Home » Posts tagged 'faith'

Tag Archives: faith

Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief

What Happens

Today I went canvassing for three hours.  Most of time, I go out preaching, but for various reasons, I canvassed.  Nevertheless, I preached the gospel to an 80 year old woman, who did not know it.  I was putting a packet on her door, and there she stood looking at me, so I introduced myself.  She sat down on her porch, so I sat down on her porch, and we talked.  In most ways, it was a very typical conversation, which means she did not know the meaning of the gospel.  She had heard the word, but it was almost meaningless to her, and that is normal today in the United States.

Very often when I preach the gospel, I say something like this:

I have given the gospel to thousands of people.  When I finish, I always ask the person hearing it if he believes what I said was the truth.  I can’t remember the last time someone didn’t answer, “Yes,” to that question.  Everyone to whom I explain the gospel says they believe it is the truth.

At the end of my presentation, she also said it was true.

How the Gospel Breaks Down

In my experience, gospel preaching breaks down on nearly every occasion (probably 95% plus) in one of three places.

  1. The listener will not relent on considering himself to be a good person.
  2. Someone doesn’t believe he deserves Hell.
  3. A person refuses to believe in Jesus Christ.

The third of these is the biggest problem, but all three connect with or depend on the other two.  On many occasions, I’ve gotten by the first and second of them.  The third is still the deal-breaker when it comes to salvation.  Believing the gospel unto salvation requires believing in Jesus Christ.  It is vital, absolutely necessary that someone believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.  In one sense, this is the gospel.  Someone can believe everything else within the gospel message and not believe in Jesus Christ and still reject the gospel.  The first two become irrelevant without the third.

It’s important that believing in Jesus Christ is in fact believing in Jesus Christ.  The hearer must believe in Jesus Christ.  It can’t be something someone calls, “believe in Jesus Christ,” but isn’t.  For this reason, the preacher must explain belief in Jesus Christ.  He must.

What “Believing in Jesus Christ” Isn’t

  1. It isn’t merely praying a prayer.
  2. Believing in Jesus Christ isn’t accepting Jesus into your life.
  3. Neither is it merely accepting Jesus as Savior.
  4. Believing in Jesus isn’t asking Jesus to save you.
  5. It is not asking Jesus into your heart.

All of the above are not what it is to believe in Jesus Christ.  They are, just maybe, a piece of it, a small one.  More than these five could probably be listed, but they at least give the essence of what’s wrong.

Some so-called “evangelists” don’t even use “believe in Jesus Christ” as the terms for salvation.  If they go to those verses, they very often just ignore those statements and what they say.  They use the Bible, but they don’t rely on it.  It results in preaching a false gospel, because it doesn’t get to “believing in Jesus Christ,” which is required in the true gospel.

What Believing in Jesus Christ Is

Next Time

Faith in God and the Sufficiency of the Church

Pleasing God by Faith

In a now very familiar verse, James writes in James 2:19:

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Someone may say that he has faith, but what is the true measure of faith of what God said?  It is doing what He said.  When God says, this is how He wants something done, that’s how someone should do it and without exception.  That is faith in God.  And most of you probably already know that “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

Pleasing God is the purpose for mankind on earth (Revelation 4:11).  Only from God’s Word do men know the standard or basis for pleasing Him.  God will judge men based on what He says (John 12:48).  The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17) and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).  Man lives by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).

Since the Bible is the source book, the veritable handbook, for how to live and to please Him, that is what He wants men to follow carefully and diligently.  Solomon says at the end of Ecclesiastes that keeping God’s commandments is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:12-13).  Those commandments are in the Bible.

God’s Judgment

In the end, God at the least will judge everyone at two judgment seats:  (1) the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) and (2) the Bema Seat Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10).  The former is for unbelievers or the unsaved and the latter is for believers or the saved.  Both judgments are very important and do relate to obeying God and in particular how to do what God wants men to do.

God will punish unbelievers for their sin.  Their works fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  God will reward believers for their works, so the Bema Seat Judgment means the gaining or the loss of rewards.  Both relate to pleasing God.  Romans 8:8 says that the unbeliever cannot please God (Romans 8:8).  The believer can please Him and God will reward Him when He does.

Living by faith means living a life regulated by what God said:  doing what He says to do and not doing what He says not to do.  This means not just doing what God said, but doing it how He said.  Scripture is replete with examples of men failing to submit to how God wanted it done and God punishing them for it.

