Home » Posts tagged 'belief'

Tag Archives: belief

Does Doctrine Matter?

President James Monroe on December 2, 1823 first communicated the “Monroe Doctrine” in his State of the Union address to Congress. The Monroe Doctrine viewed any foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Americas, as a potentially hostile act against the United States.

One might ask Spain and Japan whether the Monroe Doctrine matters. These nations acted in violation of the aforesaid doctrine, which was met by a strong military response from the United States, leading to the Spanish-American War and U. S. involvement in World War Two.

THE SUPERIORITY OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

No doubt biblical doctrine matters more than the Monroe Doctrine, because God articulates that doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16 reads: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine.” When the United States calls something a “doctrine,” this is tantamount to a sacrosanct law. The Bible treats doctrine the same, as seen in Proverbs 4:2: “For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.”

The Bible constitutes the law of God, God the Lawgiver and also the Judge. When God said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” (Genesis 2:17), that is doctrine. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Lord said, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (also 2:17). The consequences for violating that doctrine were far worse for mankind than violating the Monroe Doctrine for the Spanish.

THE AUTHORITY OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

Does doctrine matter? It depends whose doctrine. After Jesus ended His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 to 7, Matthew explained in 7:28-29 that “when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: “For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Jesus had authority. If He said it, that settled the doctrine.

Jesus later described the doctrine of the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 15:9: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Doctrine didn’t matter if it were only the commandments of men. A mere commandment or a lesser teaching of men has no ultimate authority. Earthly bodies may punish for transgressing their temporal edicts, but they hold no sway over eternal repercussions. God does not accept their vain and profane worship.

On the other hand, Jesus could say in the first verse of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Understood with this doctrine of Jesus was the converse doctrine: “Cursed are those not poor in spirit: for theirs is not the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus spoke doctrine with like authority in John 3:15, “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The opposite of believing is not believing and of eternal life is eternal death. Maybe nothing matters more to a human being than the true doctrine of salvation.

THE ABSOLUTE TRUTHFULNESS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

True Doctrine Versus False Doctrine

More than any quality, what distinguishes biblical doctrine as divine doctrine, versus the mere doctrine of men, is its absolute truthfulness. Scripture is truth (John 17:17). You can always believe what God says because it is always true. Always. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
As much as the true doctrine of God’s Word matters through all eternity, it also contrasts with false doctrine disseminated by false teachers, who at the same time claim to be true ones. False doctrine matters too, but for the opposite reason. Also, it matters through all eternity, but instead in harmful, destructive ways.

The Bible calls false doctrine, “heresy.” The English word “heresy” transliterates a Greek word, heresis, which means “division” or “faction.” The world started with truth and heresy divides from truth. Every falsehood takes a path away from the way of truth. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus says He is the way to the Father, excluding all other ways. Other different ways than Jesus alone are heresies, diverging from the one path that leads to heaven, where are the Father’s house and God the Father.

God’s Truth is Truth

Postmodernism says, “Your truth is your truth.” It is saying, “Your true doctrine is your true doctrine.” God say “no” to that. In Romans 3:4, Paul writes: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” God is the final arbiter of truth. If you contradict God, your contradiction is falsehood. I ask you to consider the doctrine of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” God created two sexes and only two, male and female.

A male might call himself a female, but he isn’t. God also created a woman for man, not a man. He created Eve for Adam. God “brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22) and Adam said, “she shall be called Woman” (2:23). She was a “help meet” or fit for man. God created the woman to complement the man, not another man (2:18). A man does not complement a man and God calls this “an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13).

God also created distinct roles for the man and the woman that are required for a successful family and society (Ephesians 5:22-33, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3:1-7). The teaching, belief, and practice of these roles are true doctrine.

THE ETERNAL IMPACT OF DOCTRINE

Destructiveness of False Doctrine

The Apostle Peter says concerning certain heresies in 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.” Heresies are mainly brought by “false prophets” and “false teachers” “among the people” or “among you.”

