Home » Posts tagged 'Bible studies' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Bible studies
Psalm 77 Podcast Series for Christian Ladies
My wife, Heather Ross, has taught a series of podcasts through Psalm 77, for Christian ladies. Approximately once a week these should go up until Psalm 77 is covered. That is, at the end there should be 21 podcasts (one for each verse, and an introductory lesson). Women who fear God can listen to the podcast series, “Tethered to Truth: A Podcast for Christian Ladies (Series on Psalm 77)” on my YouTube channel here. They can be notified about new podcasts by subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube channel.
There are also some new weblinks if you wish to share the channel with others:
https://www.youtube.com/c/KJB1611Baptist
https://youtube.com/@KJB1611Baptist
The world would be a better place if people read more and watched videos less, but since things are the way they are, publishing God’s truth in a way that people can watch and listen to it can still help many.
I suspect this is obvious to the vast majority of readers of this blog, but 1 Timothy 2 teaches that women are not to provide authoritative teaching or preaching to men. So if you are a man, I would encourage you to listen to some of the great preaching at Bethel Baptist Church or find other sources of Biblical encouragement and let the righteous women listen to this Psalm 77 series.
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
The Judgmental Church: Apostolic, New Testament, and Seeker-Friendly?
The Judgmental Church!
Everyone knows that being judgmental is one of the greatest sins that a person can possibly commit. The sin of being “judgmental” is mentioned and condemned in the following verses in the Bible:
The sin of being judgmental is regularly mentioned in 1st and 2nd Opinions, books which most people are much more committed to living by than they are, say, the Pauline epistles and the Gospels.
While being “judgmental” is not mentioned in the canonical New Testament, only in the pseudepigraphical 1st and 2nd Opinions, and the passage in the Sermon on the Mount that people misuse to prove this position actually commands one to help one’s brother remove even a speck or smaller sin from his eye (that is, Christ commands one to judge) as long as one does not hypocritically have a beam in one’s own eye (Matthew 7:1ff.), there are plenty of memes and commonly supported cultural images for it, which, in the eyes of many, should be a sufficient substitute for the total lack of support in the inspired text of Scripture.
Were the New Testament Churches Judgmental?
Did the apostolic, New Testament churches judge? In addition to Matthew 7:1ff., Christ commanded: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). So Christ commanded people to judge–it was not only not a sin, but it is a sin to fail to judge. Did the New Testament churches follow Christ’s command to judge? Consider 1 Corinthians 14:23-25:
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Wow! Not only did this New Testament church fail to recognize the (alleged) sin of judging, but Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wanted every member of the congregation to be judging. In fact, if a new visitor comes to a church service, “all” are supposed to judge him, with the truth of Scripture, and by this means he will not be turned off by their being so “judgmental,” but on the contrary, he will fall down on his face and will worship God, recognizing that God is in them of a truth.
Consider also Isaiah 1:21:
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
It was good for God’s people to be “full of judgment.” That was being “faithful,” and was characteristic of “righteousness.” When that stopped it was unfaithfulness, spiritual harlotry.
The second greatest commmand is to love your neighbor as yourself–the only greater command is to love God with your whole being. What is involved in loving your neighbor? Note Leviticus 19:17-18:
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Rebuking others is showing your neighbor love–just like not hating him, not avenging, and not bearing grudges. Sin is the greatest evil, so rebuking your neighbor, so that he does not sin, is one of the kindest and most loving things you can possibly do.
The Apostolic, New Testament Way to Be Seeker-Friendly
Do you want visitors to your church to come to true conversion? Do you want your church to glorify God and follow the New Testament? Then start having lots of judging of others go on, so visitors can fall on their faces and confess God is in you of a truth. Exercise lots and lots of God-glorifying, loving, non-hypocritical, but Biblically accurate judgment. That is part of loving your neighbor as yourself. Reject the Satanic advice of the world, the flesh, and the devil that you are not supposed to judge anyone or anything. As in so many other situations, this idea is exactly the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 14:23-25; Isaiah 1:21, and Leviticus 19:17-18 should be carefully expounded in every evangelical “church growth” book that actually cares about what God says about the church and that wants genuine growth, not cancerous pseudo-growth. So should the fact that “come as you are” is a lie-the Biblical advice is “sanctify yourselves.” But I’m not holding my breath–I suspect that, in the minds of many, the sin of being judgmental, as condemned in 1st and 2nd Opinions, will continue to greatly outweigh the evidence to the contrary from Christ, the apostle Paul, Moses, and Isaiah.
