An Orthodox View of Our English Bibles? Considering Fred Butler’s KJVO Book and the Doctrine of Preservation
Whenever I read the word, “Bibles,” I get a bit of a chill down my spine. Which Bible is the right Bible if there are plural Bibles, not singular Bible? Isn’t there just one? Why are we still producing more and different Bibles? How many are there? What I’m describing is the biggest issue today with translations, not the King James Version, but now it gets little to no coverage compared to other so-called problems.
Many anti-KJVO books have been written, most often, and this continues to be the case with Butler’s book, calling KJVO (King James Version Onlyism) “dangerous.” It’s true that many KJV Onlyists do not believe a scriptural bibliology. I would contend that most are sound, but it’s true also that many are not. That would be a worthwhile criticism of KJVO, confronting those who do not believe in the preservation of scripture, who do not believe God preserved His Words in the original languages, apparently necessitating God’s correction of them in an English translation. This happens to be the same doctrinal position as Fred Butler. He just deals with the consequences of that belief in a different way.
I don’t know how “dangerous” it is to believe in a single Bible of which translation for English speaking people is the King James Version. How will that get someone in trouble? What’s the danger? Even though Butler calls the position dangerous, he doesn’t explain why anywhere in his book, which I find is most often the case with books of this kind. In general, KJVO take the general position that there is only one Bible, which there is. That is a biblical, logical, and historical position: one Bible. Several Bibles is not.
In his preface, recounting his own personal journey away from the King James Version, Butler says,
I found myself helping them [speaking of others also departing] think critically through KJVO argumentation, as well as develop an orthodox view of our English Bibles.
Why and how is it orthodox to refer to the Bible in the plural, “Bibles”? Again, there is only one Bible, and historically Christians have believed in only one. Some type of multiple-versionism, I believe, creates far more confusion and danger. Usually orthodoxy refers to doctrine. Is the doctrine behind multiple versions and textual criticism orthodox? It’s popular today, but not orthodox.
I’m not going to debunk most of the arguments of Butler’s book. His book is exploring zero new territory others cover much more than he. He mainly addresses KJVO advocates of either double inspiration or English preservationism, very low hanging fruit. He barely to if-at-all distinguishes one view from another. He lumps Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with Edward Hills, D. A. Waite, and David Cloud. He uses a very broad brush. I would not anticipate his persuading one person to his position.
One unique argument I had never read was that KJVO are not Calvinist. The idea here is that if you’re not a Calvinist, then you must be wrong in this position on the Bible. The biggest movement of those who exclusively use the KJV as an English translation are Calvinists. The Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession, as well as many of these Calvinist confessions, hold to the perfect preservation of scripture, which is a one Bible position.
An orthodox view should be a scriptural view. Butler doesn’t establish any kind of biblical and historical view of the preservation of scripture. Butler writes this:
It is true God calls us to have faith, but our faith is grounded upon objective truth.
What is objective truth? Is textual criticism objective truth? No way, and he doesn’t make that connection. It can’t be made. Scripture is the truth on which bibliological positions stand. Butler takes the view agreed by modern evangelicalism, not based upon scripture. He has not faced a bit of criticism from the evangelicals who interview him. He should sit down for a talk with someone who does not take his position to see how his arguments will stand up.
Most people who use the King James believe that it is an accurate translation of a preserved original language text. Obviously, the King James Version itself has changed since 1611. KJV supporters know that. This indicates that they believe that the preservation of scripture occurs in the Hebrew and Greek text. Butler writes:
The Bible never claims God’s Word is only found in one translation. KJV onlyism is unsupported by the Bible itself.
Maybe that confronts Ruckmanism, but I’ve never heard a single person attempt to defend single-translationism from the Bible. The French, Spanish, Russian, etc. can all have a translation from the same text as the King James Version. Butler knows this, but he makes this claim anyway, and it’s a strawman. It doesn’t help anyone. More than anything it gives fresh meat to evangelical friends in an evangelical bubble. On the other hand, he never lays out what the Bible does claim.
There are varied views on preservation among evangelicals. I don’t know of one modern version supporter, who believes in perfect preservation of scripture. Daniel Wallace doesn’t believe scripture teaches the preservation of scripture and he has many supporters. That is now a very common view. He believes in the preservation of the Word, but not the Words. Butler takes a view that might be the most common for evangelicals. Most evangelicals in the pew don’t know this position, but perhaps the majority of conservative evangelical leaders take the position Butler describes:
Yes, I believe God preserves His Word, but I believe it is in the totality of all the available manuscript evidence, variants and copyist errors included.