How God Wants His Work Done

How God wants done what He wants done gets short shrift today most often.  God cares how what He wants gets done.  Not doing it how He wants will effect what He wants.  He rejects things done in the wrong way or manner.  What to do and how to do it feed off each other.

In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church.  In the Old Testament, God used Israel.  Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.

The Church, the Only Acceptable Means of God’s Work Today

The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age.  According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work.  Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it.  The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work.  Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way.  It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.

People who won’t do God’s will His way are not pleasing Him.  Perhaps people will not do it like God said because they’re not saved.  Scripture shows this to be the case.  On the other hand, saved people will lose rewards for not doing what God said how He said to do it.

It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said.  The church is the only way.  All of the God’s work can be done through the church.  God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said.  Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.

Utilitarianism As The Only Moral Law That Matters

What Standard?

As you look around the world in which we live, you may wonder the basis for moral choices.  Why rampant abortion?  Why pervasive foul language of the worst sort?  How are all music types now acceptable?  What is the basis for same sex marriage?  How could ninety percent of teenagers justify their premarital sex?

Churches function in an all-new manner too based upon different guidelines.  What changed?  Dress standards have gone by the wayside.  Everything is more casual, immodest, and worldly.  Church activities and even worship orient more around worldly allure and entertainment.  Service times decrease.   Members are far less faithful than ever.

Sam Bankman-Fried Case Study

This week in the Washington Post Michael Lewis, who has a future book coming on the same subject, wrote an article entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict:  A few thoughts on how Americans thought about the crypto trial of the century.”  He introduced one portion of the trial testimony transcript with this paragraph:

Caroline explained to the jury how the crypto lenders had asked her for a quick and dirty picture of Alameda Research’s finances. And how, on June 18, on Sam’s instructions, she cooked up eight different balance sheets of varying degrees of dishonesty and presented them to Sam, who selected the least honest of the bunch to show his lenders.

Caroline referred to Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research, the trading firm affiliated with Sam Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX.  She pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges for her role in the crimes committed.  She said in her testimony:

Q. In the course of working with the defendant, did he talk to you about the ethics of lying and stealing? A. Yeah. He said that he was a utilitarian, and he believed that the ways that people tried to justify rules like don’t lie and don’t steal within utilitarianism didn’t work, and he thought that the only moral rule that mattered was doing whatever would maximize utility — so essentially trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people or beings.

Utilitarianism

‘Creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ in not the ethic of utilitarianism, so he’s misrepresented it.  His view of the world though, I believe, is very common.  It might be mainstream.  People are going to live for their best life now.  And what they mean by that is the historical understanding of utility, which relates more to maximizing happiness and pleasure while minimizing pain and unhappiness.

Utility is not in and of itself goodness.  The good thing is not inherently good, but good based on what brings the most immediate pleasure.  It corresponds to a rejection of God and moral absolutes.  What gives the maximum number of people pleasure and happiness is in accordance with conventional wisdom.

What pleasure did a maximum number derive from Bankman-Fried?  He used his swindled money to donate to Democrat causes across the United States.  His money helped put Democrats in office.  Bankman-Fried himself was the beneficiary short-term of utility and emblematic of what anyone could receive without biblical morality.

A Comparison

Among many similar reasons, people miss church because of a sports league that brings pleasure and happiness.  They work on Sundays because the money pays for pleasure and happiness.  Children lie to their parents because the truth would freak them out.  That would prohibit pleasure and happiness all around.  The act of evangelism brings animosity and ridicule.  How could those two things bring someone pleasure and happiness?

Five hundred years into Christ’s kingdom or one million years into the eternal state, the recipient will live in utter and indescribable bliss.  I would call that pleasure and happiness too.  For the short seventy to one hundred year life in this age, sacrifice brings joy, deep-seated fulfillment, or an inner calm of the soul.  Paul said the short term suffering is not compared to the eternal weight of glory.  This is living by faith.  Faith overcomes the delusion of utilitarianism.

Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part Three)

Part One     Part Two

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.

The Sinner’s Prayer Absent From Evangelism in Church History

Is the sinner’s prayer a methodology for evangelism present in the overwhelming majority of church history? No.

Some time ago I read Dr. Paul Chitwood’s 2001 Ph. D. dissertation The Sinners Prayer:  A Historical and Theological Analysis (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001). It is a valuable historical analysis of the development of the evangelistic methodology dominant in the evangelical and fundamentalist world today, namely, the practice of having the lost repeat a “sinners prayer” in order to become Christians. Dr. Chitwood argues convincingly:  “The Sinner’s prayer did not appear until well into the twentieth century. . . . Moreover, the concept of bringing or inviting “Jesus into your heart” is one that does not occur readily before the turn of the twentieth century.”

