Machen, Liberalism, and the Language of Liberalism Now So Common
J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) is not a name, I would think, most readers would know, even though Wikipedia gives him a long biography. It’s worth reading. He’s an outlier in that he went to Germany for post graduate education and rejected liberalism for conservative theology. He was a professor for 23 years (1906-1929) of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, then led a revolt against liberal theology there, and left to start Westminster Theological Seminary. He was a Presbyterian and usually called a fundamentalist Presbyterian.
As you would know, I am Baptist, and reject Presbyterianism and Protestantism in general. I respect though what they mean for history. I am happy about a conservative Presbyterian. I like him obviously better than a liberal Baptist and even a moderate Baptist. Sometimes I like a conservative Presbyterian more than a conservative Baptist, who is pragmatic, revivalistic, and a soft continuationist. Enough of those comparisons. I’m in part writing this because of a quote I read from Machen. Here it is:
In order to maintain themselves in the evangelical churches and quiet the fears of their conservative associates, the liberals resort constantly to a double use of language.
It comes from his classic book, Christianity and Liberalism. Carl Truman, Presbyterian historian, wrote this summary of the book:
The thesis of the book is devastatingly simple: Christianity, built on the authoritative, divinely-inspired, inerrant revelation of God in Scripture, embodying a robust supernaturalism, and focused on the exclusivity of salvation in the person and work of Christ, is a different religion to that liberalism that repudiates each of these things.
Machen uses as an example, a liberal saying, “I believe Jesus is God,” but the words meaning something entirely different. He uses the words to comfort the heart of a young one who has questions. Machen says he “offends against the fundamental principle of truthfulness in language.”
I see more offense than ever against this fundamental principle of truthfulness in language. People want to play both sides. They want acceptance from liberals and still maintain an audience with the conservative, bridge that gap.
Talking to a woman in evangelism, I said that Jesus wasn’t a rorschach ink blot, that we can look into and see whatever Jesus we want to see. She said she believed in Jesus, but she also believed that He really was like that ink blot. He was intended to be whatever people needed Him to be. This was what she meant by ‘she believed in Jesus.’
Perhaps with regard to truth, men still believe a large percentage of orthodox doctrine at least on paper, but they cave on beauty and goodness. They say they follow Jesus, but they don’t like what He likes. They do something different than what He did. They love the world.
Ambiguous words become vessels for whatever meaning someone wants to give them. They give liberty to those who hold them. They can live what they want, expecting in the end to play a word game. “That is what I really meant, what you said.” No, you didn’t.
When I took ethics, we imagined casuistry, which was called Jesuit casuistry. Casuistry comes from the Latin casus, which means “case.” It started out being a means of evading a difficult case of duty. “Were you there?” I was. It is the Clintonian, it was all a matter of what “there” means. I was “there,” just not where you’re talking about.
False religion is full of imprecision and fuzziness. The hermeneutic is speculative and mystical. With this use of language, man easily worships and serves the creature rather than Creator. The creature still calls it Creator though. Machen called it “the double use of language.”
The Preservation of Scripture: Historical Evidence from a Perfect Preservationist, TR/KJV Perspective
There are many resources on this blog defending the perfect preservation of Scripture and its necessary consequence of the use of the Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus and the KJV, as well as other resources on my website on that topic. The video below presents a summary of the historical evidence from a perfect preservationist perspective, combining the Biblical view that God has preserved His words with historical evidence for the preservation of Scripture. You can click here to view “Historical & Biblical Evidence for the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, which covers both the Old Testament Hebrew text and the New Testament Greek text from which the KJV comes, on YouTube (from the last Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church), or click here to view the video on Rumble, or view the embedded video below:
–TDR
Does Mysticism Mix With the Bible?
Mysticism pervades world history, and especially the history of the United States. What does mysticism do for a country or a person? Is it good? Is it all bad?When Jonathan Edwards described mysticism in the early 18th century, he didn’t use the word “mysticism.” The term mysticism was around, but perhaps not in the kind of common usage so that Edwards would use the term to apply to the “wildfire” and “carnal enthusiasm” he witnessed in the Great Awakening. Edwards also wrote the terms, “imprudences, irregularities,” and a “mixture of delusion.”When the United States got to the 19th century, it was a regular experience for men to say they heard directly from God, perhaps the greatest example of this Joseph Smith. The church history museum in Salt Lake City, Utah says concerning his “first vision”:
Joseph Smith’s First Vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.