“You mean I am wrong in saying being ‘judgmental’ is a sin condemned in the Bible? How DARE you judge me about that!”
–TDR
Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy, part 2 of 2
In part one of this study of Peter Ruckman’s heresy about different ways of salvation in different periods of time, four questions were given for disciples of Ruckman to consider. This part provides several more questions for those who have adopted or been influenced by Ruckman’s heresy on this issue.
5.) Does the idea that anyone at any time can be saved partially by works deny the depths of the sinfulness of the human heart? Isaiah, confessing what Israel will pray at the end of the Tribulation, affirms: “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). If even the “best” we can do is a filthy rag—is itself sinful—how can it help one to be saved? We deserve to go to hell for the “best” thing we have ever done, because of how our indwelling sin leads even our “best” actions to be tainted by sin. Does that not obliterate salvation by works at any time? If not, doesn’t it strongly impact how we preach the gospel even now? If Ruckman is right (God forbid), then we can’t tell sinners: “Salvation by works is hopeless and impossible!” but only can say, “Right now God has decided salvation is by faith in this time period, but salvation by works really is possible—the Catholic church is right when it teaches salvation by faith and works; it just puts that way of salvation in the wrong time period.” Isn’t that an attack on the gospel even now? Is it OK to make salvation by works possible, and salvation by faith alone to be a mere dispensational distinction like whether or not it is OK to eat bacon or lobster?
6.) Why are verses that allegedly teach different ways of salvation in different time periods taken out of context in a major way? For example, the Ruckmanite pamphlet referenced in part one claims that Revelation 14:12 proves salvation by faith and works in the Tribulation, but it does no such thing—it just proves that true faith will manifest itself in one’s life, a fact that is all over the Pauline epistles (Romans 2:6-7; Ephesians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, etc.), all over 1 John, and all over the whole Old and New Testament. Why is there so much misinterpretation going on?
7.) Would salvation be by faith alone in the Messiah from the Fall until the Tribulation and then suddenly change? Wouldn’t we need very, very clear Biblical evidence for this—evidence that does not exist?
8.) If we accept Ruckman’s claim here:
This means that in the Tribulation, you can lose it! … the truth that I’m talking about right now—taught first in 1954—is unknown to Pre-Millennial scholars. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Revelation. Pensacola, 1982, p. 413)
Wouldn’t the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, contrary to Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 3:21? Was the church teaching lies about the gospel until 1954 when Ruckman came along to explain the truth?
9.) Shouldn’t anyone who teaches multiple ways of salvation stop calling himself a Baptist, since there are no Baptist confessions of faith from the first century until modern times that teach this idea? One thing that John Davis in his “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” pamphlet and “Time for Truth!” website deserve commendation for is not having the name “Baptist” on his religious organization, but just “The Oaks Church.” That is honest. Someone who teaches ideas about salvation that have never been in any Baptist confession should not call himself or his religious organization a Baptist church. When will you stop confusing people by dishonestly claiming to be a Baptist, when you reject what Baptists believe?
10.) Ruckman makes many other incredible claims on things like aliens and the color of their blood to secret CIA alien breeding facilities that perhaps he is not credible. Furthermore, he says: “There are SIX ‘plans of salvation’ in the book of Acts” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Jan. 2007, p. 16.” Does such an idea make Acts astonishingly confusing, instead of helping people understand God’s truth?
11.) Ruckman also wrote: “Paul does not hesitate to misapply Habbakuk 1:5-6, in the Church Age” (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 37), claiming that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, misapplies Scripture. Such outlandish ideas permeate Ruckman’s teachings. If we follow Ruckman, are we not leading ourselves into incredible confusion, even apart from the fact that Ruckman’s life indicated that he was not qualified to pastor, based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? (See, e. g., What About Ruckman? by David Cloud).
12.) Why do Ruckman’s writings have such a carnal, ungodly spirit, so that one feels defiled by just reading a few pages of them? I have never been able to read through any of his books cover to cover; when I tried I could not get past what seemed like regrettably carnal name-calling. What if Ruckman wrote in such a carnal way because he was himself a carnal man, not one who Christians should follow?
