Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part four)
Actual Lord Jesus Christ
For faith to be saving faith, the person must place the faith in the actual Lord Jesus Christ. This means He is the Christ, not an impostor. It is not saving faith if it does not direct toward the saving object, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. Accompanying this necessarily, the faith must attune to the Person of Jesus Christ. He is not Christ if the said “belief” does not acquiesce to the reign and lordship of Jesus Christ and relinquish the personal will and way. This is in essence the offering of “self” or one’s soul to God. Scripture explicates all of this paragraph.
Believing that Jesus is the Christ is not something arbitrary. He becomes the Christ to the person who believes in Him. That means the one believing in Jesus Christ abdicates his throne to Jesus Christ. The person who believes in Jesus Christ is not on the throne of his own heart, but Christ is. When the Apostle Paul received Christ, he said immediately, “What wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6)
Count One’s Life as Loss or Deny Self
When the Apostle Paul later testifies about his conversion, he says that he counted everything as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Philippians 3:8). Paul is saying that you do have to count you and the best of you as loss and dung. This is the denying self of Luke 9:23. You can’t believe in Jesus Christ and yourself. Jesus can’t be put on an altar with all someone’s other gods, including himself.
The way of Jesus Christ is in contradiction to the way of you. You’ve got to leave you in order to have Him. You can’t have both. This is the same challenge of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 (Mark 10:17-22, Luke 18:18-30). You don’t need to give all of your money to the poor to be saved. No, but if you believe in Jesus Christ like he said he did, then you can give up everything for him. If you don’t, then you don’t believe in Him. You can’t serve idols and Jesus both.
People conflate what I’m explaining to “salvation by works,” even “frontloading works.” Works aren’t involved at all. This is just biblical faith. Saving faith is exclusive. It must be in Jesus Christ, so He must be Jesus Christ. If He is Jesus Christ, then He is Christ and He is Lord. Christ and Lord means control and ownership. You are giving yourself up, so that He is the owner. This is the commitment of believing that is the volitional aspect of faith.
More Than Intellectual Assent to Facts
Faith is more than intellectual assent to facts, essentially head knowledge alone. This is like the check in the box. As I explain the above and state that saving faith is not just intellectual or even worse, just emotional, what is different about faith that includes volition? This goes along with two things Jesus said that are parallel or synonymous with saving faith: (1) Follow me, and (2) Lose your life for my sake. Jesus said among other places in Matthew 16:25:
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
“Lose it” or “shall lose his life for my sake” is not meaningless. It’s not that we can’t know what Jesus is talking about. We should assume we can know. This is that relinquishing of your will or your way. It dovetails with repentance. You can’t keep going your way and get to heaven. Anyone who comes after him must deny himself (Luke 9:23).
When Jesus talked about the gospel or salvation with the woman at the well in John 4, He told her that God the Father sought such to worship Him and to worship Him in spirit and in truth. What does worship have to do with salvation? The first act of worship is the offering of your soul to God, what Psalm 23:3 and Psalm 19:7 call the restoring of the soul or the converting of the soul. God takes the real you and restores you or converts you, but to do so, He must have you. He wants you. Faith offers the soul to God. This is believing He is Christ and Lord.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Two)
The average non-church going person and even church goers see the glut of English Bibles and often say, “There are different Bibles.” I’ve heard it dozens of times through the years. Is that true? Is there really more than one Bible? The answer is “no.” God inspired only one Bible, certain exact words, and then He also preserved one Bible with the same exact words in the same language in which they were written. The so-called existence of “many Bibles” undermines authority for the one and only Bible. Believing in one Bible doesn’t require an apology. That belief is a true one.
An Apology
Mark Ward just wrote the following:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
Then he explained the reason:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
In part one, I examined Ward’s charge of division for which he prays for an apology. Above you can also see he charges men with not telling the truth. That I know of, I haven’t taught anything on this subject that isn’t true. No one has shown me one thing that I’ve said that is false, which is an important prerequisite for apologizing about saying something not true. That’s all I can say on that part as an answer to Mark Ward’s prayer. He’ll have to get more specific with me if he wants that particular apology. I’m a phone call away for any apology if he’s been praying for one.