Certain false doctrines in particular, which deny the Lord that bought” us, bring “swift destruction.” What Peter describes in 2 Peter 2:1 about false salvation doctrine mirrors what Jesus also said in the Sermon on the Mount, when He said in Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Jesus speaks of the narrow way, which is the true way, and of the broad way, which is the false one. Few enter the narrow gate, which leads to life, and many the wide gate, which takes the broad way that leads to destruction. The wide gate and the broad way are more popular, even though they are false. The next verse, Matthew 7:15, explains why people take this damning path in addition to its popularity: “Beware of false prophets.” False prophets or teachers point the way through their false doctrine to a future damning destination, surely while still calling their teaching “the truth.”

Blessing of True Doctrine

Paul expresses the eternal and serious ramifications of true doctrine through his pastoral epistles in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, especially declared by 1 Timothy 4:16: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” “The doctrine” will “save thyself and them that hear thee,” Paul instructs.

The salvation that comes from true doctrine carries with it ultimate fulfillment. The doctrine Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-12) could and would bring the kingdom of heaven, comfort, satisfaction, inheritance of all things, mercy, joy, gladness, and reward in heaven. Heeding the doctrine of Jesus was like building your house on a rock instead of sand, so that when a storm came, your house would stand and not fall (Matthew 7:24-27).

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF TRUE DOCTRINE

Teach Only the True Doctrine

Considering everything you’ve read so far about doctrine, can someone or at least should someone say, “Doctrine doesn’t matter”? Doctrine matters as much as anything that matters. For this reason, the Apostle Paul wrote his protégé Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:3, “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” Scripture requires church leaders to “teach no other doctrine.”

Because False Doctrine Deceives

God’s Word often explains how false teachers deceive people to believe wrong doctrine. The Apostle Paul again in Romans 16:17-18 writes: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” God requires separation from false teachers, who cause these divisions from true, scriptural doctrine. They are deceptive and use “good words and fair speeches” to deceive their listeners.

Separate from Those Who Teach Different Doctrine

The Apostle John joins Paul in the seriousness of doctrine, when he writes in 2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”

Akin to John’s warning in his epistle and Paul’s teaching in Romans, Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:3-5: “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; . . . . from such withdraw thyself.” If a man teaches other than the true doctrine or consents to it, that is, accepts or inculcates it, from such people, Paul commands, “withdraw thyself.” Nothing helps someone more than true doctrine, but also nothing hurts someone worse than false doctrine.

Today false teachers deceive listeners by devaluing true doctrine. They often say only certain essential doctrines matter, but not all doctrine. It is similar to Satan tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden by saying that eating of the tree wouldn’t matter to her. He said, “Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). In fact, she did die. These kinds of seductions lure people into a false sense of security. Not only do people stop taking heed to the truth, but they are offended by those who do.

THE REQUIREMENT OF TRUE DOCTRINE

The Bible requires doctrine in the preaching and teaching of churches. They who “rule well” a church “labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17). Paul commands Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word . . . . with all longsuffering and doctrine.” He commands him despite the following warning in verses 3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Have we now reached the time, age, or era when people will no longer endure sound doctrine? Does doctrine not matter to most people any more? They want something else, that Paul characterizes as itching their ears. Instead of preaching sound doctrine, preachers will provide their hearers something they would rather hear. Instead of a place for doctrine, churches become mainly social gatherings to accommodate the carnal allure of this temporal world.

Many today see a drastic decline in the United States. Why is this happening? A growing percentage of people cease church attendance at all. It’s not just that churches stop preaching biblical doctrine. Neither do people want a church that preaches it. Churches adjust to this new reality by reducing their teaching time and minimizing doctrine when they do preach anything. If churches stop caring about doctrine, why would anyone else care?

Doctrine will equip and sustain people for and through tough times. As days become harder and worse, people more than ever need doctrine. It will matter more than ever. Yet, how available will it be to those for whom it doesn’t? Think about it.

Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part six)

Part One    Part Two    Part Three    Part Four    Part Five

When someone gets toward the end of preaching the gospel, he explains belief.  God saves those who believe in Jesus Christ.  All over the internet and then on paper churches do not say, believe in Jesus Christ, something that simple.  No, they say, “Ask Jesus into your heart,” “Pray and ask Jesus to save you,” “Accept Jesus as Savior,” “Trust in Jesus Christ,” and other statements.  I’m fine with “believe in Jesus Christ” or “receive Jesus Christ,” and then explaining that.

As a part of the explanation of “believe in Jesus Christ” is Jesus Christ Himself.  Who is He?  For someone to believe in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ must be Jesus Christ.  He must be the actual one.  First, Jesus Christ is God.  Second, and in no given order, although I could argue for one, He is Lord.  People have complicated this over the last fifty plus years as much or more than anything in explaining who Jesus is.

Ask yourself why people will leave the Lordship of Christ out.  Why has Lordship become such a controversy?  It’s easy to understand how someone would not want Lordship.  Lordship clashes with the will of the person to whom you’re preaching.

Jesus Is Lord

Not Synonymous with God

In the Lordship controversy, I’ve noticed that preachers or theologians will try to move Lordship into the category of Deity.  They make God and Lord mean the same thing, so that believing Jesus Christ is God covers for believing He is Lord.  The two have definite overlap like all of these necessary attributes of Who Jesus is.  In a story from a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Thomas, John 20:27-29 say:

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Verse 28 is key, when Thomas says, “My Lord and my God.”  Jesus doesn’t refute that or alter it.  He says, “Thou hast believed.”  Thomas wasn’t saying, “My God and my God.”  The two qualities of His nature are different and distinct and necessary.

A Requirement

Romans 10:9-10 shows this as a requirement:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Non-Lordship advocates like to use Romans 10:9-10 for a gospel presentation and then leave out Lordship.  What does it say?  “Confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus.”  A few verses later, Paul writes in verse 13, a commonly used evangelism verse:  “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  Again, an evangelist might say “Lord,” and then eliminate it from the explanation of salvation.

Usage of the Lord in the Gospels

In the English (King James Version), the two words, “the Lord,” are used 6,918 times.  You see an early New Testament reference in an introduction of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:3:  “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”  Concerning Himself in the temptation in the wilderness to Satan in Matthew 4:7, Jesus says, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”  And three verses later, He says to Satan, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

The angels at Christ’s birth proclaimed in Luke 2:11, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”  Just as an example of one of the ways the gospels refer to Jesus as the Lord in several instances, John 11:2 says, “It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.”  Mary anointed “the Lord.”  After His resurrection, John (20:18) writes of Mary Magdalene that “she had seen the Lord.”  When John and Peter saw Jesus from their boat, John said to Peter, “It is the Lord” (21:7).

Usages of the Lord in Acts

Lordship of Christ is all over the gospel preaching of Acts.  Five times in his sermon in Acts 2, Peter refers to Jesus as “the Lord.”  In Acts 3:19 in that preaching of Peter, he says,

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

When Saul went out persecuting Christians, they are called, “the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1).  Soon after, Paul’s conversion profession is the simple question, “Who art thou, Lord?”  “And the Lord said, I am Jesus” (Acts 9:5).  I’m not going to keep going because Lordship is so patently obvious.

Usages of the Lord in the Epistles

The New Testament includes Lordship in the requirement and it dovetails with repentance.  This is something to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

“Ye are not your own” and “ye are bought with a price.”  Jesus bought these saints.  They are not their own any more, so they do not do what they want, but what He wants.  People have such a hard time with Lordship, because of the nature of lust.  They want what they want and this clashes with the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  That’s also why so-called evangelists might leave it out.  Believing in Jesus Christ means being owned and an outcome of obedience.  You do not obey to be saved, but you believe you have a future of obedience to the Lord Jesus.

2 Peter centers on the Lordship of Jesus with its emphasis on the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  The apostates turn away from Jesus to walk after their own lust.  In doing so, they deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ because they don’t want the judgment of the Lord that comes with it.  Most don’t mind salvation, but since they don’t like Lordship, they reject it or turn away from it.  Leaving Lordship out is creating a future of rampant apostasy, really buying into the apostates’ demands.