13.) Why do you use Romans 10:9-13 in gospel tracts, when Romans 10:9-10 is quoting Deuteronomy 30:14, and Romans 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32? If Romans 10:9-13 proves salvation by grace through faith in this period of time, but not in other time periods, why does Paul quote Deuteronomy 30, from the Mosaic dispensation, and Joel 2:32, which is about the salvation of people in the Tribulation period? Is Paul misinterpreting the Old Testament, or is Ruckman misinterpreting the Bible?
14.) Romans 4:1-8 is one of the classic New Testament texts on justification by faith alone apart from works:s
Rom. 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom. 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom. 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Paul proves the glorious truth that God justifies the ungodly apart from works by quoting Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2, the experiences of Abraham and of David. If salvation were by works in Abraham’s day or in King David’s day, how could Paul quote Genesis 15 and Psalm 32 to prove exactly the opposite doctrine, and if there are different ways of salvation in different dispensations, why does Paul prove his doctrine of unmerited salvation from the way people in the patriarchal and legal dispensations were saved?
15.) If you cannot answer the questions above, are you willing to reject Ruckman and his false teaching about the existence of multiple ways of salvation?
Read part one on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.
–TDR
Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 1 of 2
You are out of town and are looking for a good church. After doing online research, you find one and visit. The church says “Baptist,” “independent.” They go soulwinning, telling people to repent and be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They all have King James Bibles. They say nothing about Ruckman. They reject Jack Hyles’s anti-repentance heresies. They reject CCM, Contemporary “Christian” Music. They believe in eternal security but are not Calvinist. They dress modestly and believe in gender distinction. They reject the charismatic movement. They reject covenant theology and are dispensational, premillennial, and pretribulational. Truths such as the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are, of course, all believed. The people are friendly and the pastor preaches with conviction and makes application. Everything looks great!
You go to the tract area to pick up some gospel tracts. The content seems fine for most of them. Then you find a pamphlet about the future. On one side it says: “Very soon millions of people shall suddenly disappear!” Everything that it says in that part sounds fine. But on the other side it says “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” and in that section you are shocked when you discover statements that deny the gospel! In this section, which is addressed to people who miss the Rapture, appear statements such as: “Remember, to be saved you must put all your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and keep the commandments of God,” and “You can only enter [God’s] Kingdom if you have put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and … by … keeping the commandments.” What is going on here?
You look at the pamphlet a bit more carefully. You notice within it a drawing of people going up in the Rapture; one of the graves with a person going up says “Peter Ruckman.” Hmm.
Then you see that it is published by one “John Davis” who runs a “Time for Truth!” website and helps lead “The Oaks Church.” You discover that these sectaries are significant publishers of Ruckmanite literature.
The church you thought was fine turned out to be one where Peter Ruckman’s heresy that there are different ways of salvation in different time periods is being believed and practiced, although they did not openly proclaim their Ruckmanism. That is bad. It is really bad. Such a church is not one to go back to unless they repent and renounce their heresy on the gospel. Multiple (alleged) ways of salvation is a false teaching to tolerate “not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:5). Ecclesiastical separation is commanded by God (Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).
Ruckman believed an eternally secure salvation by grace alone through faith alone is only for the church age; supposedly in past times for Israel and in future times such as the Tribulation period salvation is not by repentant faith alone, but by faith and works. What are some questions you can ask someone who believes or is being influenced by this heresy? Here are a few.
1.) Does the fact that Genesis 15:6 is referenced in Habakkuk 2:4, and these two verses are themselves referenced in James 2; Romans 4; Galatians 3; and Hebrews 10-11 show that justification has always been by faith alone, rather than by works? (The extremely powerful nature of this development of salvation by faith alone from the patriarchal times of Abraham, through the Mosaic dispensation, into the New Testament is developed in the study “The Just Shall Live by Faith”). Why does Paul prove his teaching of justification by faith alone with these kinds of Old Testament texts? Don’t these passages show that Abraham, Moses, Habakkuk, James, and Paul all taught the same human response was required to be saved—faith, and faith alone?