Logic and Ambiguity
In recent days, Ward declared that KJVO leaders sin for having the KJV as their church Bible. For you reading, who don’t know much about Ward, this explains his use of 1 Corinthians 14. There is a kind of syllogism that with Ward gets this to the sin category for me and others. I’m trying to help you understand Ward’s thinking here. I’ve made his logic into a syllogism.
Major Premise: Knowing to do good and not doing good is sin.
Minor Premise: Edification is good and because unintelligibility prohibits edification, allowing or causing unintelligibility is not doing good.
Conclusion: Therefore, allowing or causing unintelligibility is sin.
I can agree with the soundness of the syllogism. What’s wrong? There’s an informal logical fallacy called, equivocation.
The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading.
Intelligibility and unintelligibility of themselves are ambiguous. Like many other words and even concepts in scripture, someone can make them mean what he wants them to mean. A believer should define a word in scripture based on how the author uses it. Mark Ward defines intelligibility in a particular way that does not fit 1 Corinthians 14. Many people have explained that to him. I haven’t seen him listen on this and almost anything else. He has a bias toward his own thinking.
Language and 1 Corinthians 14
Paul portrayed a situation in 1 Corinthians 14 where someone spoke in an unknown language. People couldn’t understand it without a translator. Only with an accurate translation could someone understand a foreign language. The conclusion: stop speaking in an unknown or foreign language. There it is.
1 Corinthians 14 is in a three chapter section (12-14) on spiritual gifts. It especially deals with an abuse of the gift of tongues. The actual gift of tongues, as seen in Acts 2, means known languages. The point is understanding the language. Those chapters are not about semantical changes in the same language, but about reining in the abuse of tongues.
Semantic changes occur in the Bible itself and the Bible doesn’t sin when it does that or allows it. Words change in meaning as one reads through the Bible itself. Sometimes the progression of the biblical narrative results in some changes in meaning.
I’m not writing to protect semantic changes in an English translation of God’s perfectly preserved words. We want to know what those words mean and all the other ones too. 1 Corinthians 14 deals mainly with speaking in gibberish, that is, in a language that can’t be know at all. It’s not even a language. That doesn’t edify.
Real Concerns
Even if someone spoke an actual foreign language in a miraculous way, he wouldn’t edify the hearers if they didn’t know the language. That or unintelligible gibberish is the context of verse 9, when Paul says, “utter by the tongue words easy to be understood.” He is not talking about a word here and there of the same language as the hearers, which has endured a semantic change. Edification would still occur with that. I’m not saying it’s not a problem. It is. But it isn’t a sin.
Calling sin the continued endorsement of the King James Version as the English Bible for a church is such an exaggeration, so excessive, by Mark Ward, that it reminds me of the games Pharisees played with words, as recorded in the Gospels. It is blowing a concern way out of proportion.
I’ve written a lot about this through the years, but my bigger concern is a distortion of the gospel and perverted preaching. Many, many who use the King James Version for decades and longer have preached a false gospel and now for half a century at least have just used the King James. It’s not because of archaic words that they do this. They do it because of perverted theology and probably in many instances a lack of conversion. I hear almost nothing about that from Mark Ward. No. Even when he is with someone who massacres the true gospel, he says nothing as long as that person gives an inch on his false friend teaching.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible?
Honest Discussion?
It seems we have to get basic here, like when one would interview someone to make sure his testimony is accurate or sure. Have you been in one of those situations before? I’ve been in them. You are working on a project with other people and someone is not fulfilling his part of the whole. When you talk to him, you can’t seem to get a straight answer. You know something is wrong.
Something is wrong in the discussion on the text issue, because the same flashing lights go off for me that do in any kind of dialogue. I know that some of you reading don’t like this assessment. I don’t want you to read between the lines. Something is dishonest in this discussion or conversation. I’ve seen and known this for awhile.
The two sides of the textual debate very often cannot get or come together because it’s not an honest conversation between two groups or two people. If you are on the other side of this, you can say that you don’t like to hear this, or “how dare someone question your honesty?” I’m not trying to take a cheap shot. The interaction on the issue of the text of the Bible reads like a shady situation based on my experience. The dishonesty bells go off.