Explaining Jesus Is Lord

When I explain that Jesus is Lord in believing in Jesus Christ, I will say, “When you believe in Jesus Christ, you believe that He is Lord.”  That means believing that He is on the throne and you are not.  You relinquish the throne of your life.  This is what Jesus said, Losing your life for His sake (Matthew 10:39, 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, 17:33, John 12:25).  This is attached to losing your own soul, which is speaking of damnation.  Believing Jesus is Lord is in effect giving up your life to Him.  Then He can and will cleanse your soul.

More to Come

Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part five)

Part One     Part Two     Part Three    Part Four

Explaining Belief

In my experience, which includes a very large sample size over several decades now, people can understand a biblical explanation of belief.  I say to a person, “Jesus did everything that needed to be done for you to be saved, but how do you receive the benefits of what He did?  Scripture shows only one way and that is, you must believe in Jesus Christ.”

Many will and do say that they believe in Jesus Christ.  A majority of Americans will say they believe in Jesus Christ, when asked.  Yet, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?”  First though, it is true that you must believe in Jesus Christ.  Scripture teaches this requirement, “believe in Jesus Christ,” and I could go for thirty plus minutes showing verses that teach that.

What It’s Not

Before I explain what it means to believe in Jesus Christ, I make this point:  “It is by belief in Jesus Christ, and not by works.”  To understand belief in Jesus Christ, the evangelist must contrast belief from works, which scripture does all over the place.  Belief and works are mutually exclusive.  You are either saved by believing or by working, not both.  If it’s works, then someone must live a perfect life, which he can’t.  Someone will not understand belief in Jesus Christ unless he understands the relationship of works to belief.

Once I eliminate works as an option, I will ask again, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?”  Not only is belief not works, but it is also not mere intellectual assent to facts, like putting a check in a box.  This means that neither is it mindless repetition of words with or after someone, simply saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ.”

Aspects of Belief

When I explain belief in Jesus Christ, I don’t go into a long doctrinal dissertation, proving that belief is both intellectual, emotional, and volitional.  It is those three, and you can prove that with various passages for each of those aspects.  This is also the history of Christian doctrine of salvation.  It is said, belief is, the Latin, notitia, assensus, and fiducia.  Notitia is the knowledge, assensus is the volition or commitment, and fiducia is the trust or reliance.  All three go hand in hand, not to be separated from one another, like truth and love go together.

As you read this, you might think, “You’re making this too hard.  What about ‘God’s simple plan of salvation?'”  Scripture doesn’t say salvation is simple.  I’m not saying it isn’t.  I think it is, but it isn’t less than what scripture says that it is.  The evangelist should not leave out something indispensable to a scriptural understanding.

Scriptural Requirement for True Belief

The Bible does say that there is a belief that does not save.  This is quite common that someone falls short of a scriptural requirement for true belief in Jesus Christ.  I say that men purposefully leave out the hard part, the least popular aspects that are the biggest reason for not getting a desired response.

Imagine this:  “They’re not going to like this about Jesus Christ, so I’m not going to say it.”  What’s not to like about Jesus Christ?  People are not saved by believing in a Jesus that’s just acceptable to them.  He’s got to be who He is.  Another aspect to the object of faith is the Deity of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is God.

Deity of Christ

Usually when I explain the Deity of Christ, I do it at the point that I say, “Jesus died for you” or “Jesus paid the penalty for your sins.”  I say, “Let’s say that I wanted to die for you, and I think I would, but my death wouldn’t do anything for you — it couldn’t save you.  Why?  Because I’m a sinner.  I deserve the penalty for sin myself.  I can’t pay for yours, because I deserve my own.”

Well, who could pay the penalty for sin?  A perfect person.  A sinless person.  Who could do that?  What man could do that?  Only Jesus Christ, because He is God.  He is sinless, because He is God.