2.) For century after century the Jews were singing Psalms with many verses such as: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12). If salvation was ever by works in the Old Testament, why would God command them to sing that ALL who trust in God’s Son are blessed (not “some” are blessed, those who trust and also do enough works to be saved?) Is the Psalter deceiving Israel when it regularly teaches salvation by faith alone?
3.) Why does Peter testify that ALL God’s OT prophets witnessed to justification by faith alone in the Messiah? “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
4.) Why is the Old Testament full of the truth of salvation by grace alone? (For example, the Sabbath teaches salvation by faith and resting from works, according to Paul in Hebrews 3-4, so from the very seventh day of creation God’s resting taught man: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:9-10). One major reason working on the Sabbath deserved the death penalty was to teach Israel what a grave sin it was to seek to enter God’s salvation rest by effort instead of resting in Jehovah and His provided atonement alone. Likewise, Moses told Israel that their being chosen was sheer and totally undeserved grace (Deut 7:6-8); the very preface to the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-2) indicates that Israel was to obey because they were already a redeemed people, not in order to merit salvation, just as believers today obey because they are already a redeemed people, not to merit salvation. There are many texts such as: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1-2); how? Through the Messiah, in the immediate context—Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 55:4.
Read part two on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.
–TDR
Christ’s Human Nature From His Mother Mary: Menno Simons was wrong
Christ received His human nature from His human mother, Mary (contrary to the teaching of Menno Simons).
God did not create a new human nature in Mary’s womb that was unconnected with Mary’s humanity, so that she was simply a pipe or conduit through which an unrelated human nature came into existence. Luke 1:35 states:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Son was conceived through the working of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) in the womb of a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph.
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 reads:
Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός], made under the law,
Christ’s human nature became or came into existence, was made, from, of, or out of His human mother, Mary.
The Lord Jesus was the “fruit” of Mary’s “womb”:
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And her actual Son:
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
He was a literal descendent of David, both through His adopted human father Joseph and through His literal mother, Mary:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
If you have taught (likely without thinking it through and with no bad intentions) that Christ’s human nature was not connected to Mary’s humanity through a miraculous work that resulted in Christ’s sinless humanity, despite Mary’s being a sinner, and instead taught that God just created a human nature in the womb of Mary, based on the verses above, you need to change. Stop teaching that. Such a teaching undermines Christ’s true human nature and thus attacks the salvation He wrought for us as the God-Man.
I am thankful for the history of Anabaptist martyrs in the book The Martyr’s Mirror, it is definitely worth reading, and as a history of martyrs in immersions assemblies, has a great deal to commend it above Foxe’s much more well known book of martyrs.
However, Menno Simons, the Reformation Anabaptist leader, denied the Scriptural and traditional Christian view that Christ took His human nature from Mary for the heretical position that His human nature was created in the womb of Mary. Unfortunately, some of the later individuals mentioned in The Martyr’s Mirror follow Menno’s false doctrine in this matter. Thankfully, Menno’s error did not make it into any Baptist confessions; it is more of an idiosyncratic view that he held personally. One may think of Jack Hyles’ similar idiosyncratic heresy that Jesus Christ was human even before His incarnation. Nor does Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s incarnation appear in J. Newton Brown’s edifying book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
The Divine Person of Christ was “sent forth” from the Father, but His human nature was “made of a woman” in the virgin conception and birth (Galatians 4:4). Mary was not a surrogate mother, which Christ’s humanity simply passing through her in a manner comparable to the position of the ancient Gnostic heretic Valentinus:
Menno’s own view of the incarnation, however, became a source of controversy among the Anabaptists. It was never accepted by the Swiss Brethren. His view was similar to that of Hofmann. The crux of the problem to him was the origin of Christ’s physical nature. He held that it was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within the body of Mary. Menno’s position differed from the historic view in denying that Christ received his human body from Mary. He replaced the orthodox view, “per Spiritum Sanctum ex Maria virginenatus,” with “per Spiritum Sanctum in Maria virgine conceptus, factus et natus.”[1]
There is some historical evidence that Anabaptists who practiced believer’s immersion rejected Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s humanity with greater consistency than did those who were open to believer’s pouring for “baptism.” This may account for why, as already indicated, no evidence for Menno’s view appears in Brown’s book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
I am thankful for Menno Simon’s many stands for truth in a very hostile environment, and look forward to meeting those who trusted in Christ alone and submitted to believer’s immersion in heaven, including those who did not think through the implications of Menno’s view on Christ’s incarnation but adopted Menno’s error from him. I am also thankful for The Martyr’s Mirror and the edifying narratives of Christian martyrs it contains. But on the subject of the incarnation Menno was wrong, and the Baptists and other Anabaptist churches that rejected his heresy were correct, following the teaching of Scripture.