We live in a day when people can represent something in a less than straightforward manner and yet call it straightforward. This environment makes it easier to continue in the shadow realm. I see it everywhere and it’s happening with this discussion on the biblical text too. Language and terminology has lost some of its meaning and in certain cases, all of its meaning. Philosophers and theologians are calling this today “a crisis of meaning.”
Prayer for Apology
The youtuber Mark Ward wrote a post this last week on his blog, entitled, “I Pray for an Apology from Leaders or Institutions in KJV-Onlyism.” I’ve never prayed for an apology like that before, so it’s foreign to me. It doesn’t even sound like a prayer request, even if it is just a desire that is stated as a prayer. It means, “I hope for an apology” or “I’d like an apology.” I often have a desire for repentance from someone and it is about God and His Word, but not a personal apology. “I pray for an apology” sounds more like a whine or complaint from someone whose feelings are hurt.
I’d be first in line to offer an apology to someone who wants it. Always, however, I need to know what it is I’m apologizing for or it wouldn’t be sincere. It could be one of those “I’m sorry you’ve been offended” apologies that really apologizes for nothing.
Ward started his post with this line:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
KJVO False Doctrine
Depending on what “KJV-Only” means, a person could promote false doctrine. I join Ward in not liking that either, although I don’t yearn or pray for an apology. False doctrine would contradict or pervert what the Bible teaches and in this case what it teaches about itself. Certain KJVO doctrine is false doctrine.
Double inspiration is false doctrine. God stopped inspiring scripture in the first century. He completed that task. Even what I have called, “English preservationism,” is false doctrine. God didn’t promise to preserve His Words using a translation. He didn’t. There was no English Bible until Wycliffe in the 14th century. If someone wants to talk about doctrine, I’m thankful and happy to do that. I would welcome a doctrinal conversation with Ward or others, but I predict he would want only a very narrow one with only his pet edification-requires-intelligibility issue. Even that I would gladly talk about in an honest way with Ward.
Subject of Apology
Regarding doctrine, Ward mentions the following in his I-wanna-apology post:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
That’s it. This represents the false doctrine for which Mark Ward wants an apology.
I don’t know what I’ve said or taught on the version issue that is not true. For sure, I’m open to possibility, but I don’t know of anything of this nature. Just the opposite, I teach the position I do, because I see it in the Bible. Ward doesn’t take that same approach. However, before I address that fully, I want to respond to the accusation that men like myself are not telling the truth. I see that as the absolute opposite and have a difficult time not believing that Mark Ward already knows he’s not telling the truth about this. He at least, I believe, sets the truth on a sliding scale in his own dealings with doctrine and practice.
Racking the Brain for an Apology
The kind of things I hear from Ward in some of his videos, which count to him apparently as men not telling the truth, to me sound like actual straw men. Here’s what I’ve heard.
- One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
- Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
- Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
- Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
- Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.
If I’m missing something, it’s not on purpose, but this is what I get when I read through Ward herbal tea leaves. I want to deal at least those five, but, first, to the ones in Mark’s above paragraph. I’ll probably come back to the five in my last paragraph in another post.
Practice Apology
First though, Mark Ward says KJVO need to apologize because they divide the body of Christ. Just as a thought experiment, I am going to practice a public apology, one that Ward would want from all the division causers, none of which has the name, Mark Ward. He is the source of heavenly unity, as someone might say, this side of glory. Here goes.
Everyone, listen up. I’ve got to say something. I want to make a public apology, a mea culpa of sorts. What I’ve done wrong is cause division on the KJVO issue. Whatsoever version anyone uses — whatever underlying text, translation philosophy, acceptance, or quality — should not result in separation, and yet I’ve said that someone should separate over that.
I’ve written it too. People at least have gotten a strong impression from me that the version issue is a separating issue, and it is not!! Use whatever version of the Bible you want with not a whit, a crumb, of judgement from me. My judgment-o-meter dial will not move, not even a tremor. I confess this under the category of the sin of causing division.
