Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part Three)
The application of coupling the important New Testament word “gospel” with “social” makes it an issue of eternal destiny. Gospel relates to salvation, so somehow “social gospel” relates to the word “salvation” at least. Does a social gospel really save though? It doesn’t.
The gospel saves, but not something called “social gospel.” Social gospel advocates make the social gospel a determiner of eternal destiny by buttressing it with the parable of the sheep and the goats from Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. At the end of this parable, Jesus says to His disciples (Matthew 12:45-46):
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Whatever position someone might take about this passage, it sounds very serious. Someone is going to everlasting punishment and another is going to life eternal. Everyone will want to get into the latter category, of course.
The Gospel
Social gospel proponents hint that God requires taking care of the poor to avoid going away into everlasting punishment. Almost all of them would not go that far, because the same ones who interpret this passage as social work also are tentative or weak on eternal punishment for anyone. However, they still want to frontload these works into the definition of the gospel.
In Jesus’ presentation of the gospel, He deals with two aspects: one, the entrance requirements, and two, the confirmation of conversion. Someone can say he acceded to the entrance requirements, but Jesus says to judge that by a confirming transformation. The sheep, who are separated from the goats in Christ’s judgment of nations at the end of the tribulation period, confirm their identity as true sheep and not goats by authenticating behavior.
The Audience of Jesus’s Teaching
Jesus speaks to saved Jews and tells them that at this time of trial and trouble before the beginning of His reign on earth, they will not abandon their fellow believers. That would be the same or akin to abandoning him. At that time of testing, you can identify the true sheep by their embrace of other suffering sheep. Jesus is not saying the following in this prophetic address:
People in general receive life eternal and avoid everlasting punishment by feeding and housing poor people in general, saved and unsaved — in essence, God saves people for their good works in contradiction to the gospel.
The Lord in His Olivet Discourse does not address society in general. He answers His Jewish disciples about the future coming of His kingdom, something they expected as premillennialists. Jesus isn’t spiritualizing or allegorizing. He uses figurative language of sheep and goats, which are metaphors, easily identifiable. Goats are not leadable. They don’t follow. Jesus can and will lead sheep and His sheep will follow Him.
Answering the Disciples about a Literal Kingdom
All of the parables Jesus tells in His Olivet Discourse answer the questions of the disciples at the beginning of it:
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The word “coming” occurs seven times in Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 and especially “the coming of the Son of Man” in 24:27, 30, 37, and 39. God reveals to Daniel and Daniel 7:13-14:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold,, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
The disciples and Jesus refer to this prophecy and this time. This isn’t speaking of any old time. It’s answering a question specifying a particular future actual event.
The Application of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats
How much of the parable of the sheep and the goats and the Olivet Discourse in general apply to now? The Olivet Discourse mainly does not apply to anything happening right now. It’s about something yet to come. That doesn’t mean there is zero application. It does apply in certain general ways.
One, it provides hope for the future. Jesus is coming and He will set up a kingdom on the earth. Two, Jews will believe in Jesus Christ in fulfillment of those prophecies in Isaiah 52-53 and Zechariah 12, so we can trust God’s promises. They will take care of fellow believers and then enter into the kingdom. Above all things, three, the message to believers today is to be ready for these events. Believers ought to always ready themselves for the future. They should and will take care of their own as if they are Jesus Christ Himself.
The philosophy or message of the social gospel clashes with scripture, some of which I addressed earlier regarding salvation by grace through faith. Social work won’t save you. It doesn’t even confirm your conversion according to this proof text. True believers will band together to survive persecution, which validates their true salvation profession. This is equal to not defecting from the faith and instead overcoming by faith.
God’s Purpose
Feeding and Housing?
The Bible smacks up against feeding and housing the general poor or homeless population. As I say that, scripture categorizes people in a different way than the modern social movements. Like He does in the Olivet Discourse, consistent with all the Bible, there the saved and the lost. David writes in Psalm 37:25:
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Preaching the gospel to everyone can move some into the category of the righteous. That will also solve people’s physical condition. It is not God’s will to relieve everyone indiscriminately from their hunger. God uses drought and famine to get people’s attention. He also uses poor physical conditions to prepare hearts and open eyes to the need of and for God.
Using Drought, Disease, and Famine
Feeding and housing takes away the pain of sin-engendered suffering that might help these people listen to the actual gospel message. As an example Amos 4:6-9 says God sends droughts, disease, and famine to warn and cause to listen to Him:
6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
7 And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
8 So two or three cities wandered unto one city, to drink water; but they were not satisfied: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
9 I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
Many of drought, disease, and famine bring about the will of God. God doesn’t want people to rescue the ones suffering without repentance. This postpones something even worse for them. God uses these physical troubles to motivate a return to Him. These passages occur all over scripture.
Social Gospel Clashes with Jesus and the True and Only Gospel
The social gospel elevates the temporal, like Esau relinquishing his birthright for a mess of pottage (Gen 25:31-34). This confuses people. It sends a wrong, false message that this is your best life now. No. Faith trades the temporal for the eternal. This is the simplicity of losing your temporal life for eternal life. The social elevates the former as the priority. Jesus doesn’t do this. He says give up the world and take Him, which is to obtain eternal life.
The social gospel doesn’t take scripture seriously. It primarily uses the Bible. The goal is not understanding what Jesus said in Matthew 25, but using what he said for an agenda, one that isn’t true.
Should social gospel supporters scare people by telling them that they won’t have eternal life if they don’t volunteer to feed and house the general population? Do they even believe this? It’s either true or it isn’t. It isn’t true, and since it isn’t true, this kind of threat is wicked.
Jesus will turn people into the lake of fire. Who He does and who He doesn’t are as important as anything. It’s a terrible thing to confuse the gospel. People are saved, not by doing good works, but by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere? Mark Ward Strikes Again
Mark Ward made a video about me, and then SharperIron linked to it with my name. Is this a case of my living rent free in Mark’s head? I don’t know. I’m fine with his letting it go. He can’t do it though. Maybe I’m bringing him more audience. His numbers go up when he uses me in his presentations. They go way up. The terminology is “clickbait.”
In this edition of the Mark Ward show, he says that I helped prove his point about his “false friends” in the King James Version. He titles the episode: “Let a Leading KJV-Onlyist Teach You a False Friend!” Oh so clever, Mark Ward, the Snidley Whiplash of Multiple Version Onlyists. Yet, “Curses, foiled again!” Foiled again, because Dudley Do-Right of TR Onlyism is of course not in fact jumping on the Snidley false friend train track. What happened?
1 Peter 2:2
For many years, I have used and still use 1 Peter 2:2 as a major Christian worldview reference and helping understand the word “sincere.” Mark says “sincere” now is a bad translation in 1 Peter 2:2 and a “false friend.” I ask, “How can there be any sin in sincere?” Answer: By stretching the truth.
Mark dug deep into this blog to find a post and an exchange in the comment section as the highlight of his program. Here is 1 Peter 2:2:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
I’ve referred to “the sincere milk” many times as the “pure mother’s milk” (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). Ward says “sincere” is a false friend to a reader of the King James Version, because sincere means something different today than it did in 1611 (or 1769). Instead, he says (and says that I say) it means “pure.” He reports that I think it should mean pure too, but because I’m KJVO, I won’t admit that, even though I believe it. He’s saying I’m not sincere about sincere.
