The Essence of the Bondage Mentality or Worldview, Witnessed in Old Testament Israel and Reflected in the Democrat Party in the United States
The Israelites lived in bondage in Egypt. In this bondage, they ate a preferred variety of food without a threat of immediate death. If they went along, they could go along. However, God wanted Israel to leave the bondage of Egypt to the liberty of the land that He would give them. He raised up and then used Moses and Aaron to lead them out. God also hardened Pharoah’s heart to do his will. The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 9:17-18:
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Deuteronomy 4:20 communicates a similar purpose: “But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.” A very short while after Israel left Egypt, the people wanted back in Egypt in bondage. They could escape Egypt, but they could not escape their bondage mentality or worldview. They wanted back in bondage as seen in many passages in the Old Testament. Reacting to lesser food, they said (Numbers 11:1-7):
1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
Israel said in Numbers 20:5, “And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” They spoke another version in Numbers 21:5, “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.” They would rather stay in bondage, because liberty meant manna, while bondage apparently brought fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick.
A second group of passages repeat the words, “die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14, Numbers 21, 26), as in Exodus 14:11-12:
11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
If the people of Israel trusted God, would they die in the wilderness? It seemed like it to them. They made decisions based on this worldview or mentality. You might call the bondage mindsight also a crybaby one, because everytime Israel chose bondage, they cried or complained like a baby to God.
Also reflecting the bondage or crybaby worldview or mentality was Israel’s desire for a king. God warned against having a king. 1 Samuel 8:1-18 (click to see this passage, while reading here) records what God thinks. Israel expressed the desire in verse 5: “And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their bondage mentality or worldview guided their desire. It displeased the Lord (verses 6-8) and it still does.
Thomas Ross writes about 1 Samuel 8 and chronicles the given reasons God opposes the bondage worldview, what he calls “big government” mentality. He exposes the following arguments:
- Loss of freedom of association (verses 10-13)
- Loss of freedom in a military draft (verses 11-12) [in contrast to God’s will, Deuteronomy 20:1-9]
- Loss of freedom of occupation (verses 11-13)
- Weakening of the private sector for the public sector (verses 11-13)
- Loss of Freedom of Property (verses 14-16)
- Loss of freedom and protection for physical property through “redistribution” (verse 14)
- Loss of freedom and protection for growth in wealth and income through 10% taxation (verse 15)
- Loss of freedom and protection for human “property” (verse 16)
In the end, Israel would regret its bondage or crybaby mentality or worldview (verse 18). Thomas Ross lists reasons in the text for taking this false view of the world:
- Rejection of the Word of God (verse 19)
- A Desire to Follow the Ungodly (verse 20a)
- Abdication of Responsibility (verse 20b)
- Faithlessness (verse 20a and c)
When Israel finally went into captivity, Israel also wanted to stay, similarly to returning to Egypt. Daniel begrudges this and God prophesies the chastisement (Daniel 9-12).
The Democrat Party of the United States reflects the bondage and crybaby mentality. I call it bondage rather than slave even though the latter works, if expounded. The Bible says everyone is a slave, either to righteousness or unrighteousness, so it seems unescapable. The Democrats keep people in bondage to government, which is bondage to unrighteousness according to God. Slavery to God isn’t bondage, but liberty. With liberty comes responsibility.
Going back to Egypt meant dependence on Egypt. Israel could rest in the world system, following along with its ways, never breaking from its position or direction. The Democrats sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They encourage everyone to live a temporal life.
Late in his life, Booker T. Washington visited Washington DC from Tuskegee and on his way, he witnessed and then criticized African Americans for moving to and crowding near Washington DC to obtain their means to live. This became Booker T. Washington’s debate with socialist African American leader W.E.B. Dubois, offering different trajectories for the future. Dubois’s view won out. This became the strategy of the Democrat Party, especially represented by Woodrow Wilson and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Victor David Hansen on June 29 wrote a piece titled “The Cry Baby Leftist Mind.” This agrees with what I’m writing here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade brought out further crying. What will women do now? How will they survive? Democrat California says, “We will pay for your abortion.” Even Republican governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota reacts by saying, “We must do what we can to help women in crisis,” as a beginning comment. She further said, “We will continue helping women navigate pregnancies they did not plan.” That is better than paying for the abortion, but it panders to a bondage and crybaby mindset.