–TDR
[1] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 172.
Links to Amazon are affiliate links. Learn about how you can support righteous causes with Amazon purchases here.
New Testament Greek for Distance Students Fall 2022
Lord willing, I will be starting a 1st semester introductory Greek class which can be taken by distance students in September 2022. If you are interested, see the post below, the schedule here, and more information here, and then please click here to contact me.
What Will I Learn in Introductory NT Greek?
We will be learning introductory matters such as the Greek alphabet, and then the entire Koine Greek noun system, after which we will get in to verbs in the indicative mood. A second semester to follow should cover the rest of the fundamentals of Greek grammar. At the end of the course, you will be well prepared to begin reading the New Testament on your own. You also will, I trust, have grown closer to the Lord through your growth in understanding and application of His Word, will have grown in your ability to read, understand, teach, and preach the Bible (if you are a man; women are welcome to take the class as well, as they should know God’s Word for themselves and their families and teach other women and children), and will be prepared to learn Greek syntax and dive deeper into exegesis and more advanced Greek study in second year Greek. You will learn the basics of New Testament Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary, preparing you to translate, interpret and apply Scripture. Recognizing the importance of using the original languages for the interpretation of the New Testament, you will acquire a thorough foundation in biblical Greek. You will learn the essentials of grammar and acquire an adequate vocabulary.
The course should be taught in such a way that a committed high school student can understand and do well in the content (think of an “AP” or Advanced Placement class), while the material covered is complete enough to qualify for a college or a seminary level class. There is no need to be intimidated by Greek because it is an ancient language. Someone who can learn Spanish can learn NT Greek. Indeed, if you speak English and can read this, you have already learned a language—modern English—that is considerably more difficult than the Greek of the New Testament. Little children in Christ’s day were able to learn Koiné Greek, and little children in Greece today learn modern Greek. If they can learn Greek, you can as well, especially in light of principles such as: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).
The immense practical benefits of knowing Greek, along with plenty of edifying teaching, will be included. The class should not be a dry learning of an ancient language, but an interesting, spiritually encouraging, and practical study of the language in which God has given His final revelation. It will help you in everything from preaching and teaching in Christ’s church to answering people’s objections in evangelism house to house to understanding God’s Word better in your personal and family time with the Lord.
Furthermore, you will be learning Greek in such a way that at the end you will actually know it. That is, this course, and successor courses in 2nd year Greek (syntax) and 3rd year Greek (book exegesis of Ephesians and Romans), are designed for you to actually know the language at the end, so that you can draw closer to the Lord, be more effective in preaching and teaching God’s Word, and reap the other tremendous benefits of learning Greek the rest of your life. Greek is not an agonizing drudgery you should barely survive and at the conclusion of which you forget everything you learned. The course sequence will teach you to preach expository messages, or teach Scripture, so that the main points of your sermons or lessons are what the main points of the passage are, powerfully impacting those you are shepherding with the sharp sword of the Word. As, by God’s grace, you learn the language and regularly read the Greek New Testament, God’s final glorious revelation will become familiar to you the way the Bible in French or German or Spanish is familiar to native speakers of those languages, and both you and others will be transformed as you behold the glory of Jesus Christ in the mirror of Scripture by the Spirit in a greater way (2 Corinthians 3:18).
What Textbooks Will I Use in Introductory NT Greek?
Required class textbooks are:
1.) Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society), the Greek NT underneath the Authorized, King James Version:
alternatively, the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Hebrew Old Testament bound together (Trinitarian Bible Society):
2.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) (Later editions of Mounce are also fine, but please do not use the first or second edition.):
4th edition:
3.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Workbook), ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)
4th edition:
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2014):
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, 800 Words and Images: A New Testament Greek Vocabulary Builder (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2013):
Recommended texts include:
5.) Danker, Frederick William (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. This is the only text that you can buy for Accordance Bible Software or Logos Bible Software and then use as a Bible software module instead of having a physical copy. All other books should be physical.