Try to find that in historical bibliological literature. You won’t find it. It really is a reactionary position to textual criticism among evangelicals. It isn’t a biblical position. Nowhere does the Bible teach it. It’s very much like what you might read on creation today. Confronted with science, professing Christians invent a day age theory for old earth creationism.
Almost all of what Butler finds are theologians, often unbelieving ones, willing to admit that there are copyist errors, which produce textual variants. He and others act like KJVO don’t know that or don’t believe it happened. The history of God’s preservation of scripture is not the same parchment and ink making its way down through time in a pristine condition. God preserved His Words. This physical copy view is not taught in the Bible and it’s only made up as a straw man to create a faux argument.
When you read Butler’s view in his above quote, look carefully at what he says. First, he says God preserves His Word, not God preserved, completed action, like Jesus said, “It is written,” in the perfect tense. He doesn’t say “Words,” because He would never say that. It’s God’s Word in a very ambiguous sense. Jesus said, my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Where does the Bible or even history present this “totality of available manuscript evidence” position?
For Butler the text isn’t settled, like the Bible speaks about itself. He doesn’t know what the Words are. He doesn’t know all of the ones by which He is to live by. I would contend he doesn’t even believe the position he espouses. How would he account for new evidence, which is still coming? What does he do with a passage like 1 Samuel 13:1? I’ve never read an evangelical, who takes his position, who believes that we possess a manuscript with the very words of that verse.
What motivated me to write this post was one aspect of Butler’s book and that is his attack on the teaching of preservation in scripture. Among everything that he writes, I want to deal only with Psalm 12:6-7, mainly to show how men like him deal with these preservation texts. He writes:
The one passage that nearly all KJVO advocates use for establishing the promise argument is Psalm 12:6,7. . . . The immediate antecedent for the plural pronoun them is the plural pronoun, words. Thus, it would seem to make sense that we can conclude God has promised to preserve His words in a physical text.
The Hebrew language, however, is sharply different from English in that it has grammatical gender, something not common to English. In Hebrew, the pronouns will match the antecedent nouns in both number and gender. Here in Psalm 12:6, 7, the two thems of verse 7 are masculine in gender and with the second them being singular.
The closest antecedents in our English translation, the two nouns words found in verse 6, are feminine, so they do not match the masculine thems.
Butler goes on to say that “them” refers to the poor and needy back in verse 5 because they’re feminine. Butler’s argument here has been thoroughly debunked. He’s wrong. First, however, there are many verses in the Bible that teach the perfect preservation of every Word of God. Psalm 12:6, 7 are two of many. There is a great chapter on these verses by Thomas Strouse in Thou Shalt Keep Them, our book on the preservation of scripture. I’ve also written a lot on it (here, here, and here).
Here’s the short of it. Repeatedly in the Old Testament, and as a part of Hebrew grammar, a masculine pronoun refers to a feminine Word of God. You see it again and again in Psalm 119, the psalm entirely about the Word of God (verses 111, 129, 152, 167). There are many other examples. You can find this very rule in Gesenius’s Hebrew grammar, which I used in second year Hebrew in graduate school.
The number argument doesn’t work either, which is why the KJV translators translated the pronoun, “them,” the second time. That’s also Hebrew grammar. It is very common after a plural pronoun for a singular to follow in order to particularize every individual in the group. A collective plural is suggested by the singular. This is also why the NKJV translators, who are not KJVO, translated it “them.”
The Hebrew grammar says just the opposite of what Butler writes. Critical text and modern version men continue to trot out this argument, when they should well know that it’s been answered many times. I’ve never had one of them attempt to deal with it, because it is irrefutable. It’s why many, many preachers and theologians through the centuries, including Jewish scholars, have said that “them” in verse seven refers to God’s “words” in verse six. The gender disagreement argument is a moot point. Without gender, the rule reverts back to proximity, and “words” is the closest antecedent to “them.”
Either Butler didn’t know the gender disagreement argument or he assumed that his readers wouldn’t know any better. Knowing the Hebrew grammar and reading what he wrote, it reads like he was just borrowing from the writings of other people. I’ve read this argument from Douglas Kutilek online. He’s been confronted with the Hebrew grammar and he’s never answered me or anyone else on it. He does not know what he’s talking about.
So much more could be said in review of Fred Butler’s book, but rest assured that God has preserved every one of His Words in the language in which He inspired them, and made them available for every generation of believers. The King James Version is an accurate translation of those Words.