Could I or would I make that apology? No. I would not believe it.
Separation and Unity and Division
I’ve written about the subject of separation and unity for a long time and back before Mark Ward graduated from seminary. Division comes from those with the new doctrine, not those who held to the original position. In addition, separation in scripture is not heresy or causing division. The Bible teaches separation over more than just “gospel issues.”
Probably no one in the world or in all of history has written more on this subject than me. You have to understand biblical unity before you understand separation, but both harmonize. The unity between the Father and the Son in John 17 was on everything in scripture. They didn’t disagree on anything, and that’s the same unity God wants for His people. You don’t get biblical unity without separation over false doctrine and practice.
When the Bible warns against heresy, factions, or unscriptural division, it is a diversion off the biblical and historical position. When someone teaches something unbiblical and so men separate from that false teacher and his teaching, that is biblical separation, not heresy. Some of the new books that attack the one Bible doctrine or perfect preservation of scripture react to the already established doctrine. They are not presenting a historical belief and practice.
I would be happy to read the established historical, biblical doctrine that Mark Ward establishes on preservation. What I hear from him conforms biblical doctrine to naturalistic presuppositions, based on modern science so-called. His position is not the truth.
More to Come
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part three)
Jesus is the Christ
John wrote his gospel, he says, so people would believe Jesus is the Christ and believing they would have life through His name (John 20:31). The object of belief is crucial to saving faith. I like to say that you might believe in Jesus, but if Jesus is a jar of peanut butter, he won’t save you. He isn’t, but who is He? Believing isn’t arbitrary. It doesn’t disappear into the ether. Saving belief lands somewhere and that is on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus does all the saving. He is Savior. However, He does not save the person that does not believe that He is the Christ. True, genuine belief couples together with Jesus as the Christ. This truth about Jesus and His identity also relates to the kingdom.
When one reads through the gospels and Acts to see what Jesus and the Apostles preached, you see the two truths woven together as one message. In Matthew 4:23 Jesus went through Galilee “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (same in Matthew 9:35). Matthew 8 and 9 are a continuation of Matthew 4 with the Sermon on the Mount sandwiched in between (Matthew 5-7). In Matthew 24:14 again Jesus repeats, “the gospel of the kingdom” that he preaches. Jesus says in Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Christ in Acts
Philip
Concerning the ministry of preaching of Philip, Acts 8:12 says:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
In the same context, Acts 8:5 says that Philip preached “Christ,” which would be shorthand for the same thing. The kingdom of God dovetails with the name of Jesus Christ, inextricably connected. One sees the same with the Apostle Paul in Acts 28:31:
Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Paul
Right when Paul started to preach in Damascus after his conversion, Acts 9:20 says “he preached Christ in the synagogues.” Two verses later, Acts 9:22 says:
But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 17:3 describes Paul’s gospel preaching:
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
One chapter later, Acts 18:5 says:
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Furthermore, verse 28 of the same chapter says:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Preach Christ
Many times the New Testament represents preaching the gospel as “preach Christ.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, Paul writes:
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
“Christ” (Christos) means “anointed one.” The verb chrio in the Greek is “to anoint.” The Greek chrisma means anointing, as does chrisis. “Christ” is the New Testament word or translation of “Messiah.” Everyone needs to understand that Christ fulfills the Messianic prophesies, which ties in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. He is that King.
Christ and the Kingdom of God
The church today is about the kingdom of God, given the keys to the kingdom. Entering the kingdom spiritually or in one’s heart is a reception of that kingdom now, as if one is entering now into it. In Luke 17:21, Jesus said:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Someone needs to know that. He must acquiesce to the kingdom of God now and what it represents, including persuasion that Jesus is the King over it and that having Him as King requires subservience. When Jesus preached, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17), He was saying, “The King is here.” He preached repentance accompanied by the kingdom and He the King. A person must want the Christ and what that represents. The alternative is the prince of this world, Satan, and what he offers now and his kingdom.
When someone preaches the gospel, he explains it, and he persuades someone from the scripture that Jesus is the Christ. Someone needs to know that for salvation. John wrote His book, the Gospel of John, to do that so that the audience would believe Jesus is the Christ. That is still an integral part of the gospel, if not the gospel. Someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, when he does not believe that Jesus is the Christ.