God does not approve of the bondage and crybaby mindset. It will not succeed in a nation. People will not be better. They will be worse. Let us oppose it together.
Videos on How to Lead an Evangelistic Bible Study
Numbers of churches have found the evangelistic Bible study series here helpful in their practice of Biblical evangelism. If you have never led someone else through an evangelistic Bible study, the link above provides an example a lost person can watch that could also be helpful for a believer in learning how to do them. A series of videos on how to teach these Bible studies is also going up on YouTube. Study #1 on the nature of God’s revelation in the Bible, study #2 on the nature of the Triune God, and study #3, on God’s law and sin’s consequences, now all have extensive exposition, and study #4, on the gospel, namely, on Christ’s redemptive death, burial, and resurrection, is in progress. Lord willing, when they are complete they will provide as much helpful teaching as a solid college class on Biblical evangelism.
Watch the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study by clicking here.
Of course, a fantastic way to learn to do an evangelistic Bible study is to go with your pastor or other experienced soulwinner to regularly preach the gospel, and learn how to do an evangelistic Bible study from that knowledgeable person in your church. Watching the videos above may supplement, but cannot replace, faithful evangelism in a faithful local independent Baptist church.
–TDR
A Movement Back to the Scriptural and Historical Belief of the Means of the Preservation of Scripture and God’s Sovereignty over His Written Words
In 2003 our church published, Thou Shalt Keep Them, a Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (if you prefer Amazon, then here). When you might read the reviews, it reflects the good reviews. The bad ones are because of someone who hates the position or got the kindle edition, which is not a great format of the book. The book focuses on the crux of the issue on versions, that is, what does the Bible teach about its own preservation?
If God says He will preserve His Word, then believers will expect that to come true. They believe what God said He would do. God always does what He says He will do. That issue starts and ends there. Being a believer means believing scripture about scripture.
Our church planned to write a second book that would flesh out the practical ramifications of what God said. It would probably add some further teaching on preservation not found in the first book. The first one did not cover every single preservation passage, especially leaving out Isaiah 59:21 and Revelation 22:18-19. Those two need covering too. Also the second would likely include a chapter on the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Scripture.
To start, someone should ask, “What does the Bible teach about preservation of scripture?” Then, “what does God promise that He will preserve?” After that, “how does God say that He will preserve His Word? Put in another way, “What is the means by which God said He would preserve His Word?”
Most evangelicals and fundamentalists say the Bible is silent on how it is preserved. This matters. It is major. Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, explains the means of preservation. God says how. No one answered this point in Thou Shalt Keep Them. I understand. No critical text or multiple version person has an answer.
Our blog here gives you an index with all the articles written on the preservation of scripture and associated doctrines up until about two years ago, when I finished that index. Besides the book we wrote, it is a one stop shop on many different facets of the issue.
Thomas Ross includes a section at faithsaves.net on the preservation of scripture. He wrote many posts here on that doctrine too (see those with “T” next to them). He also produced a video course on the the doctrine of preservation and related doctrines.
I did not start a received text movement. Jesus did that. However, I have been at the forefront of a recent one. You will see Thomas Ross and I with our own heading in a Wikipedia article, titled, “Verbal Plenary Preservation.” Websites with our view mention our book (here, here). Men quote the book on the subject (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Oxford Handbook of the Bible quotes Thou Shalt Keep Them.
The received text movement continues to grow under the following names or titles: Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Standard Sacred Text, and Confessional Bibliology. I agree with these positions and the men who propagate them. You can now find sites with reading and materials from these, such as Confessional Bibliology, Standard Sacred Text, Text and Translation, and Trinitarian Bible Society. Jeff Riddle writes regularly on this doctrine at Stylos and makes video presentations or podcasts at his Word Magazine youtube site. You can find articles at YoungTextlessandReformed and its podcast. Also see textusreceptus.com.