I briefly explain the Trinity at this point in the conversation and quote or go to verses on Jesus’ Deity.  If someone does not believe that Jesus is God, then He does not believe in Jesus Christ.  I include with that modalists, like the apostolics.  They have not the doctrine of Christ, so they have not God (2 John 1:9).  An evangelist must go much deeper and further on this subject if he is talking to a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, people like that.

Even if you are talking to a Hindu, you’ve got to differentiate a true belief in Jesus as God and the Hindu version that puts Jesus on the shelf with other gods.  The true identity of Jesus Christ is that He is God.  Again, saving belief must have the proper object and part of that is that Jesus is God.

More to Come

Baptismal Regeneration: Acts 22:16

Requiring Baptism for Salvation

Definition and Denominations

“Baptismal Regeneration” in its definition at Wikipedia says:

Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it. Etymologically, the term means “being born again” (regeneration, or rebirth) “through baptism” (baptismal).

It’s more than that.  You will find the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, LDS, and Charismatics such as Apostolics who also require water baptism for salvation.  Where I live, the biggest denomination is the “Christian Church,” which believe this.

Hermeneutic

A certain wrong hermeneutic undergirds or produces baptismal regeneration, using a few proof texts.  Instead of looking at all of the New Testament and understanding each verse within the whole, it conforms the whole to a few select verses.  I will examine those verses.  Those few verses don’t overturn what the New Testament teaches about salvation.  They don’t include baptism as a requirement for justification.  I will analyze what they do say, since men use them to buttress their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Versus Belief Alone by Grace Alone

Many times the Bible says something like John the Baptist said in John 3:36.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You don’t read any baptism in there.  Forty times the Bible says, “believeth/believed in/on him/Jesus/the Son/me/thee,” as the sole condition for salvation.

Scripture expresses many other faith alone statements. The Ethiopian in Acts 8:37 said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”  Mark 1:15 says, “believe the gospel.”  John 20:31 says, “Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name.”  John 13:19 says, “ye may believe that I am he.”  This is what the Bible teaches for salvation.  Those verses mirror Ephesians 2:8-9:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As much as verses teach faith alone for salvation, there are also many many that teach salvation not by works.

Adding a Work or Works

Baptism is not an incidental, non-affecting addition to grace or faith.  It is akin to the addition of the one work or ritual of circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians 5.  By adding this single work or ritual, “Christ shall profit you nothing” (v. 2).  You become “a debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3).  And, “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (v. 4).  Those adding baptism almost always add other works and then depend on their works to stay saved.  This is perverting the gospel.

Proof Texts

What I’m saying again here is that baptismal regeneration does not depend on what the New Testament teaches about salvation, but on proof texts that adherents use to force this doctrine on the Bible.  I will deal with five verses, not necessarily in any order:  Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38,1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5.  In the end, I will give more evidence against baptismal regeneration [Read the book by Thomas Ross against baptismal regeneration, see his debate on the subject at these links].  My prime goal here was to examine these proof texts.

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Post Conversion Baptism

At face value alone, it seems possible that Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins or at least precedes the washing away of sins.  The verse itself rests within the conversion testimony of Paul to a hostile audience in Jerusalem, many years after his salvation.  In the first telling of Paul’s salvation, his conversion and then reception of the Holy Spirit far preceded the command and occurrence of baptism (Acts 9:1-17).  Every time he recounts his conversion, Paul places his baptism as a later result of his conversion, not a cause (Acts 9, 22, 26).

Grammar and Syntax of Acts 22:16

The grammar and syntax of Acts 22:16 does not teach baptism preceding salvation or washing away sins.  Luther B. McIntyre, Jr. explains well in his article, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (Bib Sac, Jan-March, 1996, pp. 61-62):

The Greek sentence has two participles and two imperatives:  “Arising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.”  Many English translations include two conjunctive “ands,” but the Greek text has only one kai (“and”).  The construction is participle-verb-kai-verb-participle.