More to Come
A Sincere, Accurate Assessment Contrasting Translational Choices Versus Underlying Original Language Text
Sufficient Intelligibility and False Friends
The most prominent recent conversation about the Bible (that I’ve seen) revolves around “sufficient intelligibility” of the King James Version. Some words used by the King James translators have changed in meaning since their translation. Podcaster Mark Ward declares about one hundred words as “false friends.” As an overview of the definitional usage, “false friend” means the following provided by an AI aggregation:
A false friend is a word in one language that sounds or looks similar to a word in another language, but has a different meaning. It is also known as a false cognate or bilingual homophone.
Unlike the new Mark Ward usage of the terminology, false friend does not refer to a word in the same language that over the centuries radically changed in its meaning. Instead, linguists call this a “semantic change.” Mark Ward did not originate the concept of “false friend.” He simply uses the two word phrase in a different, inventive way that alters its original and definitional usage. It does not refer to the changing meaning of the word. The words for that are semantic shift or semantic change.
History of False Friends Versus Semantic Change
At the same time, Ward was not the first to use “false friend” in the novel way that he does. British linguist, David Crystal, began using the term “false friend” to refer to words in William Shakespeare’s writing that have now changed in meaning from their original understanding in Elizabethan English. He accumulated an appendix of these words as long ago as 2010. As far as I know, Crystal and Ward are the only ones using “false friend” like they have and do. In some ways, it’s an either rhetorical or marketing tool. Others are now imitating this new usage, but Crystal coined “false friend” for Shakespeare and then Ward for the King James Version.
Semantic shift or change is real. Ward and his host of assistants have searched for words with semantic changes in meaning in the King James Version. However, they’re a little late to the party, because those using the King James Version already provided these lists of words and their meaning for decades. They all know about this already, so they don’t need a lecture! In 1998 the late D. A. Waite and his Bible For Today at great effort published The Defined King James Bible. Even before Waite’s book, men wrote helps in this way. Thomas Nelson Press published The King James Version Wordbook in 1994.
In 1978 in An Introduction to Language, Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman wrote (p. 314):
In the King James Version of the Bible (1611), God says of the herbs and trees, “to you shall be for meat” (Genesis 1:29). To a speaker of seventeenth-century English, meat meant “food,” and flesh meant “meat.” Since that time, semantic change has narrowed the meaning of meat to what it is in Modern English.
Two Actions
You can see that Fromkin and Rodman referred to this alteration of meaning, as do many others, as a “semantic shift” (not false friend). This occurs in every language over time. Words take on a new meaning and contemporary readers should be informed of this in an older book or translation. Two different actions could alleviate the possible confusion for one hundred or so words most egregiously affected by semantic changes.
One
One, the meaning of these one hundred or so words could be placed in the margin. The Trinitarian Bible Society definitely does that in their classic and Westminster reference Bibles. Why should someone do a total retranslation of the King James Version, when this simple solution exists? It does not even require a giant group of Hebrew and Greek scholars to put in thousands of hours to accomplish this task. That work is done already.
The 1611 King James translators placed into their translation marginal notes. Marginal notes are not new. There were 7,342 of them in the 1611 KJV. The marginal notes were designed to provide readers with additional insights into the text. They often included alternate translations, explanations of obscure passages, and clarifications on specific terms or names found within the biblical text. Some notes defined biblical terms or provided context for certain characters, enhancing the reader’s understanding of the scriptures. When I say scriptures, I mean what God inspired, the original language text.
As some of you reading here might know, providing a definition in the margin is unacceptable to Ward. I’ve never heard him give an answer as to why. He defames and castigates any church leader who opts for public continuation of usage of the King James Version, even with provision of definitions. Ward recently said these leaders are sinning by continuing to have the KJV as their church Bible. The Inquisitor General has spoken. Sin! The only arbitrary option for Ward that would avoid sinning, besides changing to a modern version, is the next one.