The biblical and historical position moves forward in various evangelical denominations, including the Unaffiliated and Independent Baptists, certain Southern Baptists, Bible Churches, Free, Orthodox, and Bible Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and Free Churches. I’m sure there are more. Feel free to inform me. England has many defenders of the scriptural and historical position on preservation, many in the fellowship of Peter Masters and Metropolitan Tabernacle.
I write, “God’s Sovereignty Over His Words,” because this represents Protestant and Baptist Confessions of Faith. If God keeps believers in salvation, He surely can and will keep His Words. The former proceeds from the latter.
Some new books have been written in the last few years. I would hope to read some or all of these as soon as possible. I’ve read the following book by Milne on kindle. Peter Van Kleeck writes at the Standard Sacred Text website above. I hope these men will think themselves free to refer to Thomas Ross and I by name. We should strengthen one another on this doctrine.
2017
Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture, by Garnet Howard Milne
2021
A Philosophical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text: Leveraging Reformed Epistemology in the Quest for a Standard English Version of the Bible, by Peter Van Kleeck, Jr.
An Exegetical Grounding For A Standard Sacred Text: Toward the Formulation of a Systematic Theology of Providential Preservation, by Peter Van Kleeck, Sr.
2022
A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text: An Apologetic Bibliology in Favor of the Authorized Version, by Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. and Jr.
Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers
You have much to read and think about. These resources will provide much to understand and take the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture against the attack by modern textual criticism. Let us keep the momentum going for the glory of the Lord.
An Analysis of Supreme Court Overturn of Roe and the Lie of the Dissenting Opinion
Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election. I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation. Praise God! I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read. My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment. Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.
I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices. They showed great courage. They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life. I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened. I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.
Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas. I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion. Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either. He wrote (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”
Obergefell decided same sex marriage. The court passed that on the same basis as Roe. On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.
The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone. The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion. The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein. The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion. Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none. It was unconstitutional.
Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey. Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right. Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.
The minority of three wrote:
Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.
The Court did not say that. These three Supreme Court justices lied. The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion. It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion. The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have. It does decide constitutional rights. Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution? The majority said, no.
Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one. Everyone knows this. The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.
As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?” Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning. Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?
Feminists could support the Dobbs decision. It establishes the existence of women. For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women. What does that mean for transgender rights? The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.
Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor. Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority. Three for three. Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.
Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did? I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.
The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020. This includes John Piper and David French. I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.
So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022
George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts. Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs. This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.
Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:
Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.
No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.
Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.
If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing. He wrote like words meant something. No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture. Your truth is your truth. Your liberty is your liberty. That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.
The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman. Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision. Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy. The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.
The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator. It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page. Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too. It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook. This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.” You think I’m joking.
In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article: “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” This entity (person, whatever) says: “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work. Let’s stop. It didn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, killing.” Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.” So here we have it. Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis. Exhilarating truthfulness.
When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture. They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property. This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence. Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself. They don’t see themselves as accountable to God. The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey. Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality. They define their own essence.
Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.” That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition. Their liberty allows for murder. A baby may exist but cannot define his essence. A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.
Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface. At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.” Many women call it the best decision they ever made. Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco. Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life. Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good. The war, however, is just begun. Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.
Insightful Books, part 1 of 2
I have listed below a small bibliography of some interesting and insightful books on a variety of mainly religious themes. While it is generally unwise to judge a book by its cover, the books below can indeed by judged by the distinguished reputations of their authors, many of whom, as one can see from their names, especially if one reads them aloud, are international scholars of high repute.
Lord willing, I will supply a few more of these in a few weeks in an upcoming post. If you have any comparable books to recommend, please feel free to supply their names in the comment section.
Roman Catholicism by I. D. O’Latry
Transubstantiation by Istil Bred
Islam: Religion of Peace by Gno Wei
Jihad: A History by Blough M. Upp
Is Anglicanism Apostate? by Sir Tanley
The New Evangelicalism by Vichy Vashey
Contemporary Christian Music Practices by Kray Z.