Cosmology, the Big Bang, and the Creation Description in Isaiah 40:22
Cosmology is not a degree in cosmetics, even though distantly related; it means “the science of the origin and development of the universe.” Kosmos is the Greek word for “world.” All forms of that Greek word are found 187 times in the New Testament, translated, “world.” With this in mind, I ask you to consider Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 (also Is 42:5, 44:24; Jer 10:12, 51:15) :
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Scientists look at space, “the heavens,” and what they see there looks, acts, and interacts like Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe. If you start with what you see, the physical universe, you would say that Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe it. How did Isaiah know? He didn’t have the information that modern day astronomers and physicists possess. He didn’t own a telescope. However, I will say that he had the information. It was given to him by God, because God stretched out the heavens as a curtain.
Scientists see an effect that is what Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 describe, but with a naturalistic presupposition or bias, the Big Bang as the hypothesis. All the scientists see is the effect. There is no proof a big bang occurred. Before the Big Bang theory, Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 were written. However, supernaturalism answers all the questions, connects all the dots.
The language of “stretcheth out the heavens” in Isaiah 40:22 and 45:12 affirm an expanding universe. It is from a Hebrew term, which was used in tentmaking. If any of you have erected a tent, you know that part of the process is stretching out or expanding outward the tent material. If creation is treated as a hypothesis or theory, there is epistemic support in the beginning of a finite, expanding universe. Concerning the big bang, the physicist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of cosmic background radiation, Arno Penzias, said:
The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.
I like to compare what we see to walking on to a crime scene. No one but the one who committed the crime knows what happens. Everyone else is looking at the same evidence. No one is neutral. With the science, a creationist still approaches the physical evidence like a scientist.
One illustration I’ve read is a wet car in the drive way. Why is it wet? It’s wet, but the road is dry. The sky is blue. Not only that, but a bucket with a wet sponge sets beside the car on the driveway.
The more evidence we get, the more clues we have, the better or the more likely the explanation of divine creation. It doesn’t get easier to give a naturalistic explanation.
Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy “Spirit”?
Last Friday we asked some questions, including the following:
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
So what are the answers?
The third Person in the Godhead possesses a spiritual nature identical to that of the Father and the Son. He is denominated the Spirit with reference to his Person, not only with reference to His essence. He is no more or less spiritual as to his substance than is the Father or the Son, for He is one being–homoousios–with them, but is called the Spirit because of the mode in which the essence is communicated to him, namely, by procession from the Father and the Son or by the Father and the Son’s spiration: “Spirit, because spirated.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 268) “The Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is emphatically the Spirit. Not that he is spirit in any higher or any different sense of the word spirit, but upon other accounts, the name of Spirit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to him” (Waterland, Second Defence Q. 2). The chart below comes from Bible Study #2, Who is God?, where the Scriptural evidence for it is found, as it is in the detailed study in my Trinitarianism college class:
The Father is most fundamentally Father not because in the work of God toward us–the economic Trinity–He adopts His people and make them His adopted children, but because considering God as He is in Himself–the ontological Trinity–He is eternally the Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; in time the Son was sent by the Father to be born in Bethlehem because in eternity the Son’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), the Father’s begetting expressing the eternal relation between the eternal Persons. The Son is eternally Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. (Lecture #7 in the Trinitarianism course discusses the Biblical evidence that the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s procession are eternal.) Likewise the Spirit is eternally the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (cf. John 20:22) in a manner that is comparable in an ineffably exalted way to being breathed forth, rather than the way the Son is of the Father, in an ineffably exalted way that is comparable to being begotten.
John Owen helpfully writes concerning the designation of the eternal third Person as the “Spirit,” and how this differs from the spiritual essence possessed in common by all three Trinitarian Persons:
This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:1 for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.
In the name Spirit two things are included;—First, His nature or essence,—namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by ruach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtilty, agility, and efficacy; for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name. So it is said of God, John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός·—“God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is; and therefore the name “Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker.
But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created,—not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called … Ps. 33:6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the LORD,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. 18:15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. … And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John 20:22 … and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God … “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. 2:7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. 18:15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” …
Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. 1:2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. 2:4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. … Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father,—that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John 20:17. And he is thus termed … upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being [the font of the Trinity], the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called … the “Spirit of God,” but … “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” … to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.
On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal 4:6;—and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. 1:11. So Rom. 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God,—that is, of the Father,—in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. … This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his precession or emanation from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 54-64)
So most fundamentally the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit,” Pneuma, because He is, as it were, “breathed forth” (pneo, cf. Psalm 147:7, “he will blow his breath, pneusei to pneuma autou,” [LXX]) in an eternal procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle, while the Son, by contrast, is eternally begotten by the Father.