The essence of Mysticism lies in this: when the influence of God upon the soul is sought and found solely in an inward experience of the individual; when certain excitements of the emotions are taken, with no further question, as evidence that the soul is possessed by God: when at the same time nothing external to the soul is consciously and clearly perceived and firmly grasped; when no thoughts that elevate the spiritual life are aroused by the positive contents of an idea that rules the soul,– then that is the piety of Mysticism.
In the human Jesus, we have met with a fact, the content of which is comparably richer than any feelings that arise within ourselves.
Mysticism is an assertion of a knowing that must not be tried by ordinary rules evidence the claiming authority for our own impressions.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
When “One” Doesn’t Mean “One”: The Church, One Body
Institutions declare, “One team.” Whole nations announce to themselves and to other nations, “We are one.” You’ve got, “one office,” to promote productivity for the work place. To express the unity of a city, there’s “One Atlanta.” Not surprisingly, you see “One Philadelphia” too.A single team isn’t saying, “We’re numerically one team.” No. The people on the team or the leadership of the team attribute unity or oneness to it. Speaking of the nations of the world at the World Cup, “We are one,” means a desired unity of all the nations. Even an office wants unity, because a unified office gets more work done together. It’s normal for cities to say they are one through all the racial, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. I could find almost every major American city to possess some initiative toward “One Miami” and the like.When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we say, “One nation, under God, indivisible.” The Pledge of Allegiance recognizes at least a desire for unity in a nation. That pledge isn’t saying that other nations aren’t nations except the United States. It also isn’t saying there is one mystical nation, maybe even a single invisible nation to which everyone in the world belongs.
Scriptural “One” For Unity
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 13:11, “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Philippians 1:27, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Philippians 2:2, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” 1 Peter 3:8, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous.”
Acts 19:34, “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”
One Body
Romans 12:4-5, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” 1 Corinthians 10:17, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:20, “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” Ephesians 2:16, “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Colossians 3:15, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”
Appearance of Age and Recent Creation-John Frame’s Systematic Theology
The Bible teaches that the earth’s age is young; evolutionary long ages never took place. Arguments such as distant starlight and other scientific reasons allegedly proving an old earth have received good answers from creationist sources. I was both surprised and pleased to read the following in Reformed evangelical Presbyterian John Frame’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (affiliate link). I expected Frame to explain away Biblical evidence for the young earth and make old earth re-interpretations of Scripture. Dr. Frame said that the issue is not one to separate over (false) and downplayed the issue (too bad), but he actually admitted that the plain interpretation of Scripture is a young earth.
The point of this blog post is not mainly to point out my pleasant surprise from Dr. Frame’s book. It is the quote below, which gives an interesting take on the appearance of age in a newly created world. The quote does not explain everything alleged by old earthers, but it is a useful thought nevertheless:
My exegetical position at the moment is that the earth is young, rather than old. I argued above that the creation narrative suggests a week of ordinary days, and that there is no compelling evidence against that interpretation. That week begins a series of genealogies: Adam, Seth, and their descendants (Gen. 5) leading to Noah, and the descendants of Noah’s sons (Gen. 10) leading to Abraham. These genealogies may well be incomplete. Certainly that is true of the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1). But I doubt that there are enough gaps or omissions in these genealogies to allow for millions of years of human existence.
I think the only way, then, that one could biblically argue for an old earth, billions of years old, given a creation week of normal days, is to posit a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. Some theologians have argued that the text permits a long period of time there, though of course it is impossible to prove from the text the existence of such a period. The trouble is that during such a period the heavens and earth would have existed (1:1), but there would have been no light (1:3) or heavenly bodies (1:14–19). But most scientists would deny that such a situation ever existed. Therefore, the gap theory, whatever its exegetical merits, creates more problems with science than it solves.
A young-earth view implies the proposition that God created the world with an appearance of age. The Genesis 1 narrative certainly indicates that God created Adam and Eve, for example, as adults. They would have appeared to be, say, twenty years old, when they were actually fresh from the Creator’s hand. Some have said that creation with apparent age amounts to God’s deceiving us, but that is certainly not the case in any general way. Normally, when we see adult human beings we can estimate their age by certain physical characteristics. The adult creation of Adam and Eve implies only that these estimates are not always true. It shows us (as I argued in connection with miracle) that the world is only generally uniform, not absolutely so. God does not tell us in natural revelation that every mature person has existed more than ten years. So he cannot be charged with lying to us when he miraculously produces an exception to this general rule.