6.) The Morphology of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994
(Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links. To save money on buying books on the Internet, please visit here.)
We are using Speak Koiné Greek as a supplement to Mounce because studies of how people learn languages indicate that the more senses one uses the better one learns a language. Speaking and thinking in Greek will help you learn to read the NT in Greek. We are using Halcomb’s 800 Words and Images because learning Greek vocabulary with pictures and drawings helps to retain words in your memory (think about how children learn words from picture books). Mounce is a very well-written and user-friendly textbook, and Halcomb’s works will make the material even more user-friendly.
What Qualifications Does the Professor Have to Teach Greek?
I have taught Greek from the introductory through the graduate and post-graduate levels for a significant number of years. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover in Greek five times and continue to read my Greek New Testament through regularly. I can sight-read most of the New Testament. I am currently reading the Septuagint through as well; I am about halfway through the Pentateuch and am also reading Psalms. I have also read cover to cover and taught advanced Greek grammars. While having extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, students of mine have also thought my teaching was accessible and comprehensible. More about my background is online here.
My doctrinal position is that of an independent Baptist separatist, for that is what is taught in Scripture. Because Scripture teaches its own perfect inspiration and preservation, I also believe both doctrines, which necessarily leads to the belief that God has preserved His Word in the Greek Textus Receptus from which we get the English King James Version, rather than in the modern critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies).
What Do I Need to Get Started?
Unless you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you will need a computer or other electronic device over which you can communicate. We can help you set up Zoom on your computer in case you need assistance with that.
The class should begin in early September, 2022. The class will count as a 4 credit college course. Taking the class for credit is $185 per credit hour. The class can be audited for $100 per credit hour. Auditors will not take tests or be able to interact with the class. Taking it for credit is, therefore, likely preferable for the large majority of people. When signing up, please include something written from your pastor stating the church of which you are a member and his approval for your taking the class. A church that utilizes the class as part of its seminary, college, or institute curriculum may have alternative pricing arrangements; please direct questions to the leadership at your church for more information. Students with clear needs who live outside of North America and Europe in less well-developed countries in Africa or Asia (for example) may qualify for a discount on the course price. One or two students located in any part of the world who are able and willing to help with video editing also would qualify for a course discount.
For any further questions, please use the contact form here.
I am thinking about starting a 1st year Hebrew class for distance students soon as well. Please also let me know if you are interested in learning the language in which God revealed the majority of His infallible revelation.
–TDR
“I’m sorry” vs. “I repent”
We often hear someone say, “I’m sorry,” after doing something wrong, or something that the person does not think is wrong but the person he is speaking to thinks is wrong.” When one man says “I’m sorry” to another, the response can cover the range from “I’m sorry that I sinned against God and against you, because this is a godly sorrow, it will lead me to repent,” to “I’m sorry that you feel the way you do right now,” to “I’m sorry I got caught sinning,” to “I’m sorry that you are bothering me with your ridiculous complaint, and I wish you would go away and leave me alone–I didn’t do anything wrong.”
“I’m sorry.”
That range can be seen in the texts that contain the word “sorry” in Scripture.
For example, Saul wants people to feel sorry for him when he is plotting evil, pursuing innocent David, and killing other righteous people right and left:
1Sam. 22:8 That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?
King Herod was sorry when he was asked to behead John the Baptist:
Matt. 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
In fact, Herod was not just a little bit sorry. He was really sorry:
Mark 6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath’s sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.
Herod was “sorry.” Really sorry. He could have said to John, “I’m sorry about this,” and then gone ahead and ordered the guard to chop off the Baptist’s head. He was “sorry,” but he certainly did not “repent.” Being even “exceeding sorry” is not the same thing as being repentant. Being “sorry” is simply saying that you have “sorrow” over something–whether that thing is your sin, or whether you are sorry that you didn’t get away with your sin, or whether you are sorry you can’t sin even more, is not expressed.
“I repent.”
Scripture does not say that if one sins against a Christian brother, he is supposed to say, “I’m sorry.” It does not say that when a child sins against another child, the sinning child should be made to say “I’m sorry.” Scripture says that when one sins against another, the sinning party is to say, “I repent.”