That is why the Holy Spirit is most fundamentally designated the “Spirit”; it is because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Why is He so frequently called “Holy”? Stay tuned–that will be the subject of an upcoming post (although it may not be next Friday; I’m thinking October 15th’s blogpost, probably).
–TDR
John 1:9-13 Say That Faith Precedes Regeneration
Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), meaning that it is not by works (Titus 3:5-6) It is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is a gift of God (Romans 6:23).
Faith is not a work. The following are my two favorite places that teach that:
Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”
2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
First, it is given unto you to believe on Christ. Second, people obtain like precious faith. Salvation is by faith, not by works. If faith was a work, that wouldn’t make any sense.
How does someone obtain faith from God? It starts with revelation. What is to be known of God is manifest in people (Romans 1:19) and then clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20), which is general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6). Next comes special revelation, the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11). As Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This fulfills the message of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” What I’m describing in this paragraph is what precedes faith. Much more could be said on this. The revelation of God is the grace that appears to everyone that gives faith that people obtain to be saved.
With all that said, here is John 1:9-13:
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Becoming a child of God and regeneration are essentially the same thing. Look at verse 12. Which comes first? Receiving Jesus Christ or becoming a son of God? It’s plain. What comes before receiving Him? Look at verse 9. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” I know that Calvinists or the Reformed, not all of them, but many, say that regeneration precedes faith.
The idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from scripture. Why is that doctrine taught and believed then? In my opinion, it is a man-centered reaction to salvation by works. A metaphor for this is a pendulum swing. We’re not saved by works like Roman Catholicism and other religion teaches. The light coming, revelation producing faith, that isn’t good enough. They’ve got to go one step further to show how salvation does not depend on man. They are men and they have invented this doctrine though. The doctrine depends on them.
I’m writing on this because I read the article by Andy Naselli, published in the Master’s Seminary Journal, entitled, “Chosen, Born Again, and Believing: How Election, Regeneration, and Faith Relate to Each Other in the Gospel According to John.” Long title. Does Naselli get his position from the passages or does he come to the passages with his presupposition? You can read his section on John 1:9-13, the first one. He comes to the text with assumptions and forces the text into them. Naselli says that this text does not say that faith causes the new birth. He says “being born of God [is] logically prior to receiving Jesus.” Is that what you read?
If faith comes from the light, that means it comes from God. If faith comes from the Word of God, then it comes from God. If faith comes after the knowledge that manifests in people, then it comes from God. Faith does not require or need regeneration in order to be from or of God. Faith does not come by blood, by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, because faith is given by God and obtained from God. It is not a work.
Naselli doesn’t say it, but I’ve read enough elsewhere to know. Many Calvinists cannot say that faith precedes regeneration, because they see faith as a decision or a choice. You can read that in his article. He says, “The basis of the new birth is not . . . what you desired.” He is equating faith with the “act of a human.” He is saying that faith is our will and since the new birth or regeneration does not come “by the will of man,” then it also cannot come by faith. The problem is that isn’t what the passage point-blank says.
Is the teaching of Naselli and others like him enough to mess up the doctrine of salvation? It is perverting what the passage says. What kind of damage is this teaching doing? It can lead to an extreme where someone does not want to receive Christ, delays receiving Christ, because he is waiting for regeneration. I’ve seen that many times through the years. I’m saying I’ve seen it personally over twenty times with individuals with whom I’ve talked.
I agree with some that this doctrine from Naselli affects what people think of the love of God. God must regenerate to believe. If someone does not believe, then God did not regenerate. This person did not apparently receive irresistible grace, Christ did not atone for him. God foreordained him to Hell. If scripture taught this was the love of God, I would happily believe it. It isn’t what the Bible says is the love of God. It also isn’t what grace is. The grace that saves appears to all men.
Yes, there is a mystery as to why some are saved and some are not. The mystery for the Calvinist is why God chooses some and He rejects others before they were ever born. The mystery for others, like myself, is why some receive Christ and others don’t. The latter at least has some teaching about that. Jesus says that it’s the condition of the soil in Matthew 13. Paul says that the god of this world blinds men’s minds (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Naselli teaches at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minnesota, John Piper’s school. I’ve read John Piper’s explanation of the five points of Calvin. The word “decisive” is a very important word to him. What I’m saying, Piper would say is the sinner, assisted by God, providing the decisive impulse. He would say, I’m saying, that “the decisive cause of faith is self-determination.” Scripture says nothing about “decisive cause.”