Sincere Milk
Welcome to the Snidley Whiplash mindreading class, SW101. I said that “sincere milk” is not common language for today. It isn’t. Almost nobody would know what that means without explanation. Perhaps people knew better in 1611. Still, I don’t think another translation today would be better than “sincere” in 1 Peter 2:2. “Pure milk” doesn’t get it done. It misses the point of that expression in the original language. I talk about the meaning in the comment section of the post to which Ward referred:
The mother’s milk goes to her baby without any other intervention, no human intervention, straight from mom to baby, unlike other milk. God changes us through revelation, not through our discoveries. With God and His Word there is no variableness or shadow of turning. His Word and God are not relative as is everything else. It comes direct and so undiluted or affected unlike our eyewitness or findings. We can’t trust these lying eyes or that there hasn’t been some kind of intervention in nature. This is why faith is superior to human discovery, because it depends on God.
The sincerity, the purity, is that it comes as one, which is the meaning of the Latin “sin,” one. There is oneness to the nature of God and to His revelation. It is entirely cohesive, non-contradictory, not mixed with any kind of error.
Mark Ward doesn’t include this part in his presentation. Why do I think “sincere” is still a good translation that needs no update in 1 Peter 2:2?
Pure or Sincere?
Play On Words
The Greek word translated “sincere” is adolos. The “a” portion of the Greek word means “no.” It’s called an alpha privative, expressing negation or absence. The previous verse, 1 Peter 2:1, uses dolos, the King James translators translated it guile. Guile could also mean deception. I believe there is a purposeful play on words by Peter between dolos and adolos, emphasizing the contrast between the speakings of men and the speakings of God. The speakings of men have dolos and the speakings of God have adolos.
Does adolos strictly mean “pure”? No. Sincerity conveys that someone speaks without deception, the error that enters into the speech or writing for a man-engendered reason. “Pure” doesn’t communicate that. In this sense, when the modern translators translate adolos as “pure,” that’s a false friend to those who read the word.
Meaning of Pure
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:8:
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Is “pure” here adolos? Is it without guile or not deceptive? No. This is the Greek word katharoi. An English word that comes from this is “katharsis.” This is what people think when they hear “pure” today. Yet, that’s not what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 2:2, that the Word of God is pure in that sense.
What I thought and wrote in the one post to which Mark Ward refers is that “sincere milk” is the “pure mother’s milk.” That is different than saying it is “pure milk.” He says that I wrote that “sincere” means “pure.” I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, which is why I believe Mark Ward left off the latter context of what I wrote and really focused on my reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. He isn’t sincere about my position ironically. That adulterates his commentary on what I wrote.
Christian Worldview
From a Christian worldview standpoint, God’s Word is revelation so it goes from God directly to the hearer like a breast-fed baby gets his milk directly from his mother. There is no intermediary. Evidence on the other hand involves, one, someone’s lying or deceived eyes, and, two, a context that is not neutral. I like to the say that the crime scene is contaminated.
When human beings look at evidence, they don’t see it clearly. God’s Word or will, therefore, can’t come through human discovery, but through the direct undiluted revelation of God. Revelation by nature is non-discoverable or else it wouldn’t be revelation. Revelation is “sincere milk.”
“Sincere” is still the best translation, but we also still have to explain it. If we translated adolos “pure,” that would more likely, I believe, lead someone astray on the meaning of the word, a false friend to the one reading it. I really do think this and Snidley Whiplash, someone who rejects the perfect preservation of scripture, misrepresents me on this. He’s a false friend to me.
Me a King James Onlyist?
I want to say one more thing about what Mark Ward does. He also deceives his audience by calling me a leading King James Onlyist. Calling someone King James Only, he knows is a pejorative. Mark Ward knows that double inspirationists (Ruckmanites) and English preservationists don’t see me as a leading King James Onlyist. Why? Based on the most fair understanding of that label, I’m not. Why not?
One,
I believe that translations should come from the original language texts, the Hebrew and Greek, not from the English. That means that I vouch for translations that are not the King James Version. Hence, I’m not King James Only. True King James Onlyists won’t do that and don’t believe that.
Two,
I do not reject an update of the King James Version. The only ones who do not know that are those who read misrepresentations from people like Mark Ward. I believe preservation is found in the original language text from which an update would come and did come in 1769 already. We do not use the 1611 today. An update already occurred. How could I be against that?
Three,
I don’t think an update of the King James Version is wrong, so I also think some words in the King James Version are archaic or out-of-use. I’ve said this again and again. It doesn’t mean I support an update. I have other reasons why I want to keep the King James Version. The main one is its underlying textual differences between the King James and modern versions, something Mark Ward says he won’t debate.
Four,
I say all the time that I think someone could make a different translation of certain words in the King James Version. Someone could translate the Hebrew and Greek words in a different way and they’d be right. The translation of the King James isn’t the only way or ways to translate the original language text. I know I would make different choices than the King James translators, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong either.
A False Friend
When I study the Bible, I study the original languages. False friends don’t occur to me, because I’m studying the words in their original languages. I also know because of studying the original languages that translated words very often are false friends. Mark Ward exaggerates the importance of these words. He treats himself like he’s come upon something highly significant. He hasn’t. I don’t think his point about false friends means nothing, but there are greater concerns by far than these.
Mark Ward is a false friend about the King James Version. He poses like he really wants to help those who use it. I don’t see it. By far, he’s a greater danger because of the doubt he casts upon the BIble that people use. He relishes those who start using a contemporary translation that varies from the underlying text of the King James Version vastly more than the total number of false friends he reports.
Baptist Popery
Oxymoron
Baptist popery should be an oxymoron. I’ve heard the two terms (Baptist and Pope) put together like this, but the two together are meant as an oxymoron. Even though it is an oxymoron, does it really happen, that is, Baptist popery? Because I’ve seen it, I believe it does.
Why is “Baptist popery” an oxymoron? The attributes of Baptists so contradict characteristics of Roman Catholics that the two seem surely mutually exclusive. Baptist and pope just can’t coexist.
Contradictions
Baptists believe the Bible is sole infallible authority — not Roman Catholics. They believe in the priesthood of the believer — not Roman Catholics. They believe in the autonomy of each church — not Roman Catholics. Baptists believe that baptism and the Lord’s Table are the only two church ordinances — not Roman Catholics. They also believe in only two church offices, pastor and deacons — not Roman Catholics. And finally, Baptists believe in the separation of church and state — not Roman Catholics.
All of the contradictions of the last paragraph say no Baptist popery. Baptists don’t believe in popes. They don’t believe in apostolic succession. The true church isn’t catholic, but it’s local. So is there really Baptist popery? Baptists don’t believe in hierarchical church government. They believe in a congregational form of church government, where a pastor himself is under the authority of the church (1 Timothy 5:19-20). No Baptist speaks ex cathedra — no new revelation of scripture since the close of Revelation (Jude 1:3).
