The Sinner’s Prayer Absent From Evangelism in Church History
Is the sinner’s prayer a methodology for evangelism present in the overwhelming majority of church history? No.
Some time ago I read Dr. Paul Chitwood’s 2001 Ph. D. dissertation The Sinners Prayer: A Historical and Theological Analysis (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001). It is a valuable historical analysis of the development of the evangelistic methodology dominant in the evangelical and fundamentalist world today, namely, the practice of having the lost repeat a “sinners prayer” in order to become Christians. Dr. Chitwood argues convincingly: “The Sinner’s prayer did not appear until well into the twentieth century. . . . Moreover, the concept of bringing or inviting “Jesus into your heart” is one that does not occur readily before the turn of the twentieth century.”
The absence of the sinner’s prayer as an evangelistic methodology is confirmed by another book I have recently been going through. Published in 1653, it has a long 17th century title: Spirituall experiences, of sundry beleevers, Held forth by them at severall solemne meetings, and conferences to that end. With the recommendation of the sound, spiritual, and savoury worth of them, to the sober and spirituall reader, by the Welsh Baptist minister Vavasor Powel. I am 361 pages into the book as of the time I am writing this blog post. In those 361 pages, not one of the accounts of conversion mentions the repetition of a sinner’s prayer or having someone encourage someone else to repeat the words of a sinner’s prayer, nor of anyone being lead to ask Jesus to come into his heart and then having salvation promised upon performing such a religious ritual. Lost sinners seeking the Lord–which certainly can include prayer (Luke 18:13)–until they lay hold on Christ by faith and are born again? Yes, certainly. Salvation promised to the repetition of a sinner’s prayer, or an evangelistic presentation climaxing in the repetition of such a prayer? Never. Nor is assurance of salvation ever mentioned in this book as being based on sincerely having asked Jesus into one’s heart of repeating the sinner’s prayer–for that is not how 1 John or any other book in Scripture gives assurance.
Now I have not finished the entire book yet–perhaps something will change after page 361. But at least up to this point, it looks like this record by a Welsh Baptist preacher of what takes place in conversion does not involve the modern sinner’s prayer, and provides yet another confirmation of Dr. Chitwood’s thesis that the modern sinner’s prayer is, indeed, modern–which should not surprise us, since asking Jesus into one’s heart in order to be justified and its related complex of techniques is not found in the Bible.
I would encourage those who wish to divest themselves from the Hyles or Campus Crusade type of evangelistic methodology that climaxes with the repetition of the sinner’s prayer and a promise of salvation to those who sincerely perform this ritual evaluate better methods of explaining the gospel (I like this one, but I am biased). Furthermore, those who do not know how urge the lost to immediately repent and believe without also telling them to immediately repeat the sinner’s prayer as the real final step should consider some of the resources on the older and more Biblical evangelistic methods here.
“Judge Not”: What’s It Saying?
The Context of Matthew 7:1
Matthew chapter seven starts with a very short, memorable command in the midst of a long sermon by Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” How does that fit into His message? People turn it into a statement against judgment or judgmentalism. But that is not what He was saying.
Jesus exposes His addressed audience, that it falls short of the glory of God. And the glory of God is their standard according to Jesus. “Be ye perfect as the Father is perfect,” He says (Matthew 5:48).
The crowd for Jesus thinks it’s okay because it hasn’t murdered anybody, but it really has murdered in the heart through its contempt for others. It is proud of its giving, its prayer, and its fasting, even though it does these to be seen of men. Its worry or anxiety about what it will eat or what it will wear means it does not seek first the kingdom of God. Without the requisite poverty of spirit, it will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
How Judgment Fits the Context
Comparison
How could the crowd think it was so good? How? It compared itself to other men, that’s how. But Jesus then debunked its false, self-righteous judgment of other men. Even if His audience were held to an identical standard to which it judged others, it would still fall short. It would still find itself failing before God’s holy judgment. Evaluation of one’s self based upon the standard of other men doesn’t change God’s standard of judgment, just shows how self-deceived it is.
People’s own judgment very often becomes their standard of judgment. That’s why they think they’re good. I see this again and again in my evangelism. Most people think they are good. It doesn’t take long in comparing people to God for them to find they don’t stand up to Him.
Contrast
In the next verse, verse two, Jesus says:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Jesus expands on verse one. The Apostle Paul later makes a similar point in Romans 2:1-2:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Jesus Recommends Judgment
Jesus wasn’t saying, “don’t judge at all.” That’s easy to see. That’s not even what He was talking about. Even to make a righteous judgment of others, you can’t be or doing worse than the person you’re judging. All of this exposes the hypocrisy of pseudo-judgment intended to signal virtue and vindicate self. “I’m not as bad as the other guy, so there!”