As I’ve written about this subject in the past, I’ve said that God is sovereign about His own sovereignty. We can’t make God more sovereign than what He says He is. John 1:9-13 as it reads in its plain meaning does not contradict a scriptural understanding of the sovereignty of God. It does not make salvation by works. Piper adds this layer of “decisive cause,” and in that sense is adding to the teaching of scripture. He speaks where scripture is silent. He reads into the text. This is also what Naselli is doing. Naselli fills in the blank by quoting Calvin, writing:
Faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth.
Then Naselli fills in this silence even more by quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
The act of regeneration, being God’s act, is something that is outside consciousness.
Do you understand what he’s saying? He’s saying that a person becomes a child of God outside of his own consciousness. Is that what John 1:9-13 say? Of course not.
*********************************
I was fine with the ending of this post, especially time-wise. However, since I wrote it, other thoughts came, especially as it related to regeneration outside consciousness. You go evangelizing in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ. You do your best. No one is saved. Why? None of the preaching audience was regenerated outside of their consciousness. Obviously, if God had regenerated any of them outside of their consciousness, they would have believed.
I read a book about evangelizing Mormons, entitled I Love Mormons, and the PhD evangelical who wrote it gives a lot of strategy related to success with Mormons, understanding their culture, knowing their doctrine, taking a proper approach, etc. I’m not saying I even agree with him on all of it, but isn’t the key for success that God arbitrarily regenerates outside of their consciousness? If God does, your Mormon evangelism can’t but succeed. Automatic success. How does loving Mormons affect unconscious regeneration? Not at all, because that would make man a decisive cause of faith. I’m sure many passages come to your mind that do not fit this thinking.
Reality and Truth: Celebrity Conservatives Versus True Bible Believers
Perhaps you, like me, as a Christian, pay attention to certain celebrity conservatives, who take many of the same or similar viewpoints as you. You know there are differences. Where is the overlap?
Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14). The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.
So why “the Holy Spirit”?
What do you think?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then. But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.
Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?
By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.
–TDR
LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists
The visions or revelations of Joseph Smith came about in America at a time in this country when many others were receiving their own visions or revelations, paving the way for Smith’s and the acceptance of his by others. The United States was a land of equality, equal opportunity, and populism. It despised a king and state religion. It liked, loved really, democratic society, where everyone’s voice was heard, and it was, therefore, acceptable to get your own personal revelation from God as a part of your personal relationship with God. That spirit is still very alive in America. Americans distrust their own institutions and this is woven into the fabric of being an American. That includes the institution of the church.
In early nineteenth century, especially on the frontier, people operated in many unconventional ways, depending on superstitions in medicine, farming, and predicting the weather. It was not unusual to use dowsing to find water with a special, forked stick. People could see signs everywhere, giving them guidance from above or within. Snake oil salesman got their name in this era, literally selling snake oil, promising cures to almost anything, circumventing the conventional manner of tending to one’s health.
Joseph Smith was 14 years of age when he had his first vision or revelation from God, and the Smiths, Joseph Smith Sr. and mom, Lucy, weren’t members of a church. Joseph Jr. didn’t come up with the idea of getting visions. It was a thing to have. Only special people had them.
The Smiths couldn’t find a church they liked or agreed with, were still looking, and then Joseph ‘heard from God’ that there was no true church to join. Convenient. Churches have set beliefs and if you are a rank and file non-clergy, you might disagree, your opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and you don’t have a means of having your own in those situations. You might not want the church doctrines and practices imposed on you and also their financial obligations. You want a church where perhaps everyone could share, like is seen in the first church in Jerusalem in Acts chapters 2 and 5. That’s what churches should do, accept your way and then take care of you with little expectation.
On top of everything above, even though there was freedom, it was tough to navigate the new world, especially if you were not born into wealth, grinding it out to earn a living. Many made it through subsistence farming, sometimes succeeding, perhaps enough to invest in a cockamamie get-rich-quick scheme, lose everything and start over again. People still are very allured by the suggestion of some easier path to success, willing to subject themselves to whatever comes along that promises to work better, reinventing the wheel.
Joseph Smith lived in an environment, a culture, that someone could believe that God was talking to him directly. All of the new, astounding doctrines and practices of LDS came by this manner, contradicting doctrines and practices hitherto already established in the history of Christianity: the preexistence of human souls or spirits, God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood, celestial marriage, polygamy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same being, God organized the world but did not create it from nothing, and proxy baptism for dead people. It was also revealed to him through a story that all of these beliefs were the original truth that had been lost and buried for 1400 years. On many occasions, Joseph Smith and then other Mormon leaders received revelations at a time that fit whatever it was they needed to hear from God to make a pronouncement to deal with that situation.