Some have argued that God would be “lying” to us if he made stars that appear to be billions of years old, but whose origin was actually only ten thousand years ago. Yet God has never told us that the methods that scientists use to calculate the age of stars are absolutely and universally valid. It is not as if the stars were a book that literally tells us their age. Rather, they are data by which scientists believe they can learn the age of bodies in many cases. Reading that data requires not only the data itself, but a whole body of scientific theory and methods by which to interpret that data. What scientists may learn from Genesis is that these methods do not work for objects specially created. So scientists may need to read Genesis in order to refine their methods to a higher level of precision. Of course, it is a general principle that science may not claim that its theories are without exceptions, unless it claims at the same time divine omniscience.
Anyone who admits to any special creations at all must grant in general the reality of apparent age. Assume that God simply made a bunch of rocks out of nothing and left them floating in space to generate the rest of the universe: even in this case, were a geologist to look at those rocks ten minutes after the creation, he would certainly conclude that they were many years old.
Or what if God made the world by a “big bang,” by the explosion of a “singularity”? Many scientists today think that we cannot get behind the big bang, since the big bang is the beginning of time and space as we know them. But the tendency of science is to ask “why?” and that question is not easily restrained. So some today are asking, and certainly more in the future will ask, where the big bang came from, how it came about. To them, even the elementary particles present at the big bang have an ancestry. Such scientists will pursue evidences in those particles (like the rings of the trees in Eden) that suggest a prior existence. Thus, even those particles, to those scientists, will appear “old.” My point is simply that any view of origins at all implies apparent age. If there is an origin, the things at that origin will appear to be older than the origin.
There are problems with the apparent-age view. One concerns astronomical events such as supernovas. Judging from the time it takes visual evidence of a supernova to reach the earth, most scientists would judge that these events happened long before what young-earthers regard as the time of creation. Why would God make it appear as if a great event took place when, indeed, that event could not have happened in the time available since creation? Here, though, we must remind ourselves that all apparent age involves this problem. Any newly created being, whether star, plant, animal, or human being, if created mature, will contain data that in other cases would suggest events prior to its creation. If Adam and Eve were created mature, their bodies would suggest that they had been born of normal parents by sexual reproduction. Their bodies would suggest (on the presupposition of the absolute uniformity of physical laws and processes) that events had taken place that in fact never happened. Why the apparent supernovas? From God’s point of view, just another twinkle in the light stream for the benefit of mankind.
If that is not a sufficient answer, we should simply accept as a general principle that God creates beings in a way that is consistent with their subsequent role in the historical process. If Adam had a navel, that navel suggested an event that did not occur. But it also made him a normal human being, in full historical continuity with his descendants. Similarly, the starlight that God originally created would contain the same twinkles, the same interruptions and fluctuations, that would later be caused by supernovas and other astral events.
I find the type of explanation given above satisfactory as an answer to most problems of apparent age. One problem I find more difficult to deal with is the existence of fossils that seem to antedate by millions of years any young-earth date for creation. If God at the creation planted fossilized skeletons in rock strata, skeletons of organisms that never lived, why would he have done so except to frustrate geologists and biologists?
James B. Jordan has made some observations worth considering in this respect:
But what about dead stuff? Did the soil [during the original creation week—JF] have decaying organic matter in it? Well, if it was real soil, the kind that plants can grow in, it must have had. Yet the decaying matter in that original soil was simply put there by God. Soil is a living thing, and it lives through decaying matter. When Adam dug into the ground, he found pieces of dead vegetation.
This brings us to the question of “fossils” and “fossil fuels,” like oil and coal. Mature creationists have no problem believing that God created birds and fish and animals and plants as living things, but we often quail at the thought that God also created “dead” birds and fish and animals and plants in the ground. But as we have just seen, there is every reason to believe that God created decaying organic matter in the soil. If this point is granted, and I don’t see how it can be gainsaid, then in principle there is no problem with God’s having put fossils in the ground as well. Such fossils are, in principle, no more deceptive on God’s part than anything else created with the appearance of age.31
Jordan’s comments are bound to be controversial in some circles, but I think they deserve a thoughtful hearing. Other Christians believe the fossils can be completely accounted for by the dynamics of a worldwide flood. But I must exit the discussion here, to leave it in the hands of scientists operating with biblical presuppositions.[1]
31 James B. Jordan, “Creation with the Appearance of Age,” Open Book 45 (April 1999): 2.
[1] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 199–202.