Two
Two, someone could update the translation of the King James Version in the spirit of the Blayney edition of 1769, that almost everyone already uses. Some will say, “That’s already been done.” People will mention The New King James Version first. I’ve already written here in many posts how that the underlying text is different for the NKJV, which eliminates it as a possibility. I believe there are over one hundred places where the NKJV translators came from a different word, not identical to the King James Version.
Another new translation that claims the same underlying text is the Modern English Version. This was started in 2005 under the leadership of James Linzey, a Southern Baptist. Many men worked on the MEV from a lot of different denominations with many different doctrinal and gospel positions. It was published in 2014 by Passio, an arm of Charisma Publishing House, a Charismatic organization. I haven’t looked into the MEV like I have the NKJV, so I don’t have much to say about it.
Some have given the Modern English Version a good review and some bad. It seems like originally it was meant to meet a concern of chaplains in the British military and what they should give to their soldiers. The MEV does question the underlying text of the KJV in its footnotes, calling into doubt the text preserved and available to the Lord’s churches. I can’t in good conscience hand to someone or recommend to him a translation that denounces the very text from which it was translated. The MEV does that.
Semantic and Translational Choices Versus Underlying Text
With everything said so far about semantic and translational choices in the English translation of the original languages of the Bible, how does that contrast with a different underlying text? The modern versions don’t translate from the same Hebrew and Greek words. There are thousands of differences in words between the critical text, the underlying text behind the modern versions of the New Testament, and that of the Textus Receptus, the underlying text behind the King James Version. Thousands. Those are different words, not words that could have variation in meaning, a semantic change, so someone could understand them in different ways.
It’s important to translate words right. Translating the original language words into intelligible language is also good. If you can, you want to translate into words that people can understand. You don’t want to translate into words that have a different meaning now than the word in the underlying text. This is called “getting it right.” When someone translates, if possible he should try to get the English word with the same meaning as the original language word. At the same time, having the wrong underlying word is worse.
Having a hundred words with a translation with a changed semantical meaning is not as bad as actual wrong words. Someone can learn the old meaning of the word that has had a semantical change. A totally different or wrong word is still different and wrong, even if it’s translated right and intelligible. No explanation or translation can change the wrong word in the underlying text. That’s worse than a “false friend.”
Important Consideration
100 Versus 5,000
I ask that you also take the next obvious truth into consideration. Someone such as Mark Ward and others, but especially him, will say it is sin to distribute one hundred words he assesses as unintelligible in translation. Yet, he will not consider or call it sin to distribute five thousand wrong words. This comparison should qualify the outrage over intelligibility. I’ll let you judge. Those one hundred misunderstood words look like more of a red herring next to five thousands wrong words.
Ward himself to his credit won’t say that semantic change is an error in translation. It isn’t. However, the wrong word is an error. You can never translate the right word from a wrong word.
The Hodgepodge
What’s lost with the hodgepodge of English translations on the market today? It dismisses the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation of scripture. Among other things, that is what is most unacceptable in an evaluation of this issue. In the late nineteenth century, B. B. Warfield at Princeton Seminary invented a new doctrine of inerrancy to compensate for this very betrayal of the doctrine of preservation.
I see two ironies at least. One, false friends itself is now a semantic change. Mark Ward and David Crystal use “false friend” with a different meaning. Ironic. Two, Warfield changed the meaning of inerrancy to induce acceptability to thousands of changed words in the text of the Bible. In fact, the critical text brings known errors into scripture. What was without error is now error and yet called, inerrant. The irony is not lost on me in either case.
Mark Ward speaks with certainty about a sin of unintelligibility. He isn’t certain about the words of scripture though. He calls it confidence, something less than being certain. According to Ward: confidence good, certainty bad. So that’s fine to Ward and others, to be expected from his and others’ perspective. The only thing wrong to them is questioning him and them on this issue. You must bend the knee to their fallacy or at least join in unity with them as if nothing occurred. Nothing to see, just move along.
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part two)
Rampant Corruption of Belief
Belief is a very malleable concept. It’s easy to manipulate by people. Churches and their leaders can offer the results of belief for something less and far less than belief. They evoke the promises of God for those who believe, yet without the actual believing. Nothing could be of greater or worse consequence.