When Jesus lays out judgment of any person upon any other person, it is for helping that other person. He’s got a moat or a splinter in his eye and you can help him get it out. If he’s beyond help, which we might assume starts with evangelism, Jesus gives an illustration for that. Don’t give something holy to dogs and don’t cast pearls before swine.
In other words, Jesus recommends judgment. He gives two priorities for judgment. One, remove impediments of judgment before you start judging. Two, don’t waste time and energy judging someone whom won’t listen to or use your wise judgment. Good reasons exist for judgment. Using the comparison with other men for self-vindication is not one of them.
The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV
Another Video from Mark Ward
Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).
I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.
Changing Tune
Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.
Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.
My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video
Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.
I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.
Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.
Underlying Text Different
The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.
Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.
More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV
So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.
I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.
Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.
With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?
Matthew 9:17
I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.
KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.
More to Come
Acts 5:30 & James White: King James Version Only Debate
As many blog readers know, I had the privilege of debating James White-who utilized Acts 5:30 as a key part of his argument–on the topic:
The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.
You can watch the debate here at What is Truth? at Faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. A number of Christians posted debate reviews, some of which are discussed in a What is Truth? post here. I also produced a series of debate review videos accessible on my website, on YouTube, and on Rumble. It had been a while since I had made a new one, but I (finally) got around to getting out my thoughts on James White’s argument from this verse:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, KJV)
The God of our fathers braised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a tree. (LSB)
James White’s Argument on Acts 5:30
White argued:
1.) The King James Version in Acts 5:30 teaches that the ungodly first slew Christ, and after He was slain, they hanged Him on a tree or cross. This would destroy the gospel by denying that the Lord Jesus died on the cross for our sins; rather, the KJV (supposedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was first killed and then His dead body was hanged on a tree or cross.
2.) The LSB is a superior translation to the KJV because in Acts 5:30 it states that His enemies killed Christ “by hanging Him on a tree,” that is, by crucifying Him.
3.) The Greek of Acts 5:30 contains the participle kremasantes, which must indicate means and be translated as affirming that Christ was slain “by hanging.” It cannot be translated “and hanged.”
4.) The KJV translators simply “missed” that kremasantes was a participle, and not realizing that kremasantes was a participle, they translated it like a finite verb.
5.) “Every English translation” translates kremasantes as a participle of means (that is, “by hanging”). The KJV “is the only one” that translates the Greek as “and hanged.”
6.) There is no Greek word “and” in Acts 5:30. The KJV therefore mistranslates the verse by adding words not found in the Greek text.
7.) Because the KJV (allegedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was killed before He was crucified in Acts 5:30, because the translators were sloppy and missed that the verse had a participle and so disagreed with every other English translation, and because the KJV adds in the word “and” that is not contained in the text, the KJV is an inferior translation in Acts 5:30, and, so, presumably is an inferior translation overall. The LSB (and every other English translation, all of which unite to oppose the KJV in Acts 5:30) are superior, not just in Acts 5:30, but in the entire Bible.
James White has been making his claims against the King James Version’s translation of Acts 5:30 for around 30 years in the several editions of his The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), and he made them again the debate.
The Truth on Acts 5:30 and James White’s Argument
In my review video, I demonstrate:
1.) James White’ argument from Acts 5:30 does not get him even close to proving the proposition in the debate.
2.) Dr. White’s criticisms of the King James Version in Acts 5:30 are astonishingly uninformed and inaccurate.
3.) White’s claim that the KJV translators simply “missed” that Acts 5:30 contained a participle is painfully unserious.
4.) White claimed that the KJV contains a mistranslation because it supplies the word “and” before “hanged,” when the syntactical category of the attendant circumstance participle (found in Acts 5:30) requires the insertion of an “and.”
5.) To attack the KJV in Acts 5:30, White’s King James Only Controversy invents a fictional Greek grammatical category called “instrumental circumstantial modal” and makes claims about the Greek grammar of Dana and Mantey that have no connection to the actual text of their book.
6.) Failing to account for the Old Testament allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22 in Acts 5:30 is another of many examples of what is lost on account of White’s writing the King James Only Controversy in only a few months and never improving it.