The argument about fossils is, in my mind, less convincing than that for dead plants in newly created soil. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth pointing out and thinking about.
–TDR
The Two Story View of Truth and Gender Identity: Matt Walsh on Dr. Phil
A conservative commentator, who works with and on Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro’s new media company, showed up for the Dr. Phil show with two transgenders (the term “non-binary” was used). This interaction has been big on the world wide web. I didn’t hear about it until today, even as I write this. I know who Dr. Phil is, but I’ve never seen his show. I only heard of Matt Walsh, because I’ve seen him on the roster for Daily Wire.
I did know that Walsh had written a children’s book, Johnny the Walrus, to help parents with the gender identity issue with their children. It became a bestseller at Amazon and in particular with LGBTQ, which became a kind of joke for Walsh, bragging that his book might show up in the LGBTQ category.
Walsh, I can see, has now become a unique target for leftists, because he wrote Johnny the Walrus and he showed up on Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil had on his show these two transgenders, who are “married,” it seems, then a pro-transgender professor, two different parents, a mother and father, who both don’t want this taught to their children in school, and finally Matt Walsh.
Everyone was “nice” to the transgenders except for Walsh. It’s not that Walsh wasn’t nice. He was just truthful in a matter-of-fact, unapologetic kind of way. Others insulted Walsh at will, while he insulted no one. Walsh took the position essentially everyone not long ago would have agreed.
GENDER
1. Properly; kind; sort; [obs.] 2. A sex, male or female.—3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives, and participles, to express the distinction of male and female.
Gender being “the distinction of sex,” it follows, of course, that, as there are but two sexes, there can be but two genders. . . . Masculine means, not male, but pertaining to a male. Feminine means, not female, but pertaining to a female.
DIVINE DISTINCTIONS AND REBELLION
On this biological difference we construct an edifice of social attitudes and assumptions, behaviours and activities: these are our gender roles and identities. . . . Unlike sex, gender roles are variable.
“The Phone” and “The Church”
My wife and I were out Saturday in door-to-door evangelism. We talked to several people including a long time to a couple of Mormon missionaries. At one of the doors, we rang the bell and stood waiting in the cold outside. We heard someone talking, so we waited longer. Then I said, “Someone is talking on the phone.” “The phone.”
As we walked to the next door, I thought about the ease at using that language. “Someone is on the phone.” “He’s on the phone.” Is there only one phone in that household? Doubtful.
I remember when there was one phone in the house, so if you were on “the phone,” you really were on “the phone.” There was one. When I grew up, it was one phone, attached to the wall with a short stretchable cord. Then came the option of getting a longer cord. If someone called, that was the only phone call happening in the house.
In our house right now, we’ve got three phones for four people. Despite the number of phones, if someone calls, no one would question the statement, “He’s on the phone.” Everyone knows “the phone” doesn’t mean “one phone,” as in one phone in number. It is a singular noun, but it does not mean a single phone. You know that. Everyone knows that today.
So, when the words “the church” are found in the New Testament, why would people think that it must mean “one church”? They shouldn’t.
Particular or Generic Singular Noun
Perhaps you remember from English class, and it’s the same in the New Testament Greek language, that one aspect of the noun is number. Number. Nouns are either singular or plural in number. Singular is one and plural is more than one. Under the category of number is singular and plural. However, let’s go further.
Under the category of singular noun is one of two possibilities, depending upon the context. A singular noun is either (1) particular (specific), or (2) generic. It cannot be any other but one of those two: particular or generic (specific). If you hear another possible usage of the singular noun, someone invented it or made it up.
When I said to my wife, “Someone is on the phone,” what usage was that? I could not tell which phone he had. It was a man on “the phone.” That was not a particular phone, so it was not a particular usage. It was the generic use of the singular noun. It didn’t matter what particular phone he was using.
Generic nouns are nouns that refer to all members of a class or group. They are often used when making generalizations or talking about universal truths.
In 1938 Fred Long Farley wrote, The Art of Language, and he wrote an example of the use of the generic singular noun:
The generic use of the singular is seen in . . . “the dog is man’s best friend.”