Matthew Bowman writes in The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (pp. 10-12):
The Smiths had unwittingly moved into an ideal location for a family with unresolved spiritual yearnings, the center of what one historian has called “the antebellum spiritual hothouse” and another “the burned-over district.” . . . . The optimism, instability, and freedom of the New York frontier were life’s blood to the eclecticism and experimentation always to be found at the margins of mainstream Christianity. The Shakers, for instance, so named for their physical worship services, had fled to America from a disapproving Britain under the leadership of Ann Lee, whom they believe to be Christ reincarnated. In the United States, they found fertile ground for both converts and settlement, and in 1826 they established a colony less than thirty miles from Palmyra. . . . North of Albany, the farmer William Miller sat by the fire in his home in Low Hampton, New York, feverishly working out the precise date of the Second Coming from the book of Daniel for his thousands of followers, who were convinced that they needed no trained pastors to interpret scripture for them.
But the Smiths had always been drawn — particularly Lucy — not to such visionaries but to the more mainstream ecstasies of evangelical revivalism. The force behind revivalism was the Methodists, who . . . urged potential converts to embrace Christ in a personal divine encounter. At Methodist camp meetings, itinerant preachers, though frequently uneducated and even unlettered, learned how to muse the Holy Spirit among their listeners. Between rousing and sometimes raucous gospel hymns, they offered not prepared sermon on doctrinal topics but emotional appeals, promising forgiveness, warning of hell, reaching their hands to the heavens, and pleading with the crowd to leave sin behind and walk forward to be saved in the arms of Christ. . . . “Men are so spiritually sluggish,” declared Charles Grandison Finney, the great revivalist of the age, “that they must be so excited that they will break over their countervailing influences before they will obey God.” Finney’s talents shone in a month-long revival in 1830-31 in Rochester, a few miles from Palmyra, in which he converted hundreds. . . .
The sort of spiritual manifestations the Smith family had already experienced were not new to most revivalists. Portentous dreams were common particularly among itinerant Methodist preachers, as were the type of healings and providential manifestations Lucy had experienced. . . .
It was in this atmosphere that Joseph Jr., then a young teenager, began thinking about religion.
The ecstasies and visions of revivalism were the seedbed or hothouse for Joseph Smith and the new religion. What makes this acceptable? Some might say, because what they revealed was not false. I don’t know that they can say, that what they’re saying is in fact true. How do you know it’s true, if it is? Someone could say, it’s scriptural. Well, then you don’t need a vision or a revelation from God. It’s already in the Bible. If cannot be proven to be false, then it is an acceptable vision or revelation.
If someone can hear revelations from God, how do those differentiate from scripture? If they are from God, that is equal to scripture. One cannot accept visions and revelations as from God. That opens up Pandora’s box. It’s not acceptable. And yet it is today. You really can’t question it. You’ve got to accept whatever version of it. How does a LDS today distinguish evangelical visions from their LDS ones? It really just buttresses the point of Mormon visions and revelations, that God is still talking to men. He’s still talking to Mormons.
LDS do not have a kind of closed canon of scripture. They have their continued visions, their continued revelations, even if they don’t like the LDS teachings, which many LDS has a problem with, and with their prophets. What has pushed LDS along is their continued revelations. I had a long talk last Saturday to an LDS man, coming out of the garage of his big house, a CEO of a small software company, and he disconnects from LDS doctrine, but he’s got his own testimony, his own experience, his own way of connecting with God, so he can pick and choose. LDS is fine with that. They encourage it. They might call it “the burning in the bosom.” Before Joseph Smith got his first vision, he prayed James 1:5, and that’s become the pattern of LDS since then.
I estimate that a majority of Baptists still get direct messages from God. They call it different things, but these impressions are authoritative, nonetheless, very often for some of the major decisions of their lives. When they give testimony to the important decisions, they don’t say, it was scriptural, my church was fine with it, so I had the liberty to do it, so I did. They say, I knew, God told me. Sometimes God also told the spouse, as a validation. Both knew. Both heard.
The one who questions the experience is the one who says he’s in authority, he’s a king, taking away from the egalitarian nature of receiving visions. Some kind of exegesis of an authoritative book is not sufficient for a genuine Christian experience. Obviously there are contradictions, because many have been excommunicated for contradicting the vision of someone in authority, Smith or Brigham Young. The acceptance of a democratic community fine with your receiving your vision or revelation is the level playing field. Revelations aren’t just for the elite few, but for anyone. This is the “antebellum spiritual hothouse” that we still live in.