7.) The favorite manuscripts of the Textus Rejectus teach the heresy that the Lord Jesus was murdered by a spear thrust before His crucifixion in Matthew 27:49. To be consistent with White’s line of reasoning, we must recognize the unambiguous superiority of the Textus Receptus because of the egregious error in the Textus Rejectus in Matthew 27:49.
Why? Watch the embedded video below, or watch the debate review video on Acts 5:30 (#15) at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.
–TDR
Baptist History and the Points of Calvinism
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
Baptists, Calvinistic or Arminian?
In the last post of this series, I wrote that John T. Christian said in his book on The History of Baptists, that Baptists were more Calvinistic than Arminian. When I wrote that or referenced him, I wasn’t saying that Baptists are Calvinists. At least since the advent of Calvinism, they are more Calvinistic, mainly referring to eternal security. Eternal security very often and for some is shorthand for Calvinistic, setting someone apart from Arminianism.
Even with a Calvinistic resurgence in the Southern Baptists, only 30% are Calvinist. They aren’t the majority. I know some look at the English and American Baptist Confessions to get or have the opinion that Baptists were mainly Calvinists for the last four hundred years. You would be wrong again.
Particular and General Baptists
Particular Baptists, the Calvinist wing of Baptists in England especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, wrote the London Baptist Confession. At the time of their writing of that confession, they represented slightly more of the Baptist churches in England than the General Baptists, the non-Calvinist wing. That Confession did not speak for all Baptists in England. John T. Christian writes about this:
This body (of General Baptists) constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation.
The first Baptists in England were not Calvinists. The Calvinists came later as a separation from the Anglican church in 1633. Calvinism was an unnatural growth for Baptist churches. Calvinist Baptists came first from a break with the Church of England, not an adaptation on Baptist churches. They broke with the Anglicans over such doctrine or practices like infant sprinkling.
Apparently because of the doctrinal problems among the General Baptists, once the Particular Baptists came to England, the latter outgrew the former for a short period. By 1660, Particular Baptist churches outnumbered General Baptist ones, 130 to 110. Anglican England, however, persecuted both Baptist factions until the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary and the Toleration Act of 1688.
Calvinism and Arminianism Both Clash with Historical Baptist Belief
Calvinism does not characterize Baptists. Eric Hankins explains this well in his journal article, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism Toward A Baptist Soteriology:
Baptists believe in the clarity and simplicity of the Bible. We search in vain for decrees, a Covenant of Works, the distinction between a “general call” and an “effectual call,” hidden wills, and prevenient grace. We react with consternation to the ideas that God regenerates before He converts, that He hates sinners, that reprobation without respect to a response of faith brings Him the greatest glory, or that the truly converted can lose their salvation. Baptists have felt free to agree with certain emphases within Calvinism and Arminianism, while rejecting those that offend our commitments to the possibility of salvation for all and to the eternal security of that salvation based exclusively on faith in the covenant promises of God.
The free offer of an eternal, life-changing covenant with the Father through the Son by the Spirit to all sinners by the free exercise of personal faith alone has been the simple, non-speculative but inviolable core of Baptist soteriological belief and practice. Baptist soteriology (specifically including the doctrines of the sovereign, elective purposes of God, the sinfulness of all humans, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the security of the believer) is not in jeopardy and does not need to be reinforced by Calvinism or Arminianism. It can be successfully taught, maintained, and defended without resorting to either system.
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Infant Sprinkling
Hankins continues:
It has been typical of Baptists to believe that anyone who reaches the point of moral responsibility has the capacity to respond to the gospel. While all persons are radically sinful and totally unable to save themselves, their ability to “choose otherwise” defines human existence, including the ability to respond to the gospel in faith or reject it in rebellion.
God initiates the process; He imbues it with His Spirit’s enabling. When people respond in faith, God acts according to His promises to seal that relationship for eternity, welding the will of the believer to His own, setting the believer free by His sovereign embrace. Our assurance of salvation comes not from a “sense” that we are elect or from our persistence in holy living. Assurance comes from the simple, surrendered faith that God keeps every one of His promises in Christ Jesus.
Baptist Insistence on Believer’s Baptism
Baptists’ historical insistence on believer’s baptism is a solid indicator of our soteriological instinct. Historically, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism had a correct word for infant baptism because both were burdened with the justification for total depravity, original sin, and individual election. For many Arminians (like those in the Wesleyan tradition), infant baptism functions with reference to original sin and prevenient grace and plays a role in the faith that God “foresees.” For many Calvinists, infant baptism has become an extremely odd vehicle by which they deal with the fate of infants, an issue that is illustrative of the fundamental inadequacy of the system.