The absence of the sinner’s prayer as an evangelistic methodology is confirmed by another book I have recently been going through.  Published in 1653, it has a long 17th century title: Spirituall experiences, of sundry beleevers, Held forth by them at severall solemne meetings, and conferences to that end. With the recommendation of the sound, spiritual, and savoury worth of them, to the sober and spirituall reader, by the Welsh Baptist minister Vavasor Powel.  I am 361 pages into the book as of the time I am writing this blog post.  In those 361 pages, not one of the accounts of conversion mentions the repetition of a sinner’s prayer or having someone encourage someone else to repeat the words of a sinner’s prayer, nor of anyone being lead to ask Jesus to come into his heart and then having salvation promised upon performing such a religious ritual.  Lost sinners seeking the Lord–which certainly can include prayer (Luke 18:13)–until they lay hold on Christ by faith and are born again?  Yes, certainly.  Salvation promised to the repetition of a sinner’s prayer, or an evangelistic presentation climaxing in the repetition of such a prayer? Never. Nor is assurance of salvation ever mentioned in this book as being based on sincerely having asked Jesus into one’s heart of repeating the sinner’s prayer–for that is not how 1 John or any other book in Scripture gives assurance.

Now I have not finished the entire book yet–perhaps something will change after page 361.  But at least up to this point, it looks like this record by a Welsh Baptist preacher of what takes place in conversion does not involve the modern sinner’s prayer, and provides yet another confirmation of Dr. Chitwood’s thesis that the modern sinner’s prayer is, indeed, modern–which should not surprise us, since asking Jesus into one’s heart in order to be justified and its related complex of techniques is not found in the Bible.

I would encourage those who wish to divest themselves from the Hyles or Campus Crusade type of evangelistic methodology that climaxes with the repetition of the sinner’s prayer and a promise of salvation to those who sincerely perform this ritual evaluate better methods of explaining the gospel (I like this one, but I am biased).  Furthermore, those who do not know how urge the lost to immediately repent and believe without also telling them to immediately repeat the sinner’s prayer as the real final step should consider some of the resources on the older and more Biblical evangelistic methods here.

-TDR

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 5)

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four

1.  God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2.  After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3.  God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4.  God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5.  God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
6.  God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE

God’s Word is truth.  It provides the expectations for Christians, not feelings or experience.  People can count on what God says.  True believers go to scripture to get their views for things.

The Lord in His Word gives the expectations regarding the future of scripture.  What would God do?  If God says He will do it, then He will do it, and believers will believe that He did.

The presuppositions, principles, and promises of and from scripture provide a model, paradigm, or template for knowing what God’s Words are.  The true view will follow a biblical model.

Epistemology

What I’m writing in this series considers how people know or can know what they know, what’s called “epistemology.”  The critical text and its modern versions are different than the received or traditional text and the King James Version.  They can’t both be right.  Of the two, how do we know which one is right?

Knowledge starts with God’s Word.  Faith in what God says is the primary way of knowing what people ought to know.  Someone can open to Genesis 1:1 and know what it says occurred based on God saying it.

Only one text and version position fits the principles, presuppositions, and promises of scripture.  The above six true principles lead one to the received text or textus receptus.  Only the received text, the underlying text of the King James Version, corresponds to what God said would occur.

Which Textus Receptus?

Opponents or critics of the received text position, critical text proponents, very often ask, “Which Textus Receptus (TR)?”  I saw someone recently mock the TR by calling it the “Texti Recepti.”  The idea of this criticism is that there is more than one edition of the TR, so which one is it?

The textus receptus is a very homogenous text.  All the varied editions are very close and essentially the same.  However, the differences would contradict perfect, every word preservation and a settled text.  This criticism becomes a major presupposition for a critical text position.  It says, “No one knows what the text is, so everyone continues with textual criticism.”

Following the presuppositions, principles, and promises of scripture, one witnesses settlement on the text of scripture.  Even though each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were considered scripture immediately, its aggregation or collation into one book took one or two hundred years.  This occurred through the agreement of God’s people and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, termed “canonicity.”

History of the Received Text

Through church history, God’s people continued to ascertain and identify scripture in the keeping process.  Churches kept agreeing on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.  They also received the words of the New Testament, the text of the New Testament.  Churches had already been receiving the same text of scripture in the manuscript or hand-written era.  A few years ago, I wrote the following.