The Bible gives no varieties of Christians. Nevertheless, varieties of professing Christians take belief into their own hands and turn it into whatever they want. The different versions of belief have divided into several categories, even though there is still only one true belief and only one that saves. What is the belief that saves?
True faith in Christ is not complicated except that men have corrupted and perverted it. It’s not normal or easy any more to help a person understand belief in Christ. People have heard the wrong thing again and again. All the false teaching about belief also now must be undone. The preacher must untangle all those tangled wires and make them straight again.
It is a very low percentage, less than ten percent to whom I talk, that knows the gospel. When it comes to explaining belief, that percentage shrinks exponentially. We arrive at a tiny percentage of people in the United States that understand the gospel. Above all, they don’t understand belief. You’ve got to explain it if they’re going to get it. This is part of what preaching the gospel is.
Not By Works
If he knew those verses from the Bible, someone could go thirty minutes quoting verses that say that salvation comes by believing in Jesus Christ. Salvation comes by believing in Jesus Christ. First, one should establish that salvation comes by believing in Jesus Christ. It is not by works. Someone could also go thirty minutes quoting verses that say salvation is not by works.
Part of understanding belief in Jesus Christ is that it is not by works. Works and faith are mutually exclusive. Verses say this. If you believe in Jesus Christ, it is not by works. Belief itself is not a work, or else belief in Jesus Christ would be a way of saying that salvation is by works. It isn’t. Salvation comes by belief alone.
Jesus Is Savior
If someone believes in Jesus Christ, believing in Him is believing He is Savior. You don’t believe in Jesus Christ if He is not Savior. He is Savior. A so-called Jesus who is not Savior is not Jesus. Churches, denominations, and Christian religions may say that Jesus is Savior, but most of them don’t believe that. He is not Savior as seen in their adding works to belief in Jesus Christ, what I call either frontloading or backloading works.
Frontloading
When a so-called preacher adds a particular work on the front end like baptism or another sacrament, making that necessary in addition to belief, that is not believing in Jesus Christ. This is frontloading works. If this other work is necessary in addition to believing, then it is actually not believing any more and Jesus is not Savior.
Backloading
Other false preachers say that someone must do good works to stay saved. If he stops doing certain works, he could lose salvation. I can never find how many works it is that someone must do who must also rely on works for salvation. You can’t know how many works because scripture says it isn’t by works. It is by believing in Jesus Christ alone. This is backloading works, to say that works are necessary to stay saved. If you have to do good works to stay saved, then who is doing the saving? You are. Then Jesus is not Savior and you do not believe in Jesus Christ.
In explaining belief in Jesus Christ, the true preacher of the gospel must explain this works issue. So many have corrupted the gospel in this manner. Among all religions, doing good works or trying to be good for salvation is the biggest perversion of the gospel. It’s an old corruption that continues to fool and deceive people.
Passages
There are some great passages to use against works for salvation. I will explain Romans 3:20-28, 4:1-6, Galatians 2:16, 5:1-6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 11:6, and others. Sometimes you will need to pinpoint a particular work, like baptism, and know verses that debunk that particular work. This is important to know and explain.
Jesus saves, which contradicts salvation by works. If someone believes in Jesus Christ, then He is Savior. Adding anything to belief will nullify salvation for a person. A true preacher will explain this as thoroughly as necessary to convince of this point from scripture.
More to Come
The Important Quality of Loyalty
Trump Cabinet Picks
This last week President Trump started announcing his cabinet picks and what appears to be their most significant quality is loyalty. The average Trump voter, I would assess, agrees with the strategy. Choose loyal people. Definitely don’t select disloyal ones.
What about Abraham Lincoln? Didn’t he pick a team of rivals? Loyalty doesn’t mean pushover or doormat. It does mean among other things keeping the questions and challenges inside the room. Someone working for Trump knows his position. He should not join to undermine or cause factions.
Factiousness and Heresy
The Apostle Paul in his epistles deals harshly with factiousness. The word in the King James Version is “heretic,” which transliterates a Greek term, that speaks of a factious or divisive person. For a church, heresy diverts off the path of truth as established by the congregation; its doctrine. The New Testament warns against division again and again. This doesn’t mean challenges can’t be made, but loyalty is necessary.
When someone defects in the Bible, that defector left the group. The group coalesced around a particular belief and practice and a person ejects from the group. 1 John 2:19 describes someone who goes out from the assembly, because he was not of the assembly. He would have continued with the assembly if he was of it. By going out, he showed he never was of it.
The usages of heretic or heresy in the New Testament indicate a divisive person. He breaks with leadership just to break with leadership. The person is a trouble maker. He never joined with the idea that he would try to get along.
Whose Agenda
People are drawn in magnetic fashion to the power of the federal government. Booker T. Washington talked about this from his first visit to Washington, DC from Tuskegee, recorded in his biography, Up From Slavery. The White House is a blazing hot center of the political power of the United States of America. People want to burrow their way into this honey pot like ants at a picnic. They aren’t necessarily and probably there to serve the President and with him. They want to use this as an opportunity for their own agenda. That is not the idea of a team of rivals.
Donald Trump was clear about his agenda. He ran on it. The people saying they want to join him know good-well what he said and what he’s trying to accomplish. He is right to pick only those who will be loyal to him and his agenda.
For instance, Trump will bring up ideas that maybe have little merit. He suggests them and perhaps they are stupid ideas or thoughts. But he wants the freedom to talk about those, what sometimes people call “brainstorming.” Those around him tell him what they think. They say they don’t like it and it won’t work, giving their best arguments. Trump wants that. What he doesn’t want is to read about that episode in the paper or hear it in the national news on television that night or the next day.
Trump employees join especially in this present administration with full knowledge of what and who he is. None should expect to leave and write a tell all book for bookoo bucks. They are serving at his pleasure. If they join and find out that they don’t like it, that doesn’t mean leaving to undermine his agenda.
Disloyalty
In the recent campaign, the media and the Democrats used the statements of former Trump team members. They spoke against Trump themselves. John Kelly gave a personal story in which he claimed that Trump said that Hitler’s generals would have obeyed him. Kelly used that to harm his former boss. Mike Pence did the same on different occasions. In order to justify themselves, these men hit Trump. Maybe their feelings were hurt. They should have stayed loyal. If they were not going to remain loyal, then they shouldn’t have joined Trump in the first place.
When I use Kelly and Pence, as examples, and I don’ think they are equal (Kelly was worse), this is not saying they couldn’t disagree. Pence said he couldn’t employ a particular application of the U. S. Constitution. Fine. Do what you’ve got to do. But leave it there at least. I’m living 20 minutes from Columbus, Indiana, Pence’s hometown. Most are not happy with Pence there. It is the issue of loyalty.
Just as a related topic, what about the loyalty of Donald Trump? Maybe Trump himself isn’t loyal either. It’s not something I’ve seen, based on what I’m writing here. Trump follows his own principles of loyalty. He isn’t loyal to those who are disloyal to and remain disloyal to him. For his business and his goals, I understand it. How can you give a presidential job to a disloyal person? The disloyal people are poison to the administration. I get it.
The Same Thing for Church and Friends
As I did a search on my blog here, I didn’t find one post on loyalty. Someone couldn’t say that it is a pet subject for me. However, I believe in it. It’s a good trait for someone to have.
What I’m talking about with the new Trump administration, I would say the same of a church and those who are your friends. True friends will show loyalty. I can say that I’ve had several who called themselves my friend through my life who were disloyal to a great magnitude. Again, I’m not talking about remaining silent without saying anything. That’s not loyalty. What I do mean is someone who treats someone like a friend. That person will not then trash his “friend” to others, even many others. He won’t join in with others who will do the same.
A real friend, a loyal one, is someone who will be there for you when you’re down. What I’m describing goes along with what I’m saying about Donald Trump. I’ve had a few loyal friends through the years. Not many, but I have some and I’m thankful for them. I’m planting that flag of loyalty in the ground too. Above all of course, I want to be loyal to God and His Word.
Recent Comments