If Calvinism is true, then its own logic demands that at least some infants who die before reaching the point of moral responsibility spend eternity in hell. By and large, Calvinists do not want to say this and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Covenant Theology and infant baptism have been the preferred method for assuring (at least Christian) parents that they can believe in original guilt and total depravity and still know that their children who die in infancy will be with them in heaven. While Baptist Calvinists and Arminians do not allow for infant baptism, the fact that their systems allow for and even advocate it is telling.
Baptist Rejection of Covenant Theology
Prevenient grace and Covenant Theology have never played a role in Baptist theology. This frees us to deal biblically with the issue of infant baptism: it is simply a popular vestige of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that the Magisterial Reformers did not have either the courage or theological acuity to address. Privileging election necessarily diminishes the significance of the individual response of faith for salvation, thus creating room for infant baptism and its theological justification. But with faith as the proper center of Baptist soteriology, infant baptism has never made any sense. Our distinctive understanding of the ordinance of baptism celebrates the centrality of the individual’s actual response of faith to the free offer of the gospel.
Hankins gets at the crux of the doctrinal conflict between true Baptist doctrine, actual New Testament doctrine and practice, and the innovation of Calvinism and Arminianism. The doctrinal and practical deviation from scripture of Calvinists and Arminians both clash with the doctrinal and practical sensibility of Baptists. They are a diversion off the true line or trajectory of Baptist churches from their beginning, almost a mutation.
Baptists Not Protestant
Sadly, many professing Baptists embrace Protestantism as their history through Roman Catholicism. This is a new historical revisionism that arose in the late 19th century. Here is what C. H. Spurgeon wrote in the Sword and the Trowel concerning the History of English Baptists in a review of J. M. Cramp’s History:
The history of English Baptists is full of interest. From the first they were peculiarly offensive to “the powers that be.” Henry the Eighth – who did so much for the Anglican Establishmentarians that he ought to be regarded by them as a pet saint, even as he was befooled and belarded by the intriguing Cranmer – when he assumed the headship of the Anglican church which never acknowledged Christ to be its only Head, proclaimed against two kinds of heretics, viz., those who disputed about baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and such as were re-baptised. These Anabaptists were commanded to withdraw from the country at once. Cranmer ordered some to be burnt, and burnt they were.
1357 Date for English Baptists
Mr. Kenworthy, the present pastor of the Baptist church at Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire, has stated that if the traditions of the place are to be trusted, the church is five hundred years old. “A tombstone has been lately dug up in the burial ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of the church is assigned to the year 1523.
It is evident that there were Baptist communities in this country in the reign of Edward VI, since Ridley, who was martyred in the following reign, had the following among his “Articles of Visitation:” “Whether any of the Anabaptists’ sect or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they do use doctrines or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish?” A fearful crime which many Anglicans of the present day would be as ready to punish were it not that other notions of religious liberty exist and powerfully influence public opinion.
We can trace the same spirit, though in embryo perhaps, in the ritualistic prints of the present age, and indeed in the two delightfully amiable Evangelical newspapers whose unbounded hatred of all outside the pale of their theology and clique is as relentless and unscrupulous as the bitterest feelings of Papal days. All history teaches that state-churchism means persecution, in one form or another, according to the sentiments of the age; and the only cure for the evil is to put all religions on an equality.
True History of Baptists Not Protestant
Spurgeon did not believe the Protestant view of English separatism. He with his mammoth library and well-read wrote the following:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.
Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
Spurgeon made statements like this many times in sermons through the years, not from the seat of his trousers, but from what he read of prime sources and other history. He also talked among many English men for years as to the truth of Baptists.
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
The last point of Calvinism is
5. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
He That Overcometh
That language sounds right to me, but especially like “total depravity,” the first point, it depends on how one explains it. Why it seems good is because of certain scriptural language, chiefly two in particular. One, the New Testament describes the truly saved person as him or he “that overcometh” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). In an explicit way, 1 John 5:4-5 say:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
True believers will overcome or persevere. One of the ways you know a person is not a true believer or who possesses saving faith is that he will not overcome. If it’s true, real, or living faith, it will persevere or overcome. What does someone overcome? Scripture would most characterize it as trials, temptations, snares, or tests, brought by Satan or the world system that Satan orchestrates. Jesus explained it in the parable of the soils as the sun beating on the soil, the stony or rocky does not have root and cannot endure.