Kurt Aland

The TR never meant one printed edition.  Even Kurt and Barbara Aland the famed textual critics, the “A” in “NA” (Nestles-Aland), wrote (“The Text of the Church?” in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987, p.131):

[I]t is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’

He also wrote in his The Text of the New Testament (p. 11):

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

Barbara Aland

His wife Barbara writes in her book, The Text of the New Testament (pp. 6-7):

[T]he Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical. . . . Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the “revealed text.” This idea of verbal inspiration (i. e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus.

I say all that, because Aland accurately does not refer to an edition of the TR, neither does he speak of the TR like it is an edition.  It isn’t.  That is invented language used as a reverse engineering argument by critical text proponents, differing with the honest proposition of Aland, quoted above.  They very often focus on Desiderius Erasmus and his first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.  That’s not how believers viewed what the Van Kleecks call the Standard Sacred Text, others call the Ecclesiastical Text, and still others the Traditional Text.

Metzger

Neither does Bruce Metzger refer to an edition of the Textus Receptus; only to the Textus Receptus (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], pp. 106-251):

Having secured . . . preeminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly effort to displace it. . . . [The] “Textus Receptus,” or commonly received, standard text . . . makes the boast that “[the reader has] the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” . . . [This] form of Greek text . . . succeeded in establishing itself as “the only true text” of the New Testament and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881.

[T]he reverence accorded the Textus Receptus. . . [made] attempts to criticize or emend it . . . akin to sacrilege. . . . For almost two centuries . . . almost all of the editors of the New Testament during this period were content to reprint the time-honored . . . Textus Receptus. . . . In the early days of . . . determining textual groupings . . . the manuscript was collated against the Textus Receptus . . . . This procedure made sense to scholars, who understood the Textus Receptus as the original text of the New Testament, for then variations from it would be “agreements in error.”

The Textus Receptus does not refer to a single printed edition of the New Testament.  The language of a received text proceeds from true believers in a time before the printing press in hand copies and then leading to the period of its printing.

Edward Freer Hills

Churches up to the printing press ‘received’ the “received text,” hence, “the received text” of the New Testament.  This bore itself out in the printed edition era, as churches only printed editions of the received text.  However, they didn’t permanently continue printing editions of the TR.  They settled, as seen in the discontinuation of printing further editions after about a hundred years.  This was a shorter period of time than the settlement or agreement on the twenty-seven books of scripture.

What I’m writing here corresponds to the now well-known position expressed by Edward Freer Hills in his book, The King James Version Defended.  He wrote:

The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. . . . But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other, God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

King James Version Translated from Something

Some critical text adherents want to make Hills statement a “gotcha” or “aha” moment.  “Look, this is an English priority!”  I say, “No, the King James translators were translators, so they translated from something.” From which they translated is represented by the writing and teaching in all the centuries after the last printed edition of the textus receptus and the acceptance of the King James Version.

The King James Version translators translated from available words.  They relied on the printed editions of the textus receptus.  Their text was its own independent variety, like Hills said.  However, that text pre-existed the translation, even if it wasn’t in one printed edition.  Again, scripture doesn’t argue for the preservation of an edition.

Those translations forerunning the King James Version also relied on the textus receptus.  The necessity of a settled text, that particular presupposition, looks on which the vast majority of believers settled.  The concluding certainty comes from faith in what God said He would do.

Printed Editions of the TR

Almost one hundred percent of the words for the King James Version came from the printed editions of the textus receptus.  Maybe two or three words total in the King James Version don’t appear in any printed edition of the textus receptus but had textual attestation elsewhere.  A vast majority of true believers were not reading the Greek New Testament.  They accepted or received the textus receptus by receiving the translation from the textus receptus.  This helps explain the Hills statement of an “independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”  It’s not unique though in a fair understanding of the word.  It reflects what God’s people received as the text of the New Testament since its original writing.

In 1881, F. H. A. Scrivener took on the monumental project of printing the received text underlying the King James Version New Testament.  For many decades the Trinitarian Bible Society has printed this edition of the textus receptus.  The printing of this as its own edition suggests the independent variety of the Textus Receptus underlying the New Testament of the King James Version.

The Ecclesiastical Text

Some call the textus receptus, “the ecclesiastical text.”  I don’t mind that title.  It acknowledges the testimony of the Holy Spirit toward His words through the church.  God uses the church to attest to the words of God as a means of settling the text.  Naturalistic and rationalistic modern textual criticism does not settle the text.  It uses naturalistic means as a basis for speculating the original text of the New Testament.  It does not claim certainty or knowing what the text is.  Because of its means or instrumentality, it doesn’t and can’t claim to know the original text.  It also does not acknowledge the truth of the above principles, promises, and presuppositions.