William MacDonald in his Bible Believer’s Commentary (NT, p. 469) suggests that best approach to this verse is to associate each participle with its nearest verb.  This is entirely consistent with what A. T. Robertson (Greek Grammar, p. 1109) calls the adverbial use of the participle.

Based on the Greek construction, the washing away of sins is connected with ‘calling upon his name,’ not with being baptized.  That agrees with Peter’s own appeal to the prophet Joel in Acts 2:21 that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  As Polhill says in his Acts commentary (p. 461), “The overarching term, however, is “calling upon the name of the Lord,” the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.

Some might not like the use of grammar and syntax getting in the way of their proof text.  However, the grammar and syntax also agree with the vast and overall scriptural teaching of faith alone for salvation.

Context

In Acts 9:13, Ananias referred to Paul (then Saul) as “this man,” yet later, he calls Paul his “brother.”  Paul was already converted before his baptism in verse 18.  Brother was a term adopted by the early disciples.  They used the term to express their familial love for each other in Christ.  The shift from man to brother in the words of Ananias indicate Paul’s conversion preceded baptism.

[I suggest everyone to read, again, Thomas Ross’s book, Heaven Only For the Baptized?  This book does a far more thorough job than above in debunking Acts 22:16 as a baptismal regeneration proof text.]

More to Come

John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

The King James Version (KJV) of John 3:36 reads:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

When you read the two, you see a few differences, one major one that may or may not affect or change doctrine, that being “he that believeth not the Son” versus “whoever does not obey the Son.”  Which is the better translation or right?  Or are they both right?
When you read the English of the KJV, you might think that the first “believeth” and the second “believeth” are the same Greek words translated into the same English word.  That makes sense.  However, they are not the same Greek words.  The first “believeth” translates pisteuo and the second, “believeth not,” translates apeitheo.  For that reason, the ESV and the NASV translate it “does not obey” and the NIV translates it “rejects.”
Can apeitheo be translated “believeth not”?  Why would the KJV translators not translate apeitheo differently than pisteuo?  How much does this translational difference matter?
In a very, very long post in which he mocks those who use the King James only, Mark Ward treats the difference very seriously, like a good reason to change the King James translation.  You can know with great certainty that the King James translators knew that these were two different words in John 3:36.  They, however, still translated them the same, “believeth.”
The modern version translators also sometimes translate apeitheo with “believe” and not “obey.”  The next example of its usage is Acts 14:2 and all the modern versions translate it “unbelieving,” “disbelieve,” and “refused to believe,” the same as the KJV, “unbelieving.”  They do not translate, “not obey” or “disobey.”   The very next usage is Acts 19:9.  The ESV translates the imperfect, “continued in unbelief,” the NIV, “refused to believe,” the KJV, “believed not,” and the NASV alone, “disobedient.”
In Romans 2:8, like all the modern versions, the KJV translates it, “do not obey.”  I give you this last example because, it shows that the KJV translators knew they could translate apeitheo, “do not obey,” rather than, “believeth not.”  In 1 Peter 3:1, the KJV and the modern versions translate apeitheo, “obey not,” but the NIV translates it, “believe not.”
Here’s what Friberg Lexicon, a modern lexicon, says apeitheo means:

(1) in relation to God disobey, be disobedient (RO 11.30); (2) of the most severe form of disobedience, in relation to the gospel message disbelieve, refuse to believe, be an unbeliever.

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

not to allow oneself to be persuaded; not to comply with; a. to refuse or withhold belief