Luke 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
This is not the place to do a comprehensive study of the Biblical doctrine of repentance, but the evidence provided here and in many other places indicates that genuine repentance always results in a change. If I sin against you and say, “I repent,” I am telling you that what I did was sinful, and by God’s grace I will not do it any more. I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.
If I say “I’m sorry,” I may mean the same thing as “I repent.” On occasion being “sorry” is associated with repentance:
Psa. 38:18 For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin.
2Cor. 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
The sorrow of the Corinthians did lead to their repentance–that was good. But note that Paul specifically states that he was not glad that they had been made “sorry.” He was only glad that they had repented as a result of that sorrow. So even here, where sorrow and repentance are associated, they are still distinct.
Have I ever said “I’m sorry” when I meant “I repent”? Yes, I certainly have. Do I condemn parents who tell their children, when the children sin against another, “Say you are sorry!” No, I do not condemn such parents. If someone sins against me and then says, “I’m sorry,” must I think the best (1 Corinthians 13) and assume he means “I repent,” and therefore forgive him, as commanded in Luke 17:4? Yes, I certainly must forgive him, even though he did not say what Christ told him to say: “I repent.”
However, maybe we all ought to reevaluate our use of language in the light of Scripture, and start saying “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry” when we sin against another person (and also use this language when we confess our sins to the Lord). Saying “I’m sorry” is easier than saying “I repent.” There is a lot more wiggle room in “I’m sorry.” Maybe we should start telling our children to say “I repent” instead of “I’m sorry.” This is the pattern in Scripture, and it is always good to stick as closely to Scripture as possible.
–TDR
The Gospel In the Stars and the Gospel in the Bible
The Gospel in the Stars!
The gospel is in the stars! So say a number of books, such as the Lutheran minister Joseph A. Seiss’s The Gospel in the Stars and the Anglican ultradispensationalist soul-sleep advocate and flat-earther E. W. Bullinger’s The Witness of the Stars, following Ms. Frances Rolleston’s book Mazzaroth: the Constellations. (Amazon affiliate links). These advocates have been copied in modern times by people like the Presbyterian evangelical D. James Kennedy and Institute for Creation Research leader Henry Morris.
Baptists, however, have traditionally held with conservative Protestants that general revelation in creation is not saving. It reveals God’s power and glory (Romans 1), but the gospel is only revealed through His special revelation in Scripture. The “heavens declare the glory of God,” but only through special revelation does salvation come: “the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:1, 7).
It is clear that the Baptists are wrong and the Lutherans, ultradispensationlists, and women Bible teachers are correct. After all, just look at the picture above. You can just look at it and understand that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, became Man, died a sacrifical death for the sins of the world, and then rose victoriously from the grave, so that you could receive eternal life by repentant faith alone in Him (1 John 5:7; John 1:1-18; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 3:23-28).
Right?
Or maybe not?
The picture above is from the constellation called The Southern Cross. Without my telling you that–in words–would you have even known that there is supposed to be cross in that picture?
Let’s say you could see that some of the stars there have the shape of a cross if you squint just the right way. Would that mean that you understand the gospel? How many Catholics that worship before a crucifix understand the gospel? Would anyone understand the gospel by simply looking at the picture of a cross, or would someone need to explain to him in words what the cross means? Have people understood the gospel by looking at a cross on a church building?
How many people do you know have been truly born again by looking in the sky and understanding the “gospel in the stars”? How many heathen have rejected their idols and astrology and false gods because of the “gospel in the stars”? What if the number is “zero”?
Let’s say another group of stars in the sky forms a circle, so someone decides that it looks like the fat belly of an idol of Buddha. Does that mean “the gospel of Buddha” is written in the stars? What is another group of stars looks like the letter “Q.” Is that predicting the Quran? One can draw lines between stars that look like anything.
The Gospel in the Bible!
Does the Bible tell us that the gospel is in the stars as well as in Scripture? The word “gospel” appears 104 times in 98 verses in the Bible: Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:1, 14–15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Luke 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1; Acts 8:25; 14:7, 21; 15:7; 16:10; 20:24; Rom. 1:1, 9, 15–16; 2:16; 10:15–16; 11:28; 15:16, 19–20, 29; 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:17; 4:15; 9:12, 14, 16–18, 23; 15:1; 2 Cor. 2:12; 4:3–4; 8:18; 9:13; 10:14, 16; 11:4, 7; Gal. 1:6–9, 11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; 3:8; 4:13; Eph. 1:13; 3:6; 6:15, 19; Phil. 1:5, 7, 12, 17, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; Col. 1:5, 23; 1 Th. 1:5; 2:2, 4, 8–9; 3:2; 2 Th. 1:8; 2:14; 1 Tim. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:8, 10; 2:8; Philem. 1:13; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:12, 25; 4:6, 17; Rev. 14:6.