I know I’m saved.  Scripture assures me of my salvation.  The Bible also assures me that I know what is the text of the New Testament.  I know the New Testament text like I know the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

Acting in Faith

Faith acts.  It will bite down on what God said and what He said He would do.  You don’t believe if you sit back and taste without swallowing.  Faith isn’t a sample-fest.

On this subject, some are reticent to say what is the text of the New Testament.  They anticipate the attack coming, including mockery.  Those mocking do not bite down. They instead adjust based upon their naturalistic presuppositions.  They say something like “confidence” instead of “certainty.”  That doesn’t follow what scripture says about itself.  This should embarrass them.  I think it does many of them, which is why the angry reaction and the resultant mockery.

The trail of faith on this issue ends with the underlying text behind the King James Version.  The closest to that is all the words found in the printed edition.  That sort of settles, but it leaves wiggle room.  It’s a harder-to-defend position, based upon the plain scriptural presuppositions.

More to Come

Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).  I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link.  They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.)  I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on.  I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way.  Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)

Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).  

There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:

1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical.  While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life.  The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man.  As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life.  The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:

This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.

Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.

This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.

2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology.  While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat.  There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation).  While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture.  I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.

3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version.  I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions.  On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.

4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist.  I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.

5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509).  It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!

6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them.  (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity?  If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)

7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.

Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).  

1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems)Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed.  One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.

2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).

You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there.  However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture.  One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.

3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology.  I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization.  If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book.  Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.

TDR

 

Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.

X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.

Street Preaching in San Francisco by Ghirardelli Square

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ on the street in San Francisco, near Ghiradelli Square by Fisherman’s Wharf, where one of the cable car lines ends.  (Perhaps by the time this post goes live I will have done it again.)  I had wanted to start engaging in open-air preaching for a while.  We had prayed for wisdom about where to go, and this spot by Ghiradelli Square seemed like a good one.  I had a significant audience of people who could not really go away because they were waiting for the cable car, as well as a goodly amount of foot traffic.  Also, there are fewer crazies by Ghiradelli Square then there are on the other side of the cable car line on Market Street, so people might not instinctively assume that someone who was speaking loudly was nuts or high on drugs.  My wife was distributing gospel tracts and testimony tracts while I was preaching, and we got to have a good conversation with a man and his family afterwards.  Many people got to hear the glorious truth about God’s Son and the salvation that is in Him.

I have wanted to start preaching on the street (again) for a number of reasons.  First, we now live in a city where there are good locations to do it.  It does not make sense to preach on the street if one is in a rural or suburban area where there is no foot traffic.  In a large city there are good places where open air gospel proclamation can take place.  Second, street preaching is extremely Biblical.  The Lord Jesus Christ preached in the open air, as did His Apostles, John the Baptist, and many first-century Christians.  The Old Testament is also full of open air preaching.  Third, street preaching shows love for the lost.  People who will not take a gospel tract are confronted with orally proclaimed truth.  Fourth, street preaching is good for the Christian who does it.  It helps him to trust in the Lord and do something that the world is going to strongly dislike.  It helps him to grow in humble trust in Christ and holy boldness in His cause.  It is unpleasant to the flesh but a great blessing to the spirit.  I think it is good for “preacher boys” to preach on the street.  It is good practice.  If someone is afraid to tell the truth to total strangers who 99.9% of the time are going to have no impact on one’s life other than, perhaps, some insults or disrespect, how will he have the boldness to tell unpopular truth to a congregation of people who have the ability to remove him from his spiritual office?  Has the Lord given you a strong desire (1 Timothy 3:1) to preach His gospel?  Don’t think that you can’t preach unless you have an invitation from a pulpit.  Go out into the highways and hedges and preach to the sinners there.

I recorded the message both so that I could post it online afterwards, so more people could hear the gospel, because it could encourage God’s people, and because I think that having a recording is a wise safety precaution.  You can watch how things went here:

 


I also have the video on Rumble and on YouTube.