Ellen White: A Life by Fals P. Rofet
Put Your Child in Public School by R. U. Nutts
How To Make Your Spouse Happy by Luv Yu
What Should We Do With the Bible? by Obei Itall
How Do We Know What the New Testament Is?
What chapter or verse of the Bible says there will be 27 books of the New Testament? Of course, none. Where does it say what the 27 books will be? Again, of course, none. How then do we know what are the 27 books of the New Testament?
When we read the New Testament, we open about two-thirds of the way through the Bible to that title page that says “New Testament” on it. The churches that received scripture were not sent such a copy. The New Testament did not come to churches with a cover page, stating, “New Testament,” and behind it 27 books.
Churches acknowledged and copied inspired books. They treated them as though they were inspired. They passed them from church to church and read then in churches. Before copies wore out, they were copied again to preserve them for the future.
The scriptural doctrine of which I speak concerning canonicity proceeds from the Bible itself. Through the inward testimony of the Spirit, regenerate, immersed church members distinguish between words which man’s wisdom teaches and those of and from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13-25). God gave His inspired Words to the apostles or the inspired human authors according to the plan of the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, 14; Gal 1:11-12). True believers led by the Spirit would know the things written were the words of God (1 Corinthians 14:37). The same Holy Spirit who had regenerated, indwelt, and filled them would testify to the words.
The testimony or witness of books of the New Testament arises from the promise of words. They knew Paul’s epistles were scripture like the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:16), but they were guided to inspired words. The epistles or books were an implication of received words. The Lord gave unto them “words” and they “received them” (John 17:8; cf. 12:48, Acts 2:41, 1 Thess 2:13).
Revelation 22:18-19 read:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The Apostle John testifies to a completed book of Revelation. He speaks of “the words of the prophecy of this book.” He confirms a settled, completed, perfect text of words. One could only add or take away words from a book with a settled text. His instruction assumes the precision of the text and continued knowledge of it. No one could obey this command without standardized words.
God’s people will know what His Words are and receive them. That is how they knew and know the twenty-seven books. God intervenes through His Spirit in His churches to receive His Words and, therefore, His Books. History confirms this teaching. The nature of God’s Word is that when God says He will do something, He does it. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. They believe what He says. They have.
Through the history of the Lord’s churches, they believed the biblical doctrine of canonicity or the preservation of the text and books of the New Testament. Errors were made in copies, what are most often called variants today. God did not promise to preserve copies. Believers do not receive copies. They receive “words.” They identify words. True churches assume a settled text. They have.
The Lord’s churches now call the text, the words and books, received and passed down from one generation to the next by the work of the Holy Spirit, the received, traditional, ecclesiastical, or standardized text. By “traditional,” they mean it like Paul used it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” It is an ecclesiastical text, because churches received it. Some today call this a “confessional bibliology,” because it reflects the historical belief of churches and so written down in confessions.
Scripture is science. If God says it, it is true and it is knowledge. It is the pure mother’s milk without variableness or shadow of turning (1 Peter 2:2, James 1:17). Everything God says is true and is the standard for truth (John 17:17). God repudiates rejection of what He said for so-called science or for experience. We have a more sure word of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
The Lord’s churches received the text still received by His churches before the invention of the printing press. With the invention of the printing press in 1440, they printed that text in the 16th century. They continued to receive it for centuries. These people translated from it into other languages. They preached sermons from it in churches and wrote commentaries and other books from it or based upon it. We have all of this record.
No one should add to or take away from the settled text of the New Testament. This contradicts the teaching of the New Testament about itself. No one should assume and then believe God’s Words were lost and in need of restoration. This violates scripture. This hurts the faith.
Professing believers today do not know the New Testament by science. They do not know it by probability. God’s people do not know it by rules of textual criticism. They do not know it by intelligibility. The people of God know it by the testimony of the Holy Spirit through history or through the preceding centuries through the Lord’s churches. They should reject any other teaching or way. These are heretical ways that distort or veer from the already received and established scriptural bibliology.
God’s Grace As An Attitude Adjuster
James wrote that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:17). God keeps giving and giving and giving. People do not deserve these good gifts. They deserve the opposite. People getting good things that they don’t deserve is God’s grace.