The Big Bang Didn’t Happen But It’s A Useful Hypothesis
The universe started with a big bang, but not a Big Bang. It will end with a Big Bang though. The following line didn’t originate with me, but I still like to say, “I believe in the Big Bang; it just hasn’t happened yet.” It’s a laugh line.
Are Christian Ministers “Reverend”?
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religious organizations call their priests “reverend,” or “reverend Fathers.” So do the large majority of Protestants, and a surprising number of Baptists, even fundamental, independent Baptists. Are Catholic priests “reverend”? How about Christian ministers–are they the “Reverend John Doe” and the like?
There is only one verse in the King James Bible where the word “reverend” appears:
Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
In this passage Jehovah’s name is “holy and reverend,” because He is the Almighty Redeemer, who in faithfulness to His holy covenant promises, redeems His people by His power, chooses and sets them apart to Himself, and makes them like Himself, until He brings them to eternally be with Him in His holy presence. Truly, Jehovah’s name is holy and reverend!
But “Rev. Mr. Jones” does not do any of that. Mr. Jones does not have an infinitely holy name or character; Mr. Jones does not redeem God’s people by an almighty arm and by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply looking at the English word, one would conclude that a minister calling himself “Rev.” is a form of blasphemy, taking the honor due to Jehovah’s name alone.
What about the Hebrew translated “reverend” in Psalm 111:9? The form is the Niphal (generally passive) participle of the verb “to fear,” nôrāʾ, hence, “to be feared.” Jehovah’s name is “to be feared” and it is holy.
The Niphal participle appears in 34 verses in the Old Testament. Significant examples include:
Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
Mal. 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
Psa. 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psa. 66:3 Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.
Psa. 66:5 Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.
Psa. 68:35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
Psa. 76:7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
Psa. 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 96:4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psa. 99:3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.
Job 37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
Dan. 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Neh. 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Neh. 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
1Chr. 16:25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.
The strong majority of uses refers to Jehovah as the One who is to be feared / reverenced. An examination of the complete list of texts (Gen. 28:17; Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Deut. 1:19; 7:21; 8:15; 10:17; 28:58; Judg. 13:6; Is. 18:2, 7; Ezek. 1:22; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Hab. 1:7; Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:14; 3:23; Psa. 47:3; 66:3, 5; 68:36; 76:8, 13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 111:9; Job 37:22; Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; 1 Chr. 16:25; note that the Hebrew versification is sometime slightly different than the English) reveals not a solitary text where a godly person, or a priest, or a minister, or anyone of the sort is called “reverend.”
Jehovah is reverend. If you are a Christian minister, you are not reverend.
What about a Catholic priest? There are a small number of texts where “to be feared” or “terrible” has the sense of desolate judgment. Thus, in Habakkuk 1:7 the evil, pagan Babylonians, who come to lay waste, kill, and destroy the Lord’s people, are called “terrible” (Hab 1:7). Likewise, a desolate, life-destroying desert is called a “terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water” (Deut 8:15). So Catholic priests, as representatives of their pagan and Satanic false religion, in the sense that they are pagan, evil, destroyers of God’s people, are “reverend” in the sense that they are actually terrible, are life-destroying like a desolate desert full of serpents and scorpions, and are soul-murderers the way that the pagan Babylonians were “terrible.” After all, the pagan Baylonians are their ancestors as they are part of that great harlot sitting on many waters, the future one-world religion centered in Rome, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelation 17).
So let Catholic priests call themselves “reverend” or “terrible” if they wish–it is true, albeit not in the way that they intend, but in the same sort of way as when the Pope calls himself “vicar of Christ” he employs a title equivalent in Greek to “anti-Christ” (Latin vicarius = Greek anti).
So if you are a Baptist or a Protestant who claims to fear the true God, don’t call yourself reverend. In the good sense, it is true for the one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, alone–He alone is holy and reverend. In the bad sense, of something genuinely terrible and destructive, it is true of pagan murderers of God’s people, and so, in that sense, an appropriate title for a Roman Catholic priest or of other servants of religions that are drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). You are unworthy of “reverend” in the good sense, and I rather think you don’t want to be called “reverend” or “terrible” in the bad sense.
So Jehovah is “reverend”–Hallelujah–and Catholic priests are “terrible/reverend”–to their everlasting shame. If you preach the true gospel and are a servant of Christ, you are emphatically not “reverend.” So stop calling yourself or others “Rev.” The title is either blasphemy, if intended as a compliment, or a statement that they are pagan enemies of God, in the bad sense.