One English grammar calls these “count” (particular, specific) or “non-count” (generic) singular nouns. In 2000 Kabakciev wrote in Aspect in English:
The pattern of the article used with count and non-count nouns should be complemented with the pattern of use of generic and non-generic nouns. . . . Generic notions in English are expressed, for example, by subjects like the cat, a cat, and cats in sentences like . . . . a. The cat drinks milk b. The cat is an animal.
As you are read this, I think you understand the generic use of the singular noun. You understand “the phone” as I used it to my wife. Arthur Wakefield Slaten counted up the generic nouns and the ones with the definite article “the” in his book, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, and he wrote:
The 929 generic nouns were rendered in English nouns preceded by the definite article in 222 cases.
In other words, generic nouns occur all the time in the Pauline epistles. Expect it.
Te Ekklesia, The Church
Ekklesia, the Greek noun translated “church,” is found at least 117 times in the New Testament. Then you’ve got te ekklesia, “the church.” Those two words in the Greek New Testament occur together at least 70 times, closer to 80. You have a lot of opportunities to decide whether “the church,” this singular noun, is particular or generic. Related to number, it can be only one of those two.
Here are some examples of “the church” used as particular or specific, and particularly in the Pauline epistles:
Romans 16:1, “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” Romans 16:5, “Likewise greet the church that is in their house.” 1 Corinthians 1:2, “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 11:18, “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.” 1 Corinthians 11:22, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” 1 Corinthians 14:5, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.” 1 Corinthians 14:12, “Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.” Colossians 4:16, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” 3 John 1:9, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” Revelation 2:1, “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.”
Read those verses. There are many other examples than those above. I gave obvious cases of particular or specific uses of “the church.” What about the generic uses of “the church” in the Pauline epistles?
1 Corinthians 12:28, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 14:19, “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Corinthians 14:35, “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Ephesians 3:21, “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” Ephesians 5:23-24, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Colossians 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” 1 Timothy 3:5, “(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”
There are more than these examples of the generic use of “the church.”
Generic Nouns
While speaking about qualitative nouns, in his The Basics of the New Testament Syntax, Daniel B. Wallace addresses generic nouns:
It is akin to a generic noun in that it focuses on the kind. Further, like a generic, it emphasizes class traits. Yet, unlike generic nouns, a qualitative noun often has in view one individual rather than the class as a whole.
If you want to read an in depth discussion of the generic noun, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a long article that says very much about it, more than I would want to quote here. If you don’t get what I’m writing and need more, there’s a lot there.
Sometimes even when Paul writes to a particular church, he’s not writing about a particular church, but about the doctrine of the church, so he uses a generic singular noun. This is very common in scripture, as noted before, but it is also seen in The Constitution of the United States. Think of the very beginning in the preamble, “the common defense” and “the general welfare.” In Article One is “the state legislature,” speaking of no particular state.
Ephesians 5:23 is a great place to look at the generic use of “the church,” even as quoted above in that list of uses. “The husband” is a generic singular noun, speaking of no particular husband, but “the husband” as a class. “The wife” is also a generic singular noun. Then “the church” and “the body” are used the same way. If “the church” and “the body” were to be anything other than a generic singular noun, then one would expect “the husband” and “the wife” to be something else too, which they aren’t.
There is only a generic or a particular use for the singular noun. There is no “universal” or “Platonic” or “mystical” usage of the singular noun. A “mystical” use, or anything like it, allows to treat scripture like a Gumby doll. Ekklesia, which means, “assembly,” can’t be a single, universal, mystical, something-or-other. It is by nature only local.
When the New Testament says, “the church,” it is either a particular, specific church or it is representative of a class, the generic usage of “the church,” and context will determine which one. When talking about the church as an institution, the New Testament uses “the church.” That’s the way it should be. It is not saying there is one church in the entire world, just like there is not one wife and one husband in the entire world. There also is no mystical wife, no mystical husband, and no mystical church.
You probably still use the words, “the phone.” And when you do, you too are using a generic singular noun, just like when the New Testament often times uses the words, “the church.” You don’t mean a “universal, mystical phone” and the New Testament doesn’t mean a “universal, mystical, church.”
1st Year New Testament Greek for Distance Students
Lord willing, I will be starting a 1st semester introductory Greek class which can be taken by distance students in the near future. If you are interested, please click here to contact me.