Abiding in the Vine
Two, Jesus used the metaphor of abiding in the vine (John 15). Often, because of a wrong view of sanctification, evangelicals messed up this doctrine. “Abide” (meno) comes from a simple Greek word that means “remain.” Truly saved people, people with true saving faith, will abide or remain. They will not defect like Judas or Demas (2 Tim 4:10).
The reason true believers remain, that is, don’t lose their salvation, is that God keeps them. Once in His hand, no man can pluck them out of His hand (John 10:27-30). He keeps them by His power (1 Peter 1:5). Paul expresses it this way in Philippians 1:6:
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.
God began the work of saving grace and He will complete it. Despite the testing of Satan, Job persevered, which testified of His saving righteousness.
Perseverance contrasts with a form of eternal security doctrine that eliminates an enduring or steadfast faith. True and saving faith through the New Testament does endure all the way into eternity. The eternal life of eternal security resulting through faith in Christ continues as more than just a quantity of life, but also a quality of life. The eternal life received by saving faith proceeds from the nature of God. That life of God will characterize the one who possesses it according to His moral attributes.
Regeneration and Perseverance
Is everything that I have described the actual doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? I’m afraid not. For Calvinists, unless regeneration preceded faith, then man’s contribution would have mixed with God’s in a non-saving way. Regeneration as a consequence of faith, Calvinists say, will not persevere. Man thus contributes to and fails at staying saved.
Endure to the End, Shall Be Saved
In other words, every point of Calvinism fits with all the others, so that if one is wrong, all are wrong, no matter how much each one is right. Some thing or many things are right within each point, but enough is wrong to make the point itself in general wrong. Perhaps no point is more right of the points of Calvinism than the perseverance of the saints. Jesus said in Matthew 24:13:
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
“Shall be saved” is a future tense verb. This is ultimate salvation, what some call “eschatological salvation.” It takes in justification, sanctification, and glorification. If God truly justifies someone, he will endure to the end. Even though it is God keeping and sanctifying, the New Testament describes the cooperation of the believer in this. Paul commands the believer to ‘work out his own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Philip 2:12). Peter explains this as ‘giving diligence to make your calling and election sure’ (2 Pet 3:10).
To emphasize some modification of Calvinism, I will rename this point
5. GOD’S PRESERVATION OF HIS SALVATION GUARANTEES MAN’S COOPERATION WITH IT
Many Calvinists wouldn’t disagree with that point. Many non-Calvinists, who claim belief in eternal security, would reject it. Man cannot cooperate without the will and work of God in saving him. If God does save him, he will cooperate with what God does. This fulfills the teaching in Romans 8:29. Whom God foreknew, He predestined to conform to the image of His Son. Every man God justifies, He also sanctifies.
From my reading of Calvinists, I contend that the points of Calvinism do not change the plan of salvation. I hope you noticed that I didn’t say, “the doctrine of salvation.” A Calvinist would receive and would not reject that (1) every man is a sinner, (2) he deserves a penalty for sin, (3) Jesus paid that penalty, and (4) he must believe in Jesus Christ. I’m saying that Calvinism itself does not change the gospel. The points of Calvinism in themselves do not result in a false gospel or salvation by works. According to historians, Baptists have been more Calvinist than Arminian. I write that, less an endorsement of Calvinism, but as it is a repudiation of Arminianism.
I reject a lot that Calvin believed, his ecclesiology, eschatology, infant sprinkling, and more. The corrupt doctrine in the points of Calvinism, although I’m saying is not a false gospel, has bad consequences. The points of Calvinism as taught by historical Calvinism leads people astray on numbers of doctrines. All false doctrine causes problems. Every problem for every church and every Christian comes to some misalignment with or deviation from the true teaching of the Word of God. This includes several various aspects of the points of Calvinism.
A BETTER LIST
You don’t need Calvinism or Arminianism. Certain aspects of both you’ll find in the Bible. I call on everyone to reject both. Either will send you a wrong direction. Instead latch on to what scripture really teaches, which I hope you will see in the alternative points I provided.
Maybe you don’t even need a list or five points. I’m not saying you do. However, if you’re going to have a list of points, I contend mine is better than Calvinism or Arminianism. It will allow for whatever truth either of those doctrinal positions provide. Instead of conforming to a system, perhaps mine will conform to the full counsel of the Word of God. Let’s review them (look back through the series as all of these points were longer there).