The typical or normal Greek word translated “obey” in the New Testament is hupakouo.  akouo is normally translated, “to hear,” but with the addition of the prefix hupo, it means “to obey.”  Forms of that word are translated 21 times in the New Testament.  It is the word used in Ephesians 6:1, “Children, obey your parents.”  It is always translated, “obey.”
The Greek word peitho without the “a” prefix of apeitheo is translated “persuaded” in Matthew 27:20, the first usage in the New Testament, and the KJV and the modern versions all translate it, “persuaded.”  If persuasion is negated, it would be “not persuaded.”  If someone is persuaded, he believes.  In Matthew 27:43, all the versions translate peitho, “trusts.”  “Persuaded,” “convinced,” and “trusted” are normal understanding of peitho.  You can see this in the translation in all the versions in its 55 usages in the New Testament.
When apeitheo appears in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word is translated a majority of the times “rebelled” or “rebellious” (Dt 1:26, 9:7, 23, 24, 21:20; Josh 1:18; Ps 68:18; Is 1:23, 36:5, 50:5, 63:10, 65:2; Ez 3:27), which is compatible with “unbelief.”
In the near context of John 3:36, John the Baptist preaches the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, so they’ll follow Jesus and not John.  In verse 28, John says, “I am not the Christ.”  The gospel of John testifies that Jesus is the Christ.  Why?  So that people will believe that Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30-31).  “The Christ” is the Messiah, a Kingly figure.  John’s disciples needed to believe in Jesus Christ, that is, submit to Him, follow Him, or obey Him as the Christ.  This is the same as believing in Jesus Christ and not being rebellious against Christ.  Louw-Nida Lexicon, another modern lexicon, says concerning apeitheo:  “unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority.”  This is not the same as “not obey.”  It is a description of unbelief, especially referring to Jesus as Messiah, the Christ, in the context.
Jesus gives testimony or witness as to why He is the Messiah.  John argues for this. He wants people to be persuaded by the testimony or witness of Jesus and his own testimony or witness.  The greatest reason is that someone is granted everlasting life if he believes or is persuaded by the evidence or testimony or witness.  In the near context, apeitheo means, “believeth not.”  It is an example of a good translation.
The greater context of John presents the plan of salvation, the gospel.  In the context of the gospel, apeitheo means, “believeth not.”  Lexicons make note of this.  Those not persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by the evidence and the testimony were not believing He was the Son, Who had come from heaven.  The Son points back to many Old Testament Messianic allusions, including Genesis 3:16, Genesis 12:1-3, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6.
When preaching, I believe it is good to let people know that the second “believeth” of John 3:36 is a different Greek word.  It expands on the understanding of the English word “believeth,” which is more than intellectual, but also volitional.  Someone cannot remain rebellious against the Son, not be submitting himself to the Son, the Christ, and have everlasting life.
If the translators had translated apeitheo, “obeyeth not,” that would have resulted in a lot more necessary explaining.  Today, it would be regularly used to argue for works salvation by those who teach that.  They would say, “You’re saved by obeying the Son. So, if you don’t obey Him, you won’t have eternal life.”  On the other hand, “believing” is not in contradiction to “obeying.”  Unsaved people are said to “obey not the gospel of God” (1 Pet 4:17), and “obey not” translated apeitheo.
I was thinking about translators translating two different Greek words with the same English word in the same verse.  One came to mind, James 1:17:  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.”  The two words translated “gift” are two different Greek words, dosis and dorema.  They have two different nuances of meaning.  The ESV translates it identically to the KJV.  The NIV doesn’t even translate the first “gift, so it’s translation is “every good and perfect gift,” as if there weren’t even two words used.  The NASV seems to take in the difference, “every good thing given and every perfect gift.”
The difference between the two Greek words is that dosis puts an emphasis on the giving of the thing and dorema on the thing given.  The use of both words elevates the praise to the giving and gifts of and from God the Father.  The NASV tries to show that difference, but I think very few people would catch the difference in the mere reading.  There are two different adjectives used too, “good” and “perfect.”  I know that this occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, two different Greek words translated with the same English word.  I believe someone should rely on the original language understanding to define them.  It’s very difficult for the meaning to show up in an English word.  This will happen.
Ward strains so much to argue for modern versions from John 3:36, that I’m concerned he could pull or tear a muscle.  It’s not worth 9 pages and over 4,500 words, like he uses.  Let us rejoice that by the grace and providence of God the King James translators knew what they were doing in John 3:36 for the evangelism and then edification of English speaking people.  May you be edified by reading this post in contrast to the fear and unbelief caused by that of Ward.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives