the Mount with the New Covenant enablement of Old Covenant success. Blessing can come as promised in the Old Covenant, but first, poor in spirit.
Just like the first commandment and the tenth commandment mirror each other, the first and the eighth of the Beatitudes do. The first, poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven, and the eighth, they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The first four and the second four come at the New Covenant from two very important different directions. The first four are the front end of the New Covenant and the second four are the back end of it.
The front end is not works, but grace alone. The back end exposes what the first four were necessary to produce. If someone starts from the back, he is led to the front. If someone starts with the front, he receives the back. If someone is not persecuted for righteousness’ sake, he is not poor in spirit. If someone is poor in spirit, he will be persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The truly persecuted are because they are poor in spirit and theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
When someone sees he’s not persecuted, not peacemaking, not pure in heart, and not merciful, he recognizes his poverty of spirit, he mourns over his sin, subjugates his will to God in meekness, and hungers and thirsts after righteousness. The Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day were justifying themselves, unlike the tax collector in Luke 18:13, who didn’t tout his own righteousness, but in poverty of spirit cried out, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner. They reasoned that they could justify themselves by ignoring the weightier matters of the law, the ones so heavy, so difficult, that they were impossible to keep. Someone could keep trying to keep them with his heart of stone, but never succeed.
You’re not saved by being merciful, but only those poor in spirit, mourn, meek, and hunger and thirst after righteousness can and will be merciful. Don’t think that you will obtain mercy without being merciful, but don’t think they you’ll be merciful until you take the path through the first four of the beatitudes of Jesus.
To receive the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus His Lord, the Apostle Paul must count all his own law keeping efforts as dung or as loss (Philippians 3). He sees, I’m not merciful, I’m not pure in heart, I’m not peacemaking, and I’m not being persecuted, but I’m a persecutor, so he becomes poor in spirit. He has no confidence in his flesh, so now he rejoices in Christ Jesus. The Old Covenant did its proper job and then the New Covenant did its. You can start at the front or the back, just like with the ten commandments. They are all interrelated, just like God Himself is one.
James said that God gives grace to the humble, those who humbly submit themselves to God. Those who do won’t be praying to consume it upon their own lust and they won’t go presumptiously into a business endeavor, ignoring the good that God wants them to do in His will. In humility they are submitting themselves to the God of grace, who enables them to pray in His will and live in His will.
When you receive the grace to be saved, you are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, righteousness that you hungered and thirsted after, because you knew you were without it. You were poor. The pure in heart see God, but that comforting purity will never come to you without you mourning over the impurity, not just external impurity, but the impurity of conscience that true salvation cleanses. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. The Apostle Paul was impressive before religious leaders before his conversion, but he knew that was not true before God. The Lord Jesus provided that for him, not righteousness obtained by works, but by the faith of Christ.
What Is Worldly Worship?
At least twenty years ago, from scripture I came to the following as a definition of worship. It is my definition, but I believe it reflects what the Bible says. “Worship is acknowledging or recognizing God for Who He is according to His Word and giving Him what He says that He wants.” If I were going to add a secondary important aspect, “worship necessitates coming to the right God and in the right way.” You aren’t worshiping God if He isn’t actually God and then you’re not worshiping Him if you are doing it your way. God doesn’t accept just anything.
I googled the two terms “worldly worship” and it produced 12,300 results. Those were not all articles written by me, although I found I had used that terminology in some online writings. It is a known concept though, worship that is worldly that is not acceptable to God, which is of the nature of the world system and not the nature of God. I went ahead and googled “syncretistic worship” too, because I think it’s a related concept. That showed up 6,060 times.
Syncretize means: to “attempt to amalgamate or reconcile (differing things, especially religious beliefs, cultural elements, or schools of thought).” When referring to syncretism in worship, many have pointed to the practice in Israel of bringing aspects of the worship of paganism into the worship of God, mixing the two. Many examples of syncretism are seen in the nation Israel (Exodus 32:1-8; Leviticus 10:1-7; Deuteronomy 12:30-31; 1 Kings 3:5-10; etc.). The way Israel syncretized is not the only way to syncretize. Mixing something impure with purity makes it impure.
Speaking of worship, Paul commands, “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). Because God accepts only holy worship, not profane, then it can’t be conformed to this world system, the spirit of the age. Obviously, everything we do occurs in this world or on this planet, on earth. The world system clashes with God. It is represented by darkness and all the characteristics described in scripture as seen in many places, one of which as an example is James 3:15: “earthly, sensual, and devilish.” There are many more. One should assume that all of these can be understood and applied.
The world is attractive to sinful flesh. Satan shapes the world system to lure people away from God. Because the world is a lure, it also works when a church uses it. Satan designs it as a lure and if a church takes that lure and uses it, it’s still a lure. That’s the temptation of using anything worldly.
Varied aspects of this world are filled with meaning. Many of those meanings are not congruent with God. One should even expect that they are not. Whatever it is that will please God has already been around. One should question any new style or method, especially that has proceeded from worldly lust, which Titus 2:11-12 says that the grace of God teaches us to deny. I contend that rather than denying worldly lust, most churches today promote it. They might argue that this new way is neutral, neither good or bad. God’s people didn’t originate it, actually rejected it, and then after a period of time, accepted it, then used it, arguing now that God also wants it.
Someone may ask, what basis do I have that churches are using worldly music? I haven’t been in all these churches, so how do I know? Not only have I been all over the country, but I’ve looked at websites of churches all over. I know enough.
Every church and their leaders should want accountability as to whether they are using worldly worship. They should look for constructive criticism. People are deceived in many different ways as they relate to God. The broad road to destruction has many religious people on it. When I read the materials of the church growth movement used as a model for thousands of churches, they encourage worldly worship as means of church growth.
God doesn’t accept worldly worship, so why would churches still do it? Why would Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire to the Lord? I would contend that the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu is a lesser perversion of worship than most worldly worship, and God killed them for offering it. They were still offering incense. They just changed the recipe. They offered something God didn’t say that He didn’t like. They offered something different than what God said He wanted. It seems that Nadab and Abihu just didn’t take God seriously, what could be called, not fearing God. We know what they did was bad and wrong and sinful, but it was still not something that God had said was wrong.
Worldly worship we know God doesn’t want. There are two obvious motives for giving God something He doesn’t want, and they are seen in scripture. First, the one offering it likes it. This is the serving the creature of Romans 1. He’s not really even giving to God as much as he’s doing something for himself that he likes. I’ve seen this again and again in churches I’ve visited. It can happen anywhere. Second, other people will like it too, so it will make the church more popular. The people wanting that worship don’t like what God likes, but they either convince themselves or are just deceived into thinking that God will accept it. A third reason is deceit. The feeling the worldliness causes often is mistaken for a spiritual experience.
Worldly worship parallels with a worldly life. The world offers what the flesh desires. There were times in church history that a wide chasm existed between the worship of the Lord in the churches and the world. That gap has shrunk to where there isn’t much difference. It’s worse that that. The churches like the world and they expect God to like it too. It shows an amazing lack of understanding of God and what He wants.
As you have read this, reader, perhaps you wanted to know more specifics. “Give me a specific of worldly worship.” I could say, using the world’s music in worship. To get more specific, I could go further, using rock music in worship. There are many other specific examples. It’s better to start with the principles for discerning what is worldly and that God doesn’t want something worldly.
To accommodate worldliness, I have heard evangelicals give a very narrow understanding of worldliness as internal only, that nothing external is worldly. However, Paul wrote, “Be not conformed to this world.” There is internal worldliness, the love of the world in the heart, but conforming by definition must be external. God doesn’t want something we can see and hear is worldly. He rejects it.
Psalms 14 and 19 in Preaching the Gospel
How could someone read Psalm 14 and think that salvation is by works? Read verses 1-4:
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
I ask you to consider how conclusive these verses are. They are speaking about everyone, anyone who has ever lived. The LORD is looking down from heaven, and He doesn’t miss anything. He says that every person is corrupt, has done abominable works, does not good, does not seek God, has gone aside, and is filthy. He does all these things and then he does not call upon the name of the Lord. He is helpless to live a righteous life and yet he still does not call upon the name of the Lord, whom he needs so that he can be righteous. He’s not depending on God, because he’s proud.
Men can’t save themselves. It’s not just that they’re sinners, but they could never sustain a righteous life by doing good works. They do not do good works. This is reality for mankind. God knows this better than anyone. Whatever a man may say about himself, these verses are the truth. A person is lying to himself if he thinks he can be saved by works. He’ll never succeed, because this psalm is who he is.
The Apostle Paul refers to this psalm in Romans 3 with his treatise on sinfulness of man. Many of you reading know that it says this in verses 10-12:
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Then you also know that he writes the following in verse 23:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
And from that a man should conclude according to verse 28:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The point of that argument by Paul is so that men will submit to justification by faith alone and not by works. If you can’t do good works and you aren’t righteous, then you can’t be saved by works. You should conclude that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works. You should believe in Jesus Christ to receive His righteousness by faith, which is to have His righteousness imputed to you and the forgiveness of your sins.
Psalm 14 is quite a psalm to be singing. This is a song to be sung to God expressing the truth of man’s sinfulness. God wants to hear that men agree. He’s praised by this truth. It assumes that men need God.
The Old Testament doesn’t teach salvation by works. It teaches that men are sinners and they need God for forgiveness of sins and righteousness.
What about Psalm 19? It says that from God’s creation alone men know God. These are statements of reality. God knows. He says:
Verse 1a: The heavens declare the glory of God.
Verse 1b: The firmament showeth his handiwork.
Verse 2a: Day unto day uttereth speech.
Verse 2b: Night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Verse 3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Verse 4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
All of these are sheer statements of fact. They also state the truth of what man knows. From the standpoint of knowledge, he is without excuse. Everyone living in this world knows God through the declaration of the heavens — the handiwork of the firmament, the speech uttered by the day, and the knowledge shown through the night. The day speaks through the sun, as seen in verses 4-6:
4 In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
“Them” in verse 4 refers to “heavens” in verse 1. The word “their” all the way through (vv. 3, 4) refers to “heavens.” Poetic language describes how the heavens talk, specifically through the sun. The heavens during the day are a tabernacle for the sun, which shows itself in all the helpful, beautiful, and awesome ways explained.
A beauty of the revelation of the heavens is that it transcends a particular speech. It can be heard in every speech, every language. An Italian, Russian, Hispanic, or English person hears the voice of the heavens from God without exception of place. This speech goes out to the whole earth and to the end of the world.
When we evangelize, we should learn to use and then use creation as a basis of introducing the God of the Bible to an unbeliever. He already knows. This revelation has reached him. We should assume that. People that haven’t even read the Bible, which are more than ever, still know God and through His creation, the heavens.
Furthermore, scripture, also the revelation of God, called “the law of the LORD,” “converts the soul” (verse 7). For salvation, the soul needs to be converted. It is stained and corrupted by sin.
James 1:25 calls the law, “the perfect law.” The idea of “perfect” isn’t contrasting with “imperfect,” but with “incompletion.” The law of the LORD is complete or sufficient. It lacks nothing, it has everything in it that anyone would need. Conversion of the soul is the total transformation of it.
The first designation of the Word of God in Psalm 19 is the law of the LORD. The usage of that term refers to all of the Word of God, not just the first five books of the Bible or just the parts that are laws. The Hebrew word for “law, torah, means instruction, direction, or doctrine. It reminds me of 2 Timothy 3:15, which says that the “holy scriptures,” referring to the Old Testament, are able to make a child wise unto salvation.
The LORD’s law instructs man sufficiently for his soul to be converted, which is to be restored. It has been ruined by sin and it can be restored to moral rightness before God. It makes sense that the “law of the LORD” isn’t just the Mosaic law, which in itself wouldn’t convert the soul, even though it has an important part according to the Apostle Paul, who in Galatians (3:24-25) says it is a schoolmaster to bring someone to faith in Christ. The instruction of the LORD, which is His Word, is powerful to save, specifically the Gospel (Romans 1:16).
Psalm 19 says that salvation is the conversion of the soul. In the Old Testament, the soul is nephesh and in the New Testament, psuche. Jesus said (Luke 9:24) that to save one’s life (psuche, soul), someone must lose his life (psuche, soul). He’s got to give up his soul. He gives it to God and God restores it using scripture. This is the sanctification of the truth, the Word of God, that God uses in salvation. The conversion of the soul is the transformation of a life, where the person becomes a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Peter calls this the knowledge of Jesus Christ through which someone becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:2-4). After the conversion of the soul, the sinner has a new nature, a divine nature, and is returned morally to the image in which God created him. He now has the ability not to sin.
Someone might consider the teachings of Psalms 14 and 19 to be New Testament concepts. No, they are biblical concepts of salvation, which is the same in the Old Testament as it is in the New. They can be used in preaching the gospel.
KJV margin vs Ruckmanisim
The original edition of the King James Bible had marginal notes (see the replica of the original 1611 in the Bibliology section here). These marginal notes, which are still reprinted in the Trinitarian Bible Society and Cambridge printings of the KJV, as well as being available in electronic versions such as for Accordance Bible Software, reject the Ruckmanite ideas that the KJV is superior to the original language text, that study of Greek and Hebrew should not be undertaken, and similar foolishness. For example:
The note on Matthew 5:15 contains the phrase: “the word in the original signifieth.” Oops, I thought you weren’t supposed to look at the original. See also Mark 4:21, etc.
The note on Mark 7:4 reads: “in the Original, with the fist,” supplying information that one would not readily understand by just looking at the English text. This is a no-no with Ruckmanites.
The note on Mark 13:8 reads: “The word in the original, importeth, the pains of a woman in travail,” again supplying additional information not obvious from the English text alone.
There are numbers of other notes like this. If you are a real King James Bible 1611 person, then you need to be in favor of studying Greek and Hebrew and helping the saints understand God’s Word better by referring to the original languages. If you are against study and reference to the original languages, you are not a 1611 KJV person. You may be a Ruckman2000, but you are not a KJV1611.
–TR
Recent Comments