Wannabe Popes
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:
The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
This is more than any Baptist pope could exert. Yet, how would a Baptist pope operate if he were at least like a Baptist pope, albeit not exactly one — maybe a wannabe pope? I believe several examples exist of this type of practice among those who call themselves Baptist. Baptist pastors or churches exert control on the outside over other churches like the pope or the church of Rome. Not necessarily in this order, here’s what’s toward Baptist popery, if not the actual thing. It tends toward, has a trajectory toward popery.
Conventions, Associations, or Fellowships
One, the most obvious form of control over churches comes in denominational groups, conventions, associations, or fellowships. They aren’t mentioned in the Bible, but they’re justified through silence. Scripture is sufficient and God doesn’t need someone to improve His program. One of our church members called this “teeing up a one world church,” using a golf analogy. True success is very often seen in the climb up a denominational ladder. One Southern Baptist pastor wrote this:
Today’s Southern Baptist Convention has a problem with power. Local churches—which may still exist in name—in fact are being overtaken (a better word might be “consumed”) by the dominating leadership and financial appetite of the larger denomination.
He continued:
Our crisis has its roots in a wide variety of decisions and trends [that] have a special impact on the loss of local church autonomy . . . used as . . . instrument(s) of control.
Kevin Bauder talks about a few of the ways denominational association tends toward popery (without using the word). About a few of these, he writes:
It is also not unusual for the association to end up controlling the churches. Any time an individual or agency serves as a gatekeeper for pulpit placement, that person or institution gains immense de facto power over churches. . . . An association provides a power structure that unscrupulous individuals can use to promote themselves. It also furnishes a mechanism that these people can employ to exert pressure upon the churches. These political maneuvers may lead to informal but, nevertheless, real interference with the autonomy of local congregations.
Fitting into the convention or association requires finding a lowest common denominator to remain unified. If God wanted the bigger organization or institution, He would have instituted it. He didn’t. They invented themselves. The heads of these organizations do bring in quasi-popery at least.
Parachurch Organizations
Quid Pro Quo
Two, Baptists in most cases today accept the existence, propagation, and power of parachurch organizations. This would include Baptist publishers, mission boards, colleges, universities, and seminaries, Christian school associations, and camps. When I was in fundamentalism, the parachurch organization was the pinnacle or summit of Christian acclaim. One of these trades on exchanges of favor, a kind of quid pro quo. If the pastor or church supports it, it promotes the pastor or church. Parachurch organizations create celebrity pastors.
Like the denominational associations or conventions, parachurch organizations are not in the Bible. Jesus didn’t give them the necessary tools to accomplish His ends. As a result, they will surely fail at doing what Jesus wants. The programs of the parachurch organization try to be and stay large to fulfill purpose and meet payroll. The truth is not usually a factor. Also like the denominational structure, to keep their relevance, they must settle on a lower common denominator to keep their coalition together. Also they compromise to stay relevant.
Hurting Churches
Publishers mostly don’t think about what needs publishing, but what will make enough money to fund the publisher. Mission boards must work with all sorts of different churches with different beliefs and practices. When a missionary claims that board, he most often associates himself with a larger variety of belief and practice than his church. This comes back to effect the churches, which in turn weakens the board, and continues a downward slide, feeding off each other. Everyone of the above parachurch organizations will have similar problems. One man criticizing the parachurch organization wrote:
Thus, I find it very disturbing when church leaders start to be known more as leaders of a particular parachurch group than as leaders in their churches. This serves to create a confusing image in the mind of the Christian public, whereby the boundary between church and parachurch is eroded, or, worse still, the parachurch is regarded as the place where the real action and excitement take place. This in turn consigns the church to an apparently less important role, and serves to relegate to the level of secondary or even tertiary importance the doctrinal elaboration and distinctives for which individual churches . . . stand. The Christian public comes to regard these ecclesial distinctives as hindrances.
Baptist popes come out of these parachurch organizations, because of their ability to influence and control churches. They get money from a lot of different sources that enable them to have a more widespread influence that corrupts churches.
Some might say parachurch organizations help churches. They exist to aid the churches. Scripture doesn’t support this. Some short term gain can occur, but over the long term the parachurch organization is a loss to churches. It’s detrimental overall even if it can point to individual successes.
More to Come
The Recent Olympic Last Supper Controversy: Worse than Weird
The opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics parodied the Leonardo DaVinci painting, The Last Supper, using drag queens to represent Jesus and the twelve disciples. Later answering the criticism, organizers, including artistic director Thomas Jolly, insisted they intended the scene to represent Dionysius, the Greek god of wine, fertility, and revelry. The tableau looked identical to The Last Supper and these woke, reprobate leftists afterwards tried to avoid blame for their mockery of Christianity.
The New York Post reported: “The Olympic drag performance comes just one day after Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris became the first sitting vice president to appear on an episode of ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race,’” RuPaul himself a notorious drag queen. Online Encyclopedia Britannica says “drag queen” is “a man who dresses in women’s clothes and performs before an audience, . . . typically staged in nightclubs and Gay Pride festivals.” Yet, what’s wrong with drag queens lampooning The Last Supper painting? What’s the point of outrage over such action?
Images of Christ
London Baptist Confession
Before I even start giving reasons for strong opposition to The Last Supper mockery, I should consider whether true believers should accept The Last Supper either. The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 says:
The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. (Chapter 22:1)
Westminster Larger Catechism
I draw your attention to the last sentence: “God. . . . may not be worshipped. . . . under any visible representations.” The Westminster Larger Catechism says:
The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God..
In the attempt to rid the church of the evils of idolatry, and icon-worship that they believed plagued the Roman Catholic church, some English Reformers attacked cathedrals to remove painted icons of saints, vandalize religious statues, break windows bearing images of Jesus and saints. This occurred because of the belief represented by the Westminster Larger Catechism and other historical documents.
Nevertheless, no matter what position a believer may take on images of Christ themselves, they can and should also oppose The Last Supper parody. Why?
Blaspheming Christ
For the same reason Christians rejected images of Christ, they should reject His blasphemy in the parody of a painting of Him. It provides a reason for rejecting the imagery itself. This is what people can do through an image. They can and do blaspheme Christ.
The Last Supper parody profanes Him, who is God. It mocks and sullies Him, treats Him like He’s nothing, just a fable, easily warped by a comic portrayal because of His meaninglessness.
Profaning God’s Holiness
This parody takes something that exemplifies holiness, this attribute of God, and turns it into something morally despicable. It debases and besmirches it, eliminates the reverence or sacredness of it. Does that offend you, professing Christian?
Christians have been doing something similar or the same as the parody for decades now both out of and in churches. Historically churches didn’t do that, but especially in the last thirty years, churches turn their worship into the perversity of rock music. They put Christian words to foul, fleshly, carnal, worldly music, associating that with God.
In so many ways churches made it acceptable to profane God. They make common the things of God, especially through church growth practices. In order to get bigger, churches make it more and more convenient for the “worshipper,” much like Jeroboam did when he put places of worship at Dan and Bethel.
Distort Sex or Gender Distinctions
The drag queen parody confuses the distinctions between sexes that God designed. God calls that an abomination, which is a personal offense to Him. Men wearing women’s apparel and vice versa violate God’s created design (Deuteronomy 22:5).