What Will I Learn in Introductory NT Greek?
We will be learning introductory matters such as the Greek alphabet, and then the entire Koine Greek noun system, after which we will get in to verbs in the indicative mood. A second semester to follow should cover the rest of the fundamentals of Greek grammar. At the end of the course, you will be well prepared to begin reading the New Testament on your own. You also will, I trust, have grown closer to the Lord through your growth in understanding and application of His Word, will have grown in your ability to read, understand, teach, and preach the Bible (if you are a man; women are welcome to take the class as well, as they should know God’s Word for themselves and their families and teach other women and children), and will be prepared to learn Greek syntax and dive deeper into exegesis and more advanced Greek study in second year Greek. You will learn the basics of New Testament Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary, preparing you to translate, interpret and apply Scripture. Recognizing the importance of using the original languages for the interpretation of the New Testament, you will acquire a thorough foundation in biblical Greek. You will learn the essentials of grammar and acquire an adequate vocabulary.
The course should be taught in such a way that a committed high school student can understand and do well in the content (think of an “AP” or Advanced Placement class), while the material covered is complete enough to qualify for a college or a seminary level class. There is no need to be intimidated by Greek because it is an ancient language. Someone who can learn Spanish can learn NT Greek. Indeed, if you speak English and can read this, you have already learned a language—modern English—that is considerably more difficult than the Greek of the New Testament. Little children in Christ’s day were able to learn Koiné Greek, and little children in Greece today learn modern Greek. If they can learn Greek, you can as well, especially in light of principles such as: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).
The immense practical benefits of knowing Greek and plenty of edifying teaching will be included. The class should not be a dry learning of an ancient language, but an interesting, spiritually encouraging, and practical study of the language in which God has given His final revelation. It will help you in everything from preaching and teaching in Christ’s church to answering people’s objections in evangelism house to house to understanding God’s Word better in your personal and family time with the Lord.
What Textbooks Will I Use in Introductory NT Greek?
Required class textbooks are:
1.) Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society), the Greek NT underneath the Authorized, King James Version:
alternatively, the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Hebrew Old Testament bound together (Trinitarian Bible Society):
2.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) (Later editions of Mounce are also fine, but please do not use the first or second edition.)
4th edition:
3.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Workbook), ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)
4th edition:
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2014)
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, 800 Words and Images: A New Testament Greek Vocabulary Builder (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2013)
Recommended texts include:
5.) Danker, Frederick William (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000
6.) The Morphology of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994
(Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links. To save money on buying books on the Internet, please visit here.)
We are using Speak Koiné Greek as a supplement to Mounce because studies of how people learn languages indicate that the more senses one uses the better one learns a language. Speaking and thinking in Greek will help you learn to read the NT in Greek. We are using Halcomb’s 800 Words and Images because learning Greek vocabulary with pictures and drawings helps to retain words in your memory (think about how children learn words from picture books). Mounce is a very well-written and user-friendly textbook, and Halcomb’s works will make the material even more user-friendly.
What Qualifications Does the Professor Have to Teach Greek?
I have taught Greek from the introductory through the graduate and post-graduate levels for a significant number of years. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover in Greek numbers of times and continue to read my Greek NT through regularly. I can sight-read most of the New Testament. I am currently reading the Septuagint through as well. I have also read cover to cover and taught advanced Greek grammars. While having extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, students of mine have also thought my teaching was accessible and comprehensible. More about my background is online here.
My doctrinal position is that of an independent Baptist separatist, for that is what is taught in Scripture. Because Scripture teaches its own perfect inspiration and preservation, I also believe both doctrines, which necessarily leads to the belief that God has preserved His Word in the Greek Textus Receptus from which we get the English King James Version, rather than in the modern critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies).
What Do I Need to Get Started?
You will need a computer or other electronic device over which you can communicate. We can help you set up Zoom on your computer in case you need assistance with that.
The class should begin in early February and end around the beginning of June. The class will count as a 4 credit college course. Taking the class for credit is $175 per credit hour. The class can be audited for $100 per credit hour. Auditors will not take tests or be able to interact with the class. Taking it for credit is, therefore, likely preferable for the large majority of people. When signing up, please include something written from your pastor stating the church of which you are a member and his approval for your taking the class. Students with clear needs who live outside of North America and Europe in less well-developed countries in Africa or Asia (for example) may qualify for a discount on the course price. One or two students located in any part of the world who are able and willing to help with video editing also would qualify for a course discount.