Spurgeon well commented on Psalm 111:9:
“He sent redemption unto his people.” When they were in Egypt he sent not only a deliverer, but an actual deliverance; not only a redeemer, but complete redemption. He has done the like spiritually for all his people, having first by blood purchased them out of the hand of the enemy, and then by power rescued them from the bondage of their sins. Redemption we can sing of as an accomplished act: it has been wrought for us, sent to us, and enjoyed by us, and we are in very deed the Lord’s redeemed. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever.” His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord’s truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstacy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing. “Holy and reverend is his name.” Well may he say this. The whole name or character of God is worthy of profoundest awe, for it is perfect and complete, whole or holy. It ought not to be spoken without solemn thought, and never heard without profound homage. His name is to be trembled at, it is something terrible; even those who know him best rejoice with trembling before him. How good men can endure to be called “reverend” we know not. Being unable to discover any reason why our fellow-men should reverence us, we half suspect that in other men there is not very much which can entitle them to be called reverend, very reverend, right reverend, and so on … we would urge that the foolish custom should be allowed to fall into disuse.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 4.
–TDR
Adonibezek: The Lost Believe in Justice
The beginning of Judges tells the story of the heathen king, Adonibezek. Joshua had died and now God spoke directly to the tribes of Judah and Simeon to go up and fight the Canaanites as a whole and among them the Perizzites, and to take their land. They attack the town of Bezek, which is apparently a little ways West of Bethlehem, if you can visualize that on a map. They killed ten thousand Canaanites in Bezek and captured Adonibezek, whose name means, lord of Bezek. They cut off his thumbs and big toes.
When I think of that, I sometimes think of Rocky Bleier, a running back for the championship Pittsburgh Steelers, during their four Super Bowl wins. He had fought in Vietnam and the shrapnel from a hand grenade had blown off part of his foot, yet he still played running back in the NFL. I think, how did he play running back without part of his foot? How could Adonibezek fight without two big toes? That was the point, of course. And without thumbs, he couldn’t hold on to a sword either.
Upon this occurrence, Judges 1:7 says:
And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me.
No pun intended, but this stuck out to me in Bible reading, mainly the last part, his saying, “So God hath requited me.” Adonibezek believed in justice. Not karma. I’ve found this to be the case with the lost. They believe in justice, they just don’t like it when it applies to them. It’s very often in the back of someone’s head that there will be payback for the things that they have done.
I have a feature on a Bible program, when looking up the usage of the Hebrew word, either “search on this form” or “search on all forms of lemma.” A lemma is a form of a set of words, what you might call the root word. It looks up all the forms of a word. “This form” would be letter for letter that particular word, the same in every way. All forms of this lemma are found 236 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and this exact form only twice, the other translated “finished” in 1 Kings 9:25.
The Hebrew word for “requited” is shaw’lam (my transliteration), which in its root means to be complete or sound. It is the root idea of justice, the idea of something coming full circle, whatever you’ve done coming back on you, completing the circle. It means “perfect,” an end being met, or “full” or “finished.” Adonibezek’s cutting off the toes and thumbs of seventy other kings wasn’t the end of the story.
The law of lex talionis, the law of equal retribution, is an eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth. This is equal justice. The expression lex talionis was written in 450 BC in Roman law known as the Twelve Tables and written: “If a man has broken the limb of another man, unless he makes his peace with him, there shall be like for like, talio esto.” The very beginning of the concept of lex talionis used the example of the breaking of a limb of another man, something close to what Adonibezek had been doing.
Adoni means “lord,” but Adonibezek knew that he wasn’t the highest law. There was a higher law than him, a lord that was higher than what he was. Adonai is one of the names of God in the Old Testament. Adonibezek fancied himself a regional or local lord and the God of Heaven was the Lord of all.
The laws of nature and nature’s God, the language of the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, include this law of equal retribution. I’ve found everybody believes in justice. They know what it means and they want it for themselves, but they don’t like it when it applies to themselves. In this case, Adonibezek knew he was getting it though.
Adonibezek says, “God hath requited me,” so the thought could be that he was acknowledging God. It’s unlikely. He uses Elohim, the Hebrew name for “God,” but also used by the heathen to refer to the god of their own imagination. He did believe in god at least. He at least believed in justice, and God Himself inspired this to be written. These words were recorded in scripture. God had requited Adonibezek, actual God.
Man has God’s law written in his heart as a default position by which he may judge truly. The world functions according to Divine standards. This is our Father’s world, no matter what happens, and that is a presupposition that is useful in the conviction of every unbeliever, Adonibezek being an example. His conscience admitted to him that this was justice from God for what he had done. The world operates according to the laws that God both set in motion and in which He directly intervenes.
Recent Comments