For a professing believer, what causes a bad attitude? I contend the biggest contributor is his thinking that he deserves what he doesn’t or that he doesn’t deserve what he really does. This is an unmet expectation. He expects what he doesn’t deserve and then he doesn’t get it.
It is difficult to expect what I really do deserve. I want better treatment, better consequences, better circumstances, or even better reactions. Yet, I don’t deserve them.
When I think I got better than I deserve, that affects my attitude. If I change my thinking to this thinking, based on what I know scripture says, it also changes my attitude.
God’s grace can adjust an attitude. The professing believer must think God’s grace. The attitude is the resultant emotion, either a good feeling or a bad one.
A bad attitude is an emotion that can turn to something deeper, like a kind of depression or discouragement. This can become deep settled and change the trajectory of a person’s life. He digs himself or even buries himself into a rut or hole. He doesn’t make his way out.
The grace of God must adjust the attitude. This adjustment occurs through the mind. The professing believer thinks he deserves worse. He keeps thinking he gets better than he deserves. God does give him more than he deserves.
Sometime in Christian history, someone defined grace as “undeserved favor.” Christians overall have agreed with this definition for centuries. God gives us better and more than what we deserve. This is God’s grace. If we allow that thinking to permeate our mind, it will adjust our attitude.
The world makes it difficult to keep a good attitude. This is why right attitudes very often are commanded, like “rejoice evermore” (Philippians 4:4). They are commanded, because we might not have them. His commands also mean we can have them, that we are able to have them. God won’t command what He won’t also enable. He wouldn’t command you if He didn’t also provide the power to keep the command.
When I write that the world system and its father, Satan, make for a tougher environment to have a good attitude, I am saying that it will still be a struggle. When you hit your thumb with a hammer, you say, “Ouch.” This is a kind of point Job mentions when he’s criticized by his friends. When I talk about God’s grace adjusting the attitude of a professing Christian, I speak of the struggle. This will help the believer not to sink into long term or permanent bad attitudes and struggle against short term wrong ones.
God’s grace can and will keep attitude struggles short term or win those struggles. This is God’s will, but it is also important for the thriving and well being of the professing believer. Believers will do better in ministry to and with others with a good attitude. Even if people have a bad attitude themselves, they want you to have a good one when you are with them.
If you say, “God is good,” and then your attitude says, “God hasn’t been good,” it hurts the efforts for God with others. Maybe you don’t even believe God is good. God knows whether you think He is, but your attitude might be saying that you think He is not. All of us should consider this.
What in the world could spur a bad attitude? You know. You are mistreated by several others. The people around you are not grateful for what you do. You work hard without notice or credit. One thing after another breaks. People gossip about you. You don’t have many friends. Friends betray you. You can’t get ahead with your finances. School is a struggle. Others are promoted ahead of you unfairly. People don’t laugh at your jokes, and you think you’re funny.
No one is a victim of a bad attitude. Someone else doesn’t cause it. Your parents didn’t cause it. Neither did your husband or wife. You choose what attitude you will have. Victimization is just an excuse. It’s lying to yourself.
The joy of the Lord is our strength. His grace will fuel that joy. Like Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8, think on this thing.
Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath: The Baptist Succession Quote
A number of weeks ago, I posted evidence that the quote by Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius on Baptist succession frequently referenced by Landmark Baptist writers was legitimate, and later I wrote about the Baptist succession quote by the Dutch Reformed writers Annaeus Ypeij and Isaak Johannes Dermout, which is also legitimate. Baptist successionists likewise reference the Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath on the ancient heritage of Baptists.
Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath
For example, William Dudley Nowlin, in his book Fundamentals of the Faith, wrote:
Church historians agree that Baptist principles and practices can be traced back to Christ and his apostles. Prof. John Clark Ridpath (Methodist) of De Pauw University says “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as A.D. 100 though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists” (Baptist Church Perpetuity by Jarrell, page 59).
If, as this Methodist historian says, “all Christians in the year A.D. 100 were Baptists” and if they had any churches then they were Baptist churches, for a church composed of Baptists is a Baptist church. No logically minded man can escape this conclusion. (William Dudley Nowlin, Fundamentals of the Faith [Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1922], 316)
Did this leading Methodist scholar admit that Baptists were around in A. D. 100? Yes, he did! As I note in my study on famous Baptist historical succession quotes in context:
The quotation comes from Willis Anselm Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity (Dallas, TX: Jarrell, 1894), 58-59. The text records personal correspondence from Professor John Clarke Ridpath of Du Paw University in response to Dr. Jarrel’s written questions: “When, where and by whom was the first Baptist church originated?” … There is no objective reason to suspect the reality and accurate reproduction of the correspondence between Dr. Ridpath and Dr. Jarrel. This quotation on Baptist succession is also accurate.
(By the way, Jarrel’s Baptist Church Perpetuity is a good book which is well worth reading.)
Thus, this Methodist historian provided further evidence, as did the Roman Catholic and Dutch Reformed historians Hosius, Ypeij, and Dermout, that Baptists did not originate at the time or after the Protestant Reformation, but are the true churches with continuity from the first century until the present time, in accordance with Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). Both Scripture and history affirm Baptist succession.
–TDR
The Relationship Between Wokeism and Revivalism in Churches
Some of you may know that right now the Southern Baptists (SBC) convene in Southern California for their 2022 annual meeting. At this very time, Mark Dever and 9 Marks, a Reformed faction of the SBC, produce their journal with the emphasis on revivalism (June 2022). I wish I could be happy to join their concern. Their accepted wokeism proceeds from the same root as revivalism, which is pragmatism.
One would think professing Reformed or Calvinists would insist on dependence on God for conversion and church growth. I don’t believe these men. They use measures as extreme as Charles Finney to produce results. Among many ways, their wokeism reveals their contradiction or hypocrisy.
Jonathan Leeman writes in his introduction, and I agree, “Revivalism depends on God’s Words plus our methods.” I also concur with these sentences:
Revivalism, which depends on our ingenuity and energy, brings short-term gains. It looks fruitful. It appeals to our yearning to see the results of our labors.
The SBC, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and independent Baptists are all rife with revivalism. The adherents depend on more than the Word of God for the results.
A word to describe a particularly wicked kind of “our ingenuity and energy” and “our methods” is pandering. This manifested itself in the seeker sensitive movement and the purpose-driven movement. A church studies its particular demographic and forms a strategy that conforms to the culture. The region likes either pop rock, rap, or southern gospel through which a church panders to its audience.
In “Six Marks of Revivalism,” Andrew Ballitch writes, “Revivalism can actually make this happen,” referring to meeting conditions that spur church growth. He also writes, and I agree again, “This revivalism was by no means monolithic.” Revivalism changes in how it manifests itself, because it centers on man, not God. The new measures of Finney have morphed into whatever measures seem necessary to produce numbers.
Not that long ago, churches and their leaders decided they needed a neutral name to attract the lost to the church. About one of the journal authors who wrote a few of the articles, the journal says “is the senior pastor of Fellowship in the Pass Church in Beaumont, California.” A part of the church growth movement, which is an insidious form of revivalism, is that you’ve got to market your church with a branding or label. If it’s all God, why not just call yourself “Beaumont Baptist Church”?
Church growth philosophy says it might offend an unsaved person to hear “Baptist.” Someone might think, “Hell fire and brimstone.” You don’t want to have that happen, so instead you call yourself, “Fellowship in the Pass Church.” This practice illustrates a pragmatic mindset in the trajectory of revivalism.
The name “Baptist” carries with it doctrinal connotations. Revivalism isn’t monolithic. Unsaved people don’t like the feeling of “Baptist,” and you can change that feeling, help along the process of church growth and increase your numbers, by choosing a neutral, apparently non-offensive name.
Like we know that gas prices went up before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we know that revivalism in its present iteration panders to unchurched Harry and Sally. That means the “blended worship” that 9 Marks won’t include in its presentation. You also might want to appear “woke” to your younger and perhaps ethnic demographic.