- SPIRITUAL BANKRUPTCY
- ELECTION ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE
- AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE
- SUFFICIENT GRACE TO SAVE
- PRESERVED SAINTS COOPERATE
You’re not going to get the fun acrostic T.U.L.I.P. here. I didn’t even try (SEASP?). I warn you, don’t anyone call these the “five points of Brandenburgism.” Okay? And despite not having a pretty flower to remember, just stop and smell some roses while you review these five instead.
John 5:4 KJV/TR: Inspired Scripture or Inserted Invention?
John 5:4 appears in the Greek Textus Receptus, the English King James Version or Authorized Version (KJV / KJB / AV), and in other Received Text – based Bibles. However, it is omitted in many modern Bible versions. The verse reads:
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
The variant actually concerns John 5:3b-5:4. The section in bold is what is omitted:
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος πολὺ τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. 4 ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
Should we receive John 5:4 (or rather, John 5:3b-5:4) as part of God’s holy Word? Yes, we should. Why?
1.) In God’s singular care and providence it has been included in the Textus Receptus, and received by the churches. Scripture promises maximal certainty about its own text.
2.) John 5:4 has great support in Greek manuscripts. It appears in 99.2% of all Greek manuscripts. The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, which is biased against the Textus Receptus, nevertheless lists as supporting witnesses in favor of John 5:4 the following: A C3 K L Xcomm Δ Θ Ψ 063 078 f1 f13 28 565 700 882 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita,aur,b,c,e,ff2,j,r1 vgcl syrp,pal copbomss arm Diatessarona,earm,i,n Tertullian Ambrose Didymus Chrysostom Cyril.
Thus, for example, Tertullian explicitly comments on John 5:4 in his On Baptism (Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885], 671.) with no indication that anyone was questioning it. Undoubtedly, the testimony in favor of John 5:4 is both very extensive and very ancient. Its “appearance in an overwhelming number of surviving Greek manuscripts, its diffusion into the Latin and Syriac traditions (plus even some manuscripts of the Egyptian Bohairic version), along with its citation by fathers in both East and West … serve to underscore its age[.]” (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 29.)
3.) John 5:7 does not make sense without John 5:4:
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
If John 5:3b-5:4 is omitted from the Gospel of John, John 5:7 does not make any sense. What is the impotent man talking about?
4.) The Copper Scroll from Cave 3 at Qumran establishes that the spelling of the name as “Bethesda,” as found in the Textus Receptus and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, is correct, while the alternative spellings that are featured in the tiny minority of MSS that omit John 5:4 (Bethsaida; Belzetha; Bethzatha) are incorrect. If the witnesses for omission are clearly wrong here, while the Textus Receptus is right, we should not be surprised if the Received Text is also right in including the passage.
5.) The theology of the passage fits with the rest of Scripture, although some have unreasonably questioned it. How can John 5:4 accurately record real events? I do not see why we should think that, in that period of time before there was a completed canon of Scripture and when the Jews, who desire a sign, were God’s nation and institution in a pre-Christian dispensation, that He could not have at unspecified intervals (John 5:4 does not say how often this happened) have miraculously healed people who came to this location through the instrumentality of angels. If demons contribute to at least some sicknesses and disease, why should we be surprised if God’s angels are associated with health? The area was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, and so this miraculous action would have ceased by that point (if not earlier with the inauguration of the church as God’s institution, or even with Christ’s actions in John 5). Such miraculous healing could have been a sign that God’s special presence remained with His nation and people, even in the times of the Gentiles. Indeed, we should see that God even designed the entire place to point forward to Christ and to the manifestation of His glory as seen in John 5, after which the miracles likely ceased to take place there. The fact that, in this age when sign miracles (semeion) do not occur (although God works powerfully [dunamis] in His providential care and in many other wonderful ways) this verse can seem odd, and (in this dispensation) we are rightly highly skeptical about miracle claims, could easily explain why someone wanted to take the passage out and why a small number of people who were fine “correcting” the Bible were able to get the verse out of less than 1% of Greek MSS. One writer comments:
[I]t must be said that the miraculous intervention of angels in human life is so well established in the Bible, and so variegated, that only those who are uncomfortable with supernaturalism itself are likely to be genuinely troubled by the content of the verses under consideration. Indeed it may even be proposed that the reference to the angel is functional for Johannine theology. Already the Fourth Evangelist has pointed to the subservience of angels to the person of Christ by citing the Lord’s memorable words to Nathaniel, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (1:51). But here too the angelic ministration at the pool of Bethesda is markedly inferior to the ministry of God’s Son. Indeed, the seasonal and limited character of the healings the angel performed—and which were of no avail to the invalid described in this passage—are an appropriate backdrop for the instantaneous deliverance which Jesus brought to a man who had virtually lost all hope (cf. v. 7) while he lay forlornly in a place where God’s mercy seemed always to touch others, but never himself. The concept that Messiah is greater than the angels—despite the reality of their divinely appointed activities—lies implicitly in the background of the Johannine text. That this was an important theme for early Christianity no one will doubt who has read the opening chapters of the Book of Hebrews. Its appearance here, therefore, is hardly surprising. (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 [1979]: 38–39).