I have listed below all the references where the word “gospel” is associated with looking at the constellations in the sky:
If you didn’t get it, here is that complete list again, in bigger font:
The gospel is not in the stars. The books at the beginning of this post do cite Scripture sometimes, but they take it totally out of context when they attempt to prove that the gospel is in the stars. The gospel is not in general revelation–it is in special revelation. General revelation condemns; it cannot save. The idea that the gospel is in the stars is unbiblical and false. If you have picked it up somewhere, reject it, along with the other evil teachings of those promoting the gospel in the stars, such as Lutheranism, ultradispensationalism and soul-sleep. Be thankful for Henry Morris’ defense of creation, but reject his false idea that the gospel is in the stars, as well as his willingness to work with the Seventh-Day Adventist cult and anyone else who accepts creation and rejects evolution, pretty much no matter what heresies they believed in on other matters.
If you don’t understand the gospel, click here to find out what it is in the Bible. Search the Scriptures to understand the gospel–it is there, very clearly, all over the place. Thank God for His wisdom and power when you look at the stars, but do not expect to find the gospel where He has not revealed it.
The following are some additional resources on the claims of the Gospel in the Stars:
Dave Hunt, The Gospel in the Stars
Danny Faulkner, The Gospel Message: Written in the Stars?
Charles Strohmer, Is There a Christian Zodiac, A Gospel in the Stars?
–TDR
Jehovah’s Mercy is Holy–Chesed to the Chasidim
A core term for Jehovah’s mercy or lovingkindness in the Old Testament is chesed (חֶסֶד). This crucial term for the mercy Jehovah shows His people appears in texts such as:
Gen. 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:
Ex. 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Ex. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Psa. 13:5 But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.
Psa. 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Psa. 26:3 For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
Psa. 118:1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever.
and many other texts.
The Hebrew chesed, “mercy/loving-kindness/goodness,” is related to the word chasid (חָסִיד), meaning “holy/godly/faithful.” The ultra-orthodox Jews who claim (falsely, unfortunately, as you cannot be holy and reject the Messiah, the Holy One that did not see corruption, but was raised from the realm of sin and death, Psalm 16:10, after His sacrificial death, Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) to be especially holy are called the Chasidim, practicing Hasidic Judaism. This word chasid appears in texts such as:
Deut. 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
1Sam. 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
2Sam. 22:26 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright.
Mic. 7:2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.
Psa. 4:3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
Psa. 12:1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
Psa. 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
What is the significance of this connection? The man who is the recipient of Jehovah’s chesed–His covenantal mercy and loving-kindness–becomes one who is holy, chasid, and who himself practices chesed, mercy, towards others. There is no such thing as someone who has received Jehovah’s saving chesed but is not a chasid, a holy man. Are there degrees of holiness? Certainly. Can believers experience spiritual decays and backslidings? Sadly, yes. Is there such a thing as one who has received Jehovah’s saving mercy who is not holy–one who has received chesed who is not chasid? No, emphatically not.
This fact should encourage those who have received Jehovah’s blessed chesed to pursue holiness in a greater way–it is what God saved you for. He has united you to the resurrected Holy One (Psalm 16:10) and you are judicially holy and certain to grow in practical holiness, practicing chesed yourself, being merciful as your heavenly Father has shown you mercy, since the Holy Spirit sweetly influences your mind, will, and affections. You have received God’s chesed and have become a chasid.
If you are not a holy one, but are still a sinful, unchanged worldling, do not deceive yourself into thinking that you have received Jehovah’s chesed. All who have received His chesed become chasidim, holy ones. Mercy and holiness from the holy God of mercy are inextricably joined.
Someone who does not understand basic Bible teaching like this is not “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3) and should learn the basics of Christianity before he has any business in the Christian ministry.
–TDR
Recent Comments