When men reject God as Creator and replace the literal Genesis account with naturalistic explanations for origins, they open the door to all rejection of God’s design. Why should Christians oppose men wearing female items of clothing? Long ago that ship sailed in Christianity. Professing New Testament churches don’t protect the physical symbols of masculinity and those of femininity. They have erased those distinctions for something closer to a unisex appearance.
Churches themselves signaled to the world the permission to blur distinctions between sexes. If Christians won’t take a stand on God’s design, why should the world? Whatever Christians think is a perversion in the portrayal of The Last Supper, they should apply it consistently.
Weirdness
You may have caught the latest attack by the left everywhere, calling their opposition, “Weird.” In essence, they label what is biblical and traditional, weird, and then what is perverse and profane, normal. It is akin to calling good, evil, and evil, good (Isaiah 5:20). They think they will get some traction with the United States with this approach. Will they?
It’s hard to think that The Lord’s Supper parody today might find more acceptance than respect and true worship of Jesus Christ. What was once weird in churches is also now normal. Practices no one would have accepted are now received in the mainstream. Anyone speaking against them is already considered weird. I’ve watched this happening myself.
If a woman as a lifestyle wears only skirts and dresses, Christians consider her weird. Earrings on men, tattoos on men and women, piercings all over, and women wearing their underwear in public aren’t weird anymore. That’s all also accepted by professing Christians. Christians see churches as weird that accept only sacred worship of God. Any church or Christian that takes a stand against worldliness is weird. I contend that the left understands that the culture reached a tipping point. The controversy over The Last Supper parody will calm down and become nothing very soon.
Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part Two)
Earlier in Matthew 7:15, Jesus commanded and warned: “Beware of false prophets.” False prophets send their victims down the broad road that leads to destruction and away from the narrow road that leads to life eternal (Matthew 7:13-14). The false teaching from false prophets varies, yet with the same goal of keeping their prey on the broad road. One of these varieties is something called the “social gospel.” Its proponents use the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 as their proof text.
The part of the parable of Jesus in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 25 most referred by social gospel advocates is verses 35-40. Jesus again is teaching concerning the time right before He comes and sets up His kingdom. He identifies those from the tribulation period who will enter His kingdom. Entrance into His kingdom is a common theme all through Matthew, since Jesus presents Himself as King or Messiah. Many places in the New Testament deal with this time on earth.
Salvation comes only by grace through faith. Those Jews saved by grace through faith during the tribulation period before Jesus sets up His kingdom will exclusively manifest certain characteristic at that time. One of those traits, a fruit of conversion, is their loyalty to other saved Jews. This is akin to the Jerusalem church in Acts shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus.
No middle ground existed between Christian Jews in the first century Jerusalem church and their Jewish opposition there. You were with the church or not with it and being with it meant rationing and sharing their physical belongings for mutual survival. Non-participation marked unbelief. The future tribulation period, the time of Jacob’s trouble, will show a similar demarcation between believing Jews and their alliance with the rest of the world against Christ.
Verses 35-40
The believing population when Jesus comes will have survived the tribulation, which engendered alarming needs. Jesus mentions six of them: hunger, thirst, alienation, exposure, sickness, and imprisonment. Revelation 13 says that those who do not receive the mark of the Antichrist cannot buy or sell. Believers are fugitives, running for their lives. Helping them likely is illegal and punished severely. Only believers will help believers.
The kingdom of Jesus Christ is for those who are with Christ. It’s not for those who merely profess, “Lord, Lord,” and then don’t do what He says (Matthew 7:21-23). It isn’t arbitrary. If you are with Him, then you are in fact with Him. When Jesus returns at the second coming, He will deliver those with Him, saving them from the tribulation persecution atrocities.
The care and supply of fellow believers in the tribulation is the care and supply of Jesus. Jewish tribulation saints will have done it unto him when they did it unto these. Those are the merciful who obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7). They are also the pure in heart, because their conversion is real. This isn’t an act with them, as seen in their loyalty and commitment to each other as unto Christ.
Social Action?
1 John 3:14-17
Jesus isn’t saying that they come into His kingdom because of their commitment to social action. He is saying that what they did unto these, they did unto Him. Commitment to Jesus Christ in the tribulation period will manifest itself in commitment to fellow persecuted believers. 1 John 3:14-17 reveal this truth, that the life, light, and love of God abides in those who love the brethren:
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
John wrote his first epistle that believers might have complete assurance of their salvation (1 John 5:13). One sure mark of true conversion among others is love for the brethren. This isn’t seeing just anyone in need, but seeing “his brother in need” (verse 17). This parallels with Matthew 25:35-40 and the Jerusalem church in Acts 2-5. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Matthew 6:21).
Not Just Talk, But Action
Tribulation era saints will not shut up their bowels of compassion toward their brethren. It is axiomatic. Believers will love the brethren. If they don’t, this reveals they are not one of the Lord’s own.
According to Matthew 7:21-22, belief is more than saying, “Lord, Lord.” People might talk a good game, but those who know Him, will not just love in word, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18). That is a true test of faith, not mere verbiage.
The Olivet Discourse and Jesus’ record of the judgment of nations in Matthew 25:31-46 doesn’t describe social work. It isn’t about feeding and housing lost people. It is truly about the care of believers, who very often suffer for righteousness’ sake.
Earlier Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 10:40:
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He also told them in His upper room discourse in John 15:18:
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
True believers standing with one another against the onslaught of the world is a mark of saving grace. It is the fellowship of Jesus’ sufferings that Paul mentions in Philippians 3:10. It is going with Jesus “outside the camp, bearing his reproach” in Hebrews 13:13. Those believing in Him are joining that and will characteristically or habitually join that. This is confessing Jesus before men (Matthew 10:32).
Thrill Seekers and the Lazy
In John 6, thrill seekers followed Jesus to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, and He fed the multitude. He told that gigantic crowd that He would not keep feeding them, so they all defected. Everyone wanted a free meal, not Jesus Christ. Jesus turned to His disciples and asked if they would also go away. For the group, Peter said, No, you have the words of eternal life.
Jesus did not go running after those who defected. He also didn’t fail because He didn’t keep feeding them. His plan is not the temporal bread, but the eternal bread. It isn’t social action. Instead, Jesus said in John 12:8, “The poor always ye have with you.”
In fact, Paul warns against giving food to those who won’t work. The provision of food for those in the future tribulation era is not giving food to homeless on the street. Both Old and New Testaments teach a kind of quality control. Paul represents this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
The Bible won’t contradict itself. Social action, this feeding the unbelieving hungry day after day, does not jive with 2 Thessalonians 3:10. In the end, preaching that God saves those who do the deeds of feeding and sheltering the homeless is preaching salvation by works. Adding that as a requirement nullifies grace and makes someone a debtor then to do the whole law (Galatians 5:1-6). It corrupts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even the law itself doesn’t manifest this program or represent this as a lifestyle. It isn’t even a requirement of the law, let alone the gospel.