For any further questions, please use the contact form here.
Lord willing, I will be starting a 1st year Hebrew class for distance students soon as well. Please also let me know if you are interested in taking that.
–TDR
Voting “Rights” Bill
The Democrat Party holds power in the country barely. They don’t have the Supreme Court, even though John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh both sadly voted to uphold the mandate of the vaccine for medical workers in federally funded institutions. When those people were off work, they still will have a medicine in their system that they might not want. The government should not force citizens to put something into their bodies that they do not want. Those two men swung the court to the side of the liberal justices.
The House of Representatives is a slim Democrat majority and it’s tied in the Senate 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris as a tie breaker. However, as you know. at least Democrat Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia has not budged on some of the leftist agenda advocated by President Biden. Manchin might be more trustworthy than Roberts and Kavanaugh, two justices selected by Republican presidents.
The job approval rating for President Biden is very low. Rasmussen had him today at 41 approve and 58 disapprove, which is very, very low for a Democrat president. Quinnipac in its latest poll was 35 approve and 58 disapprove. Anyone in his right mind thinks the job approval should be lower than 41. Who are these people? I think we know.
The midterm elections later in November this year, as they stand, look like a surge for Republicans in both the House and the Senate, perhaps giving the Republicans a majority in the House and the Senate. If that happens, Republicans will be in charge of committees on both sides and starting up investigations on the many corruptions of this administration. Some foresee impeachment potential, but Vice President Harris may guarantee against that.
I read today that Nick Saban, the successful Alabama football coach, who grew up in a small coal mining town in West Virginia, and Jerry West, the Hall of Fame NBA basketball player and later executive, who also grew up in a small coal mining town in West Virginia, both wrote Senator Manchin a letter to vote for the voting rights bill. Saban and West could only gain in their professional careers by supporting the voting rights bill, just like NBA players stand to gain by promoting the Chinese Communist Party, despite human rights atrocities.
What are the voting rights of the voting rights bill? The voting rights bill, if passed, and then upheld by the Supreme Court, would insure that the federal government would control the way states run elections. The U. S. Constitution guarantees the state legislatures have the right to set election laws. Republicans in state legislatures are pushing to strengthen the election laws of their states in order to stop a repeat of what occurred in the 2020 election.
Covid restrictions came in handy for Democrats in 2020. They ignored state election laws. They used Covid for exceptions to election laws. Then tech titans infiltrated local election offices with money and manpower to control how elections occurred and how votes were counted. All this enabled massive ballot harvesting. Democrat operatives filled out ballots on behalf of millions who would not fill them out themselves and dumped in easily accessible boxes. That’s how Democrats won the election.
If 2020 were even a normal election with similar to normal corruption, where individuals received ballots at their homes through the mail and then mailed them in with a signature verifying the voter, the outcome would have been much different. 2020 was a dream election for Democrats, where everywhere was easier to cheat to win. They also ramped up exceedingly more than the normal mainstream media bias, hiding devastating negative stories about Democrat candidates and spreading others about Republicans.
While many locations in California require one to show an identification and vaccine pass to continue in their establishment to purchase and drink your cup of coffee, they don’t want identification for voting. In other words, they want to make it easier to cheat. In my opinion, a big part of the Democrat party does not like voting. They want something closer to the Soviet Union.
The publicity for the voting rights bill poses like a civil rights bill, that without its passing, ethnic minorities will lose their vote. If you support the bill, you aren’t a racist. If you don’t support it, you are one. Advocates portray it as supported by Martin Luther King, Jr. by his identification with voting rights. None of this is true. It’s part of the politics behind the bill, to arouse the base of the Democrat Party by making it angry about something that is really a lie. It’s actually an old strategy, replayed again and again every decade of my lifetime.
I would not think that Saban or West have even read the bill. They’ve likely been recruited to write these letters, having received an explanation of the voting rights bill by their recruiter. I would guess someone helped them “write” them. These are not normally political figures. They are two of the most famous and celebrated contemporary famous sons from the state of West Virginia. I’m glad to report that I do no think either West Virginia or Manchin will go for it. He knows it’s a “voting rights” bill and not a voting rights bill.
The Constitution as originally written did not guarantee a right to vote. It’s not in the bill of rights. States only cannot deny a right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay poll tax (24th Amendment), and age, 18 years and older (26th Amendment). Under Article 2, Section 4, the U.S. Constitution makes states accountable for managing federal elections. Most states then give the citizens of its state the right to vote.
States can require voter identification. That does not abridge anyone based on the amendments in the Constitution.
Voting is not a human right. It is not a natural right. It is not natural law. Those all proceed from God, not government. Voting is a civil right, which means it is given by the government. The government gives the right to vote. It can also take it away. Not everyone in this country is allowed to vote.
State governments are not trying to take away anyone’s right to vote. Right now they want to ensure that the elections of the states are not just free, but also fair. Voting can be corrupted by ballot harvesting and many other modern means to steal an election.
John MacArthur: “Men Dressed Like Women”
Not many days ago, well-known evangelical pastor, John MacArthur, went public, perhaps worldwide, by calling on pastors today to stand with Canadian evangelical pastors by preaching for biblical sexual morality. I noticed that he himself preached “Such Were Some of You but You Have Been Washed” from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 on January 16, 2022, Sunday morning. I’m sure that they will make that available soon on the Grace To You website. In late December, Phil Johnson did an interview with John MacArthur and asked him what he thought about various issues in the news, including Covid, Totalitarianism, and the Antichrist.
MacArthur also said this in the interview:
Totalitarianism that is going to come will basically be imposed on us by Godless, Christ-hating, Bible hating, anti-Christian forces. They may not be overt about that, but if you want to make sure that we are free to murder babies, and you want homosexuality to be acceptable, and you want to appoint people into high positions, who are men dressed like women, and if you want to protect transgenders and all of that, then you have a Godless agenda, you have a God-hating agenda. . . . They’re not even trying to be hypocrites. They are not trying to cover up. I mean, how insane are you when you introduce someone called Rachel Levine and turn that guy into a four star general, who’s acting like a woman, who’s actually a man? . . . How perverse is this culture, it’s so far gone.
And he said more. I agree with what he said, however, I want to talk about the root cause of such a result that MacArthur describes.
What was the start of the gender identity crisis, gender fluidity, and then transgenderism, what MacArthur describes as “men dressed like women” and “a guy who’s acting like a woman”? MacArthur assumes that we understand what it means to dress like a woman. Do we understand? Where does scripture show this? What is the verse that tells us how women dress?
For decades, almost his entire time as a pastor, John MacArthur often referred to 1 Corinthians 4:6, “not to think of men above that which is written.” In a recent question and answer, he said:
I have no authority. I don’t have authority beyond the Scripture. I can never exceed what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6. To do that is to become, Paul says, arrogant, and to regard yourself as superior. I have nothing to say to you that puts any demand on you if it isn’t from the Word of God.
MacArthur’s interviewer, Phil Johnson, wrote the following:
Let me say this plainly: It is a sin to impose on others any “spiritual” standard that has no biblical basis. When God gave the law to Israel, He told them, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). And, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).
The same principle is repeated in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their sectarianism, saying “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos,” and so on. His rebuke to them includes these words in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”
That is a good guideline for how we should exercise our Christian liberty: Don’t go beyond what is written in Scripture.
Does the Word of God say what effeminate behavior is? Does it tell us what is transgender? In his interview with Johnson, MacArthur says that men dressed like women. This is where the downfall of the nation is. This is why totalitarians will rise up to control Christians — in order to protect the practice of men dressing like women.
Do women dress like men? Men dress like women, when they do what? Wear dresses. That is female dress. What do men wear? They wear pants.
MacArthur wants a stand for gender distinctions. That ship sailed a long time ago, when he capitulated on women’s dress. He’s just now saying anything about it. Why? Because men are now wearing dresses.
I guess it’s a strong stand against men in dresses. I guess. Does that seem strong to you? Most men are still against that. What is a strong stand in actuality is against women dressing like men. You won’t hear that ever from John MacArthur, because that very selectively, as the NASV says in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “exceeds what is written.” Since scripture doesn’t say what female dress is, then women can dress however they want.
Does it say what male dress is?
Evangelicals like MacArthur are way too late on the issue of gender distinction. They gave up on it long ago. Transgenderism directly relates to their capitulation and compromise with the world a long time ago. Judgment begins with the house of God.
Recent Comments