It is also unfortunate that anti-Received Text presuppositions lead to the exclusion of any consideration of John 5:4 in many modern books on the doctrine of angelology.
In conclusion, John 5:4 (John 5:3b-4) is part of God’s Word, just as inspired as the rest of the text. We should receive it with fear and trembling, reverence and love, as we do the rest of holy Scripture.
–TDR
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Three)
The second point of Calvinism is “unconditional election,” and part two of this series said that election is not predetermined. Instead, God elects according to His foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God knows who will believe in Him and elects them before the foundation of the world. Calvinists get unconditional election out of this by changing the meaning of foreknowledge. They say that term means “forelove,” in the sense that “Adam knew his wife Eve” (Gen 4:1) and Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).
Turning “foreknowledge” into “forelove” is one of many examples of how Calvinism contorts the meaning of words to get its five points. It really is tell-tale. This stretching of the truth does not comport with the plain meaning of the text. Changing the meaning of “foreknowledge” opens the door to all sorts of new doctrine not taught in scripture. Rather than knowing who would believe, God makes only certain people to believe and others not. It becomes His will to damn people to Hell rather than knowing who wouldn’t believe. This is a big change in the reading of scripture almost entirely through this manipulation of one word.
The first three points of Calvinism are (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, and then (3) limited atonement. I named instead the first two (1) each person’s spiritual bankruptcy and (2) God’s election according to his foreknowledge.
3. LIMITED ATONEMENT
More than Atonement
“Limited atonement” is the historical term for this third point. As a bit of an aside to its meaning, I believe that atonement is an Old Testament concept. Christ’s death was more than atonement. His death and shed blood did more than atone for sin. Jesus’ work on the cross removed, took away, or washed away sin. For instance, Israel had a day every year called, Yom Kippur, which means, “Day of Atonement.” This spoke of something that occurred through the blood of animals, which could not take away sin.
In the context of the point of Calvinism, Calvinists say that God atoned only for the sins of the elect. They mean that Jesus died and shed His blood only for the elect. Calvinists don’t take this from any statement in scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach it. It’s what some might call a logical leap that reads like the following paragraph (I’m going to indent it to indicate it is not my position, so as not to confuse).
The Fit Into Calvinism
No spiritually dead person can believe unless God enables them through regeneration. God regenerates those He selects for salvation before the foundation of the world. Since He predetermined whom He would regenerate, Jesus only died for those He would save. He didn’t die for those He wouldn’t save or else that would save them. Therefore, He limits the atonement to only the elect.
Calvinists would say that God gets all the glory for the salvation, because He did everything, start to finish. Some go so far to say that nothing happens, not a single molecule moves, without God causing it. Calvinists would say that if God is sovereign, then He does it all, what they call “monergism.” Again, some Calvinists take this to the extent that if God isn’t doing it all, then man adds something in the nature of works to grace, which is unproveable and false.
Instead of teaching limited atonement, scripture says that God provides an
3. AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE BY CHRIST
Some Calvinists won’t use “limited atonement,” which is a negative sounding descriptor, but “particular redemption.” Even for me, I could embrace something called “particular redemption,” depending on how it’s explained.
I’ve never seen a four point Calvinist reject any other point than this one, perhaps the hardest for Calvinists to believe. It’s a reason why, I believe, for the replacement terminology, “particular redemption.” To make it easier, I also hear Calvinists say that everyone limits the atonement or else God would save everyone. The limitation doesn’t read, however, as though Christ died only for the elect. At worst, God limits the effects of His death — redemption — to only those who believe, or only to the elect. But the latter is not what Calvinists say or mean about or by limited atonement.
Logical Leap
Like with unconditional election, Calvinists take a logical leap with limited atonement. They do it by framing the argument in a way that only their position can stand. It’s however, not how scripture frames this salvation doctrine. Calvinists say that if Christ wasn’t redeeming with His work on the cross then no one is saved. Since He did save, then His cross work must redeem everyone. The Bible does not state this line of thinking or reasoning. At most, it is an inference Calvinists make from scripture, however, one contradicted by verses in the Bible.