More to Come
Separation and the Five Levels Jesus Reveals in Revelation 2:14-16
When Jesus confronts the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3, He either commends or condemns them. He gives each church its appropriate measure of both actions. Jesus condemns the church at Pergamos more than He commends it. His condemnation centers on the biblical doctrine of separation. He says concerning the church at Pergamos in Revelation 2:14-16:
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
First Level of Separation
Jesus
This is Jesus talking, so “I” in “I have” refers to Him. That’s the first level in the text, Jesus Himself. And what about Jesus? He has a few things against thee, He says. With the singular objective pronoun, “thee,” it refers to a singular noun, which is either the messenger, the pastor of the church, in verse 14. Or, it is the church of Pergamos as a whole, which is singular in verse 12. It could be either, but I would argue for the pastor of the church at Pergamos, having this directed toward him. He’s responsible for the church, even as seen in verse 16.
If it was the whole church, that would put everyone in the church in the same category of accepting this wrong behavior. Maybe every person in the church won’t separate from its sinning brothers. Perhaps every member of the church at Pergamos did not purge themselves from these vessels unto dishonor (2 Timothy 2:2). That occurs sometimes. However, that would not explain an Antipas in the church, who is faithful to the end in Revelation 2:13. Nevertheless, when a pastor won’t lead in separation, that does not excuse the membership from appropriate judgment.
Against Thee
Jesus is “against thee.” In this example, He is not against what someone is doing, but against who is doing it. It doesn’t say, “against it” or “against that,” but against “thee.” One could subtitle this section: “How not to have Jesus against you.” There is a higher goal for life than not having Jesus against you, but that at least should be a goal.
So, the first level here is Jesus Himself. Jesus is the Head of the Church. Revelation 1:19-2:1 show that Jesus walks in the midst of His true churches. Romans 8:31 asks, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The flip side of this could ask, “If God (Jesus) be against us, who can be for us?” In Revelation 2:16, Jesus commands: “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Second Level of Separation
Thee and Thou
“Repent” is a singular imperative, commanding a single person to repent. “Thee” is also singular. However, Jesus on the first level will fight against “them.” Jesus will deal with the ones (plural) who compromise with the world, if the one responsible won’t deal with it. The Lord Jesus Christ will purify a church if its leadership won’t lead in it. In essence, Jesus says, “Purge my church of these ungodly, immoral influences, or I will do it for you.”
The second level is the one He is against, who, I’m saying, is a pastor. Whoever it is, the thing that he or the church as a whole is doing is the same. What is that? It is communicated by the simple two words, “thou hast.” “Thee” and “thou” refer to the same noun.
Not Practicing Ecclesiastical Separation
Jesus is against a pastor because he accommodates, allows, and, therefore, continues in affiliation or association with people. He does not lead the church in obedience to the doctrine and practice of separation. Jesus is against the pastor, who does not lead in ecclesiastical separation from sinning brothers in the church. This could apply to church discipline or also separation from some other church or organization or institution.
Scripture is replete with commands to separate from professing brothers for their disobedience to God’s will. The pastoral epistles teach pastors to lead in this.
Delivered unto Satan and WithdrawThyself
1 Timothy 1:19-20, “19 Holding faith, and a good conscience;; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
1 Timothy 6:3-5, “3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Purge and Reject
2 Timothy 2:19-21, “19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”
Titus 3:9-11, “9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
Jesus requires the leadership of the church, who is under His leadership, to lead in separation. Pastors should teach separation and then lead in it. When the leader won’t, then Jesus will intervene himself as seen in verse 16.
Third Level of Separation
Balaam
The third level in Revelation 2:14-16 are both those who teach the doctrine of Balaam (verse 14) and those who hold to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (verse 15). The word “so” (houte) beginning verse 15 means “in like manner.” Jesus views these the same. They are two different influencers in the church toward the same destructive end. Jesus bunches these together — those purveying either the doctrine of Balaam or the doctrine of the Nicolaitans — with the same responsibility, even as verse 15 also says, “hast thou.”
The story of Balaam in the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24) is one where he as a prophet attempts to curse Israel and fails. Not succeeding through a direct route, he persuades Balac the Moabite to cause Israel to stumble. That works. Israel does stumble into idolatry and sexual sin through this indirect route.
Turning Grace into Lasciviousness
Within the church at Pergamos were those impacting other brothers to cause still other brothers to stumble. The doctrine of Balaam was this strategy, causing someone else to be a bad influence on someone else. Jude 1:11 calls this the “error of Balaam.” Within the context of Jude, cheap or false grace becomes the justification for the bad influence. Jude mentions ‘turning the grace of God into lasciviousness’ as the mode of operation (Jude 1:4). Grace provides the excuse for becoming cozy with the world. It lures its targets into a false sense of security. This is rampant in churches today.
In the parallel with Balaam, this third level doesn’t itself participate with the actual activity that leads to the sinning. One could say the same of the pastor who doesn’t do anything about level two. Each in this equation, however, are responsible for the ultimate demise of the one on the next level. A chain exists here with everyone in the chain accountable for what occurs in the proceeding link.
Evangelicals who won’t practice separation mock and ridicule what I’m saying here. They almost entirely will not teach or practice biblical separation. They laugh at those who do. The mockery will often point to second and third degree separation. Ridicule is the strongest part of the evangelical argument against separation. It doesn’t come from scripture.
Fourth Level of Separation
Balac is on the fourth level. The real character is not named Balac, but he is “a Balac,” someone taking on that role in the church. He does this by eating meat offered unto idols.
According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:8, the one eating the meat offered unto idols is not the better or the worse for eating it (cf. 1 Cor 10:25). It’s not the eating itself that’s the problem. The problem is in the causing another brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:7-13, Romans 14:21-23). Here Jesus pointblank says that it was causing others to stumble and He would not stand for that.
This fourth level some might themselves call a Christian liberty. They justify an activity because no scripture verse prohibits it. That’s not how the Bible or Jesus work.
All the way down to the fourth level, God does not prohibit the action in itself. God permits eating meat. He prohibits doing it if it causes someone to stumble. With no uncertain terms, Jesus forbids activities that cause others to stumble. This is how Balac got the job done in Israel, and how one or more people got it done in Pergamos. Evangelicals in general will call to permit an activity like eating meat offered unto idols. They don’t care. Their ministries are full of sin-engendering actions. They either don’t see, don’t comprehend, or just excuse them.
Fifth Level of Separation
The last level are those reverting to idolatry and fornication. They are the ones who stumble. These brothers in the church stumble because of the three previous levels between them and Jesus. Irresponsibility trickles down to them. They’re still responsible for their own sinning, but Jesus still connects to those above them.
Jesus in Revelation 2:14-15 traces the causes of sin in the church at Pergamos. The main culprit in the chain is level two. “Thou hast.” Someone wasn’t taking charge of the situation. This is the one Jesus calls to repent. If he doesn’t repent, Jesus will also “fight against them.” He will fight against the Balaam level, the Balac level, and the sinning brother level. Everyone will receive their comeuppance and it starts with an unwillingness to separate.
The instruction of Jesus is not, “Write an article against the strategies of Balaam.” He requires more than talking about it. Jesus expects separation. Writing an article or giving a speech does not constitute the teaching of Jesus here. “Thou hast” must turn to “thou hast not.” The great motivation in the text is the desire not to have Jesus against you, either the leader of a church or against the church as a whole.
Announcement for and Thanks to Thomas Ross on What Is Truth Blog
Biography
Many years ago I met Thomas Ross as a young man. My wife and I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area two weeks after we married in August of 1987. Thomas grew up in San Francisco with a single mother. We came into contact when he was still college age. He had already received Christ, graduated from University of California at Berkeley at the age of 19, and was training to serve the Lord by attending Fairhaven Baptist College (read his testimony tract, his story in html, and his resume).
Thomas Ross came back to the San Francisco Bay Area and served with and at the church I started, Bethel Baptist Church, for several years. I acted as a proxy father to him in his betrothal and marriage to Heather Roberts and stood as his best man in his wedding. He and Heather settled in Wisconsin to minister at Muckwonago Baptist Church under her father, Rhon Roberts, for many years before coming back to California in 2020 after my wife, parents, and I moved to Oregon to start Jackson County Baptist Church in Medford.
What Is Truth and Faithsaves.net
I began What Is Truth? Opinion Based Upon the Bible (also kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com and kentbrandenburg.com) in 2005 and Thomas joined me in 2012 when we were at the old blog address. He started writing or publishing every Friday. As many of you reading here know, I normally write on Mondays and Wednesdays and he writes or publishes here on Fridays. Thomas and I write with different styles and some different content, but we believe essentially the same. We’re almost identical in our belief and practice.
Thomas also has his own website, faithsaves.net, with a wealth of material mainly written by him. I would assess that among independent Baptists almost no one has published as much biblical, scholarly material as Thomas Ross. It is also very helpful, practical, and free at his site. It is a great service to God and the faith and conduct of true Christians and New Testament churches.
Doctrine of Sanctification and Debates
No one in evangelicalism, I would safely say, has done as much work on the doctrine of sanctification. The material by Thomas Ross on biblical sanctification surpasses anything else I have seen. No one knows this subject better than he. I point especially to his one thousand plus pages in his PhD dissertation. The title is The Doctrine of Sanctification: An Exegetical Examination, with Application, in Biblical, Historic Baptist Perspective, to which is Appended a Historical, Exegetical, and Elenctic Evaluation of Influential Errors, Particularly the Keswick Theology (free pdf of it).
In recent years, Thomas began doing scholarly debates. He has taught college and seminary classes and posted them free at his youtube channel. He debates high level scholars on the other side with biblical and historical arguments on many different topics. I was there for the first of his debates in 2005 against Church of Christ foe, Larry Hafley, on the subject of baptismal regeneration. Out of it came his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ vs. Pardon through Baptism. It is the best book available against baptismal regeneration, a false doctrine that has damned millions to Hell.
Evangelism
Filling a great need in churches, Thomas wrote several evangelistic Bible studies, again available for free at his website. You can also watch them on his youtube channel. He also wrote several various tracts and pamphlets for the purpose of doing spiritual warfare with different strongholds against the true gospel.
No one that I have ever known or met is more evangelistic than Thomas Ross. As scholarly and well-learned as he is and as hard as he worked to become like this, nearly every day he either preaches the gospel to someone or gives one or multiple gospel tracts to people. When he was much younger, I would stop at a gas station to get gas. By the time I left the station, Thomas had given a gospel tract to everyone at the station. If he is on public transportation, someone on the bus or train will probably hear the gospel from him before he arrives at his destination.
I could write many more positive paragraphs about Thomas. However, I am writing this post to announce that Thomas is leaving the What Is Truth blog and writing here with me for the foreseeable future. I will still host his posts here and hopefully edit the format of all of his, so that they become easier to read. You may have noticed that he has not published here for a few weeks. You can still read his writings that will continue to accumulate at faithsaves.net.
Future for Thomas Ross
What are the future plans of Thomas Ross? The Bible says: “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). For quite a while, Thomas has pondered if he should keep writing on the blog or use that time, instead, for other projects for God’s work. He is not done with writing, Lord willing, but he now has other projects to which he wants to devote himself.
One,
Thomas wants to finish his dissertation on the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. He is almost done, but he needs to finally finish. You can still click on the link above to get everything he did so far.
Two,
Brother Ross wants to write a multi-volume historic Baptist systematic theology. He would rather stand before Christ with this done, but fewer blog posts written, than more blog posts, but that work not completed. You can check faithsaves.net at least on the first and fifteenth of each month to see what is new there from him. He also intends to keep adding useful material on his KJB1611 YouTube channel and his KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel. You can and should subscribe to those and check in regularly if you are not already doing that.
Three,
Thomas Ross needs to prepare college and seminary classes that need to get done.
Four,
Thomas wants to do some more debates. Debating James White, or Dan Barker, or Shabir Ally, or Douglas Jacoby requires proper preparation, which can be very time-intensive.
Last,
Lord-willing, still living in San Francisco, CA and taking care of his dear mother, Thomas and Heather want to evangelize with the goal of helping an independent Baptist church start there.
All these above goals will take far more time than what Thomas has to do them even without writing here on Fridays. He will move on from here from henceforth. Please pray for him. You can contact him directly at his website — that’s the easiest way.
Conclusion
I would contend that Thomas Ross is perhaps the greatest scholar among independent Baptists. Scholarship-wise he is on the level with any evangelical scholar. This is not his talking, but my saying this. He’s never said anything like this to me. I don’t believe anyone has worked harder or committed more to learning scripture than him either. He continues at an incredible pace, especially with his circumstances. He does it in relative anonymity to maintain his convictions and stand.
With his abilities and work ethic, if Thomas Ross were an evangelical or conservative evangelical, he could make a living teaching in some seminary and then writing books. He could be very well known and a feather in the cap of graduate schools across the country. He chose not to do that. His convictions and commitment to his belief and practice excluded him from that. Not many men would do that. Almost no one, maybe no one, has done that. I commend him for that sacrifice. For many years, he accomplishes what he does by working as a security guard and then economizing as efficiently as anyone with whatever funds he gets.
No doubt, Thomas wishes a loving goodbye to his readers on the blog. He would be glad to write that himself, but I chose to wrap up his time here with my thoughts about him. Know that he wishes you good will and blessing as he and you move into what God has for him and you.
So, I bid Thomas Ross a fond adieu here at my blog. Farewell to him to his future life and endeavors.
“It’s Alive!” — The Modern Creation of a FrankenText
Mary Shelley and Frankenstein
Mary Shelley, born in 1797 in London, completed her novel, Frankenstein, in 1818. The lead character in her novel, Victor Frankenstein, succeeds at piecing together parts from dead corpses. He sews them together and brings them to life with electricity.
In the original novel by Shelley, the words, “It’s alive!”, don’t appear. They came into the public consciousness in the 1931 film adaptation of the novel. In the book, when Victor first animates his creature, he is horrified by its appearance and immediately flees from it. The scene is described with a sense of dread and regret rather than excitement or triumph.
Frankenstein was a fictional monster built from parts from various dead bodies. The pieces don’t fit because they come from all different bodies. In the same way, a Frankentext constructs a brand new text, using words plucked out from many different manuscripts.
Thomas Ross, Dwayne Greene, and the Frankentext
On a few different occasions, people used the term “Frankentext” to describe a brand new, diverse text from many varied sources. In recent days, I’ve heard a man, Dwayne Greene, use it in a podcast. He titled some of his episodes with the word. Greene refers to a practice that Thomas Ross earlier pointed out in his debate with James White about the modern critical text of the New Testament. The fifth of United Bible Society’s edition of the Greek New Testament, the same as the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, is a Frankentext.
I wrote in a post about Ross’s debate with White:
In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point. White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives. He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible. Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.
Talk about the Frankentext
I talk about this again in something else about the debate:
In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support. This should end White’s manuscript argument. Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion. White would not recant of his position.
In a post to review the debate and explain how Ross won, I wrote:
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
A Further Description from Me
In another post, referring to this, I wrote to describe this:
The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions. It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones. This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence. Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime.
The above is what I (and others) mean by a FrankenText. Mark Ward in one of his recent podcasts interviews a friend of his getting his PhD in textual criticism, and he asks the man about this Frankentext problem, referring to Dwayne Greene. He uses the term with the man. In answer to the question, Ward’s friend says that all Greek New Testament texts are Frankentexts, including the Textus Receptus. This is an outright, utter falsehood. It isn’t true and it deceives or misleads people.
Lies Including the Textus Receptus As a Frankentext
The Textus Receptus does not contain hundreds of lines of text with absolutely zero manuscript evidence. Those lines in the critical text of the New Testament (the UBS and NA) have no manuscript support in any manuscript. That doesn’t occur with the received text of the New Testament, the basis of the King James Version. Manuscripts actually have those readings. There is minority support for certain words, but lines of text are found in manuscripts for the Textus Receptus.
A common line of argument today, people term, “Whataboutism?” It is defined:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about….?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
Ward’s friend does this. Instead of dealing with the problem of these lines of text with no manuscript evidence, he uses whataboutism. In fact, even his whataboutism isn’t true, which sometimes is the case with this sort of argumentation.
CBGM
More Frankentexts are bound to arise because of a new method of modern textual criticism, given the shorthand CBGM. It’s going to sound impossibly technical, but it means, “Coherence Based Genealogical Method.” To try to put it simply, someone wrote this:
The computer application itself aggregates relationships between readings based on agreement with other readings as well as based on their disagreements. Basically, it compares Greek manuscripts, finds the similarities and differences, and then uses an algorithm to decide which is “probably” the right reading.
This same article said this about CBGM:
CBGM is a relatively new approach to textual criticism using a computer program in order to determine the validity of a reading (somewhere between 1997 and 2000). By “reading”, we are referring to anything from a single word of Scripture to a phrase, or even a more substantial section of the Scriptures. In this method, the computer becomes a tool in determining which readings are “most likely authentic”. Having said that, it should be noted that it still requires much interaction from the users.
Frankentexts will increase. Is that a concern? It looks like, not so much. That criticism that your line of text has zero manuscript evidence doesn’t matter as much as it once did. All of this sadly departs from a supernatural, divine presupposition about preservation of scripture, embracing instead a naturalistic, humanistic viewpoint about lost scripture in need of restoration.
AI Friday: Brandenburg and Ecclesiastical Separation
Some of you reading here know I have a now three week knowledge and fascination with Artificial Intelligence. I find myself asking artificial intelligence questions at least once a week. Artificial intelligence (AI) doesn’t “get it right,” but it sometimes does. It offers conventional thinking, affected by how one asks the question. When I ask it a question about myself, it culls together from all the material on the world wide web to answer the question in five seconds. I asked AI another question about me: “What contributions has Kent Brandenburg made to a biblical understanding of ecclesiastical separation?” It said:
Contributions of Kent Brandenburg to a Biblical Understanding of Ecclesiastical Separation
Kent Brandenburg is a prominent figure in the discussion of ecclesiastical separation within the context of biblical Christianity. His contributions are multifaceted, addressing both theological and practical aspects of this doctrine. Below, we will explore his key contributions step by step.
1. Theological Foundations of Ecclesiastical Separation
Brandenburg emphasizes the importance of grounding ecclesiastical separation in Scripture. He argues that the Bible provides clear directives regarding the nature and necessity of separation from false teachings and practices. His work often references passages such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, which discusses the concept of being unequally yoked with unbelievers, and Romans 16:17-18, which warns against those who cause divisions contrary to sound doctrine. By focusing on these texts, he establishes a biblical basis for why churches should maintain doctrinal purity and avoid associations that could compromise their witness.
2. Historical Context and Development
Brandenburg also delves into the historical development of ecclesiastical separation within various Christian traditions. He examines how different movements have interpreted separation over time, particularly in relation to fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This historical perspective allows him to critique contemporary practices that may blur the lines between sound doctrine and heretical beliefs. By providing this context, he helps readers understand how ecclesiastical separation has evolved and why it remains relevant today.
3. Practical Applications
In addition to theological and historical insights, Brandenburg offers practical guidance for churches seeking to implement principles of separation. He discusses how congregations can navigate relationships with other churches or organizations that may not adhere strictly to biblical teachings. This includes advice on how to handle situations involving members who may be influenced by unorthodox beliefs or practices. His emphasis on maintaining a balance between love for individuals and commitment to truth is a recurring theme in his writings.
4. Critique of Contemporary Trends
Brandenburg is known for his critical stance towards certain contemporary trends within Christianity that he perceives as compromising biblical standards. He addresses issues such as ecumenism—the movement toward greater unity among different Christian denominations—and its potential dangers regarding doctrinal integrity. By articulating these concerns, he encourages believers to remain vigilant against influences that could dilute their faith.
5. Advocacy for Local Church Autonomy
Another significant aspect of Brandenburg’s contribution is his advocacy for local church autonomy in matters of governance and doctrinal adherence. He argues that each congregation should have the freedom to make decisions based on its understanding of Scripture without undue influence from larger denominational structures or movements that may not align with their convictions.
6. Educational Efforts
Brandenburg has also been involved in educational efforts aimed at promoting a deeper understanding of ecclesiastical separation among pastors and church leaders. Through seminars, writings, and online resources, he seeks to equip others with the knowledge necessary to uphold biblical standards within their ministries.
In summary, Kent Brandenburg’s contributions to a biblical understanding of ecclesiastical separation encompass theological foundations rooted in Scripture, historical context, practical applications for local churches, critiques of contemporary trends that threaten doctrinal purity, advocacy for local church autonomy, and educational initiatives aimed at fostering awareness among church leaders.
Brandenburg and Ecclesiastical Separation
The New Testament teaches ecclesiastical separation all over. It is sadly now one of the most disobeyed and ignored doctrines and practices. Most professing believers have never even heard of it. I did a search online first of “ecclesiastical separation.” The fourteenth and eighteenth entry that appeared was the book, A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation, of which I was editor and wrote several chapters. It’s the first book on ecclesiastical separation to appear in a google search. I asked AI this question: “What is the most comprehensive book on ecclesiastical separation?” It answered:
Overview of the Book
“A Pure Church” provides an extensive examination of the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, emphasizing its biblical foundations and theological significance. The author argues that God’s holiness necessitates a clear distinction between His people and those who promote doctrinal error or moral compromise. This book serves as both a theological treatise and a practical guide for churches seeking to uphold biblical standards of separation.