To get and keep a specialized population, you must show support to its grievances. For instance, you should call January 6 more than a “dustup,” as a recent NFL defensive coordinator, Jack Del Rio, did and was fined 100,000 dollars by his team. It means muting strong statements against popular sin, especially homosexuality and even abortion, in the spirit of Tim Keller. You might be complementarian, but you manage your speech so as not to offend egalitarians. Be careful of delineating male and female roles as if those distinctions exist.
Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, and 9 Marks promoted and still push wokeism. This matches the spirit of corporate America flying rainbow flags to celebrate gay pride. You can’t go into a McDonalds or Starbucks without rainbows hanging all over.
Have you heard of “virtue signaling”? Wokeism sends a signal to a demographic to attract, gain, and then keep their allegiance. It is a new measure.
Ballitch gives as a characteristic of revivalism, “emotional manipulation.” Wokeism is emotional manipulation. He also lists “reductionist views of conversion.” Revivalism reduced conversion to something short of true conversion. Wokeism better “reconstructs conversion.” It calls for repentance over implicit racism in all white people, specifying group guilt rather than individual.
Critical theory claims special knowledge of racism, a modern form of gnosticism. The true gospel eliminates racial and ethnic barriers and sees everyone the same. Including race in the gospel corrupts it.
With wokeism, wokeness becomes a necessary fruit of repentance like speaking in tongues among the Charismatics. Important transformation of language must accompany the repentance. Leadership attracts followers by modifying language, conforming to wokeism. This easily fits a particular view of the kingdom compatible with the amillennialism of Dever and his church.
Root to Finney’s revivalism was pelagianism. In his Systematic Theology, he denied man’s total depravity. He saw within man a spark of goodness, which he could fan with human measures unto salvation. With man’s sinful condition, his rebellion, the only solution is divine. A theoretical Calvinism with God at center does not reach actual practice.
Is there a particular approach for growing an urban church? Revivalism and wokeism both say, “Yes.” The Bible says, “No.” Don’t do anything different. Just preach the gospel. Don’t change based on white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, African, whatever. Depend on God.
When 9 Marks points out the moat of revivalism in its audience’s eye, it should remove the beam of wokeism in its.
Review: Strength for the Day, Wisdom for the Way, by Robert Sorenson
Peter commanded in 1 Peter 2:2:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
Desire the sincere milk of the word as newborn babes. How do newborn babes desire the pure mother’s milk? I think you know. The Apostle Paul commanded in Romans 12:2, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” How do you renew your mind? A major facet of renewing the mind comes by what we put into our mind. The best content by far is scripture. Joshua 1:8 gives a good recipe for success:
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Strong, prosperous, successful living requires knowing and meditating on the Word of God. People need to hear the preaching of the Word of God. They also need to read it and study it on its own. Through my years of pastoring, I worked at getting church members into the Bible on their own. Some of you reading perhaps have used a daily devotional book or guide. C. H. Spurgeon, 19th century London pastor, wrote Morning and Evening, which blessed many.
In recent days, unaffiliated Baptist pastor, Robert Sorenson, wrote several volumes of daily devotionals. I read his Strength for the Day, Wisdom for the Way, Volume 8. He has these in stock and if you looked for one to use, I have a box of them. I can send you one for $20 plus shipping ($3.50). They are 366 pages for the total number of days in a year. Each page a day corresponds to the next day of the year. The bottom of each page presents the Bible reading that day to finish it in a year. I recommend it.
The book is well written. It is substantive, but not overly technical. You will learn from each page. It will challenge you. It is sound theologically. You will grow.
Strength for the Day is a nice spiral bound with an attractive cover. It will sit flat on your desk. You can turn pages so that the one you’re using is in the front. You could carry it easily with your Bible.
If you want to get it, you can email me at betbapt AT flash DOT net, using the appropriate symbols. You can send a check to 912 E. Sam Circle, Clearfield, Utah 84015. I make nothing from the book, nor do I receive support from this pastor or church. I just wanted to let you know about it.
Recent Comments