Redemption comes through Jesus’ death alone, but only to those who believe in Him. When scripture says that Jesus died for everyone, it does not mean that He provided redemption for everyone. It means He paid the penalty for everyone, but no one gets the benefits of His death without faith. The inference claimed by Calvinists arises from this philosophy of Calvinism already expressed in this series that does not represent a biblical doctrine of salvation.
Availability of Salvation
If Christ died only for the elect, then how could the Apostle Paul write what he did in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3?
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Paul declared the gospel when he arrived in Corinth. Not everyone received, but those who did receive it (verses 1 and 2) were “saved” (verse 2). However, the message he preached to an unsaved audience, not all of which received it, was “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” By “the scriptures,” perhaps Paul was referring to Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This teaches Christ’s substitutionary death. If someone believes that Christ died only for the elect, is he telling the truth in preaching that Christ died for the sins of that audience? This was the typical gospel preaching of Paul and it included, “Christ died for you.” I continue to preach that to everyone and mean it.
Scripture Not Limited Atonement
The combination of many different verses proclaim that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is available for everyone.
Romans 5:6, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, “14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Hebrews 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
1 John 2:1-2, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I agree with the truth from Jesus “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn 3:15). Jesus would preach that message to unbelievers, many of whom never went on to believe (John 12:46). The system of Calvinism clashes with obvious New Testament teaching.
Christ Died for Everyone
Christ died for all men in that His substitutionary sacrifice was available to everyone, if they would believe on Him. And, everyone is without excuse as to believing on Him (cf. Rom 1:20). It would sound like a legitimate excuse from someone, if he said, “Christ didn’t die for me,” if that’s what really happened.
When Jesus explains why people don’t receive salvation, He doesn’t say what Calvinism says: not predetermined, didn’t get irresistible grace, and He didn’t die for them. No, He says things like we see in Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent.” Or, He says the culprit is hard, thorny, or stony hearts (Matt 13). Explaining even apostates, Peter says ‘they deny the Lord that bought them.’ He bought them and they still denied Him. Calvinistic inferences contradict the plain teaching of scripture. Explicit statements outdo, undo, and exceed inferences and even something greater than inferences, implications. If you’re a believer, you’ve got to go with what God says. That’s your doctrine.
Faux Intellectualism
These opaque, murky points of Calvin should recede in the face of unadulterated true statements of God. Their continued embrace seems a desperate grasp of faux intellectualism. The following may trigger some, but it also sounds to me like a kind of virtue signal. It lays out an intricate contraption of theology impressive in the nature of Rube Goldberg. It takes just those types of twists and turns to end a pristine quest of human ingenuity.
The points of Calvinism wilt like day old salad in the face of not many mighty or noble are called, because to wrap your brain around Calvinism requires egg headed genius orbiting in an intellectual satellite thousands of miles above earth. Calvinism has the mighty and noble on speed dial. The foolishness of preaching is not incomprehension and contradiction.
More to Come
Evan Roberts, Jessie Penn-Lewis, and the 1904 Welsh Revival
Some time ago, What is Truth? published a series on the 1904 Welsh Revival and Keswick leaders Evan Roberts, and Jessie Penn-Lewis. This lengthy series, on these important historical figures, who, sadly, helped to destroy a true revival that had been going on and bring to an end the long-term growth of Baptist churches in Wales, instead leading to a many-decade, consistent decline among Welsh Baptists, was published on the old What is Truth? site and then transferred by a computer program to this new What is Truth? site, for example, here. Unfortunately, in the course of the transfer it made the posts here very hard to read, while making search engines de-prioritze the important information in the posts because of their being duplicated.
If you would like to read this material, it can now all be contained in the three part series here:
Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival, part 1 of 3
The Welsh revival of 1904-1905, part 2 of 3
Jessie Penn-Lewis and the Welsh Revival, part 3 of 3
with links in the soteriology section at FaithSaves.net. I would encourage you to read these studies if you have not already done so, and encourage those who are interested in the history of revival and in the erroneous Keswick theology of sanctification to examine them as well, but to do so at these links instead of the hard-to-read blog posts where computer transfer had made them problematic. Too many Baptists make Evan Roberts the hero of the Welsh revival, when he destroyed it, just as many make Charles Finney the hero of the 2nd Great Awakening, when Finney also helped to destroy that good work of God, rather than contributing to it.
–TDR
Recent Comments