Key Themes
God’s Holiness: The book begins by establishing that God’s primary attribute is His holiness, which calls for His followers to reflect this holiness in their lives and practices. It emphasizes that separation is rooted in God’s character.
- Biblical Foundations: The text delves into key New Testament passages that address separation, providing a thorough analysis of scriptural teachings on the subject. This includes discussions on how separation relates to unity within the body of Christ.
- Ecclesiastical Practices: The author critiques contemporary trends in church practices that blur the lines of separation, such as “soft separatism” and cultural liberalism. He warns against compromising biblical truths for the sake of unity or acceptance.
- Practical Applications: The book offers practical guidance for church leaders on how to implement principles of separation in their ministries, including issuing warnings about false teachings and navigating relationships with other churches.
- Historical Context: It also examines the historical development of ecclesiastical separation within various Christian traditions, particularly focusing on Independent Baptists and their distinctives compared to denominational Baptists.
- Challenges Facing Churches Today: The author addresses modern challenges such as the influence of social media, Christian bookstores, and radio programs that may propagate error, urging vigilance among believers.
In summary, “A Pure Church” stands out as a comprehensive resource for understanding ecclesiastical separation from both a theological and practical perspective, making it essential reading for church leaders and serious Bible students alike.
The Truth and the Trump Assassination Attempt
Hello reader. Just a note before you and I begin this post. I’m right now in the middle of several series at one time. Who knows which one I’ll continue next? I’m writing this to tell you that I am preparing, Lord-willing, to keep working until I finish all those. Here they are, part one of each, hopefully in reverse order.
Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part One), If You Want to Lose Men in and from a Church (Part One), and The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV (Part One). Part two of these series will come in the next few months. I’ve started these series and I want to finish them. Stay tuned.
*******************************************
The Assassination Attempt
At 6:11pm on July 13, 2024 in Butler County, Pennsylvania, a twenty year old young man, Thomas Matthew Crooks, attempted to assassinate the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Corey Comperatore, a firefighter, died that night from a head wound sustained during the same shooting, attempting to shield his daughters and wife from the attack. Others received injuries. Crooks missed Trump and the bullets flew into the crowd behind him.
The events of July 13, 2024 kept moving. The circumstances began to manifest themselves. Now we know a lot of detail. The young man, this assassin, climbed the building with his rifle on to the closest building (outside the perimeter) to the stage where the former President would give his speech. Several people saw him. They even reported it more than once.
The building used by this wannabe sniper stood 160 yards from his target. He laid down on a slightly sloped roof top and alone there pointed that rifle toward the former President and began pulling the trigger. He fired eight rounds before counter-snipers shot back and killed him.
The Oddities
Apparently the Secret Service, who the nation charges to protect Presidents and former Presidents, sets up a perimeter. This idea of a perimeter sounds familiar. They don’t allow any weapons inside it. On the outside, they look for favorable places for a shooter with a long gun. They occupy those or shut them down. Several questions arise.
Why wasn’t the roof of the building cleared or kept clear?
Why was there no drone to watch the high points outside of the perimeter, ones preferred by snipers?
Shouldn’t the police officer who confronted the shooter have relayed that information to the counter snipers?
With a clear vantage point to the roof top, why didn’t the counter snipers right away shoot a man with a rifle upon seeing him?
Many, many more questions exist. I think it is odd what happened. Others I’ve read said that it was either extreme negligence or malice. Malice means these weren’t mistakes made. Someone on the inside wanted him shot. People purposefully allowed or caused this event to occur. It’s so odd, that I would call it at least, very fishy. The circumstances around this shooting are so strange, that they beg the kind of questions I and others are asking.
A Question of Negligence or Malice
To be clear, I’m not saying it was malice. I don’t mind holding off with mere negligence. It is very suspicious though. Very. It is highly implausible that the Secret Service could allow this to occur, considering all the circumstances.
In the past, I’ve concealed my own bad behavior. In many, many cases through my life, I’ve seen others hide or obscure something they did wrong. Decades ago, our church treasurer stole money for months without detection. I’ve too witnessed many covertly hide an evil act to evade apprehension. This all happens very often. Many crimes are committed across the country every day. These are motivated in many different ways. The assailant is dead, so we can’t ask him.
The Discussion
I was watching a panel discussion in which the moderator or host said that the circumstances of the assassination attempt were very odd. When he did, two very vocal leftist panelists both called him a “conspiracy theorist.” They also took three standard, different directions with name calling. One, the host was a crazy loon. Two, he was divisive and slanderous. These two contradict one another, but they’re both still used in a scorched earth method. This serves to deter further questions or investigation.
Finally, third, the two leftist panelists admonished that no one really knows what happened. If you weren’t there, you can’t speculate. All speculation counts as misinformation. Only a caste of experts, and there are experts, can tell you.
All three varied protestations came with the appropriate condemnatory tone. They attempt to shame the interrogator. This corresponds to an identical spirit that permeates everything and every institution. Anything declared by anyone other than an elite person in an approved position is misinformation or disinformation.
One segment of our country expects us not to see anything unusual with the assassination attempt. Someone might say, “Don’t believe your lying eyes.” What they mean is, “Disregard the obvious truth.”
Detecting False Prophets by Fruit
In Matthew 7:15, Jesus commanded, “Beware of false prophets.” These are the people directing victims down the broad road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus explains how that you know if someone is a false teacher. You know him by his fruits.
I point out to you an orange tree. You see it, and it’s an orange tree. This you know by its fruit. Yet, I call it an apple tree. You know that’s not true. Someone can surely judge that. It’s obvious. You would say, “No, it’s not an apple tree; those are oranges on that tree.”
So many oddities exist in the assassination attempt of former President Trump, that I don’t know how someone could not think something malicious occurred. By the fruits of this event, you can know this. It rises above the level of merely negligence. If it is negligence, that’s scary or frightening too. But this seems like something different.
Disregard the Obvious
Our present world expects people to disregard the obviousness like that of fruit on a tree. This is seen in the acceptance of many different false teachings. Even if teaching or preaching contradicts, this contradiction is to be disregarded. Move along, nothing there. Doctrine just doesn’t matter. Many obvious false teachings are accepted today. The ones in trouble are those who notice and point out the contradiction or error.
The requirement to believe everything is fine in the face of obvious evidence otherwise is the new normal. This is everywhere now. Good is called evil and evil is called good, just like prophecy of Isaiah 5:20. A famous metaphor for this is “the emperor wearing no clothes.” Apparently his subjects walk around like and say that he is wearing clothes, when in fact he isn’t.
The Requirement to Judge the Obvious
I know as a pastor that people expect me to ignore many things people in the church do that violate scripture. No one needs to be too serious about what scripture says. It really doesn’t matter if someone actually does what is preached.
Why would Jesus need to tell someone to inspect and judge fruit? Don’t people just do that? Probably not any more, speaking of Jesus’ day. False prophets abound because people stopped doing that. They don’t make obvious judgments. People let them go, perhaps because they don’t want to face the reaction of making those kinds of judgments.
Upholding the truth requires judging fruit. The illustration of Jesus says, judge the obvious. Fruit is obvious. It’s right there in front of your face. Don’t let people stop you from judging fruit.
Recent Comments