Nobody bothered us except for a street musician who did not like that I was there and wanted me to stop preaching. I gave him a soft answer (Proverbs 15:1) and that was the end of that.  There were numbers of people who were paying attention to the preaching, including some who were paying attention but were trying to pretend that they were not paying attention.  Sometimes I have seen people preach on the street and just ramble on.  Some others do not actually preach the gospel but just repeat a few bullet points over and over again.  Other people seem to just want to make people angry and show no compassion, while others can sound like wimps (although usually true wimps don’t preach the gospel on the street).  While someone who is not preaching anything to anyone should be careful before finding fault with ramblers, bullet-point people, crowd-whipper-uppers, and wimpy-sounders, it looks clear to me from the examples of Christ and the apostles and prophets that it is most Biblical to actually preach a coherent message, namely, the gospel.  I addressed the listeners as “friends” because we see the repeated “men and brethren” in Acts–a respectful address to those listening.  If someone is going to be offended by the gospel I am preaching, that is fine–if the Spirit pricks their hearts or cuts them to the heart, that is something good that we want.  I want to be bold and unashamed as I proclaim my King and Father’s message as His servant and son.  However, if people are offended because I am just being rude and nasty, that does not help anything.  So that is why I sought to preach the gospel in the way that I did it.

Lord willing, we will make this a regular event. I want to preach the gospel on the street at least once a month in addition to our weekly house-to-house evangelism.  Writing it like this on the blog will help me to be encouraged to keep it up.  I would like you to also to be encouraged to start following the example of Christ and His Apostles by preaching on the street, or if you are already doing it, to keep it up!

If you are an experienced street preacher and you have any thoughts on it, feel free to share them.  I have done some street preaching in the past–it was a blast to go to large conventions of the Watchtower Society in our area which that cult holds around the country and offer Christ to thousands of members of that false religion–but it has been a while (if they have conventions in your area, and you can find a “free speech zone” or other place near where they are meeting where you can preach without getting kicked out, I would encourage you to do that).  I am much more interested in hearing comments from people who are members of Biblical Baptist churches than I am in hearing from people who are part of strange false religions that go street preaching.  One thing I already know I want to to do is get a sign with church information and a website.  There were people who were listening to the preaching but did not come by and take a tract, and I want them to know how to find out more when they are not in a situation where, because of peer pressure or for other reasons, they are not willing to come up and take gospel literature with contact information from one of the Lord’s churches.  I am thankful for those who pray for us and pray for the gospel to get out in the very needy San Francisco Bay Area.  Thank you!

TDR

The Bible Makes Us Baptists: Free Christian Book Audio

The Bible Makes Us Baptists, (originally called In Editha’s Days: A Tale of Religious Liberty), is a Christian book for children written in 1894 by Mary E. Bamford.  It is a work of historical fiction, narrating the life of an Anabaptist family in England running for their lives because fo their faith in the Bible, during the dark days when Roman Catholicism still controlled the United Kingdom.  You can order a physical copy of the book at Amazon (affiliate link), or perhaps get it more inexpensively at a place such as Book Heaven.

However, the main point of this post is to inform you that you can hear the book read aloud for free on my KJB1611 YouTube channel here.  The chapters are getting (pretty) consistently posted.  So if you, or your children, want to hear an edifying Christian book read aloud, please use the link below to listen to The Bible Makes Us Baptists read aloud for free.

Click here to hear The Bible Makes Us Baptists (In Editha’s Days; A Tale of Religious Liberty) by Mary E. Bamford read aloud for free.

TDR

 

Embracing An Unstoppable Advantage For Guaranteed Longstanding Victory (Part Three)

Part One     Part Two

War Against the Soul

A non-stop, real war exists through the history of the world between light and darkness.  As a part of that war, Peter expresses an unstoppable advantage for guaranteed longstanding victory.  He says in 1 Peter 2:11:

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.

The appropriate part of the verse to declare an aspect of war and victory is at the end:  “which war against the soul.”  What wars against the soul?  “Fleshly lusts” do.  Abstinence from fleshly lusts eliminates a crucial component for losing this war with darkness.  .

A question might and should arise, “How do fleshly lusts war against the soul of a person?”  Fleshly lusts cause spiritual and psychological disadvantages in the war against the soul.  You need your soul and spirit operating in an optimal way and fleshly lusts wound them.

Confidence in Christ

Confidence in Christ functions within the soul and spirit, not the flesh.  Six different thoughts come to my mind on this, not necessarily in this order.

Persuasion

First, confidence is persuasion (peitho).  You can behave with strength, because you have confidence, confidence in the Lord (2 Thess 3:4) and not in the flesh (Philip 3:3-4).  Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you alway” (Matt 28:20).  Jesus is sanctified in your heart, so you’re ready to give an answer of the hope within you (1 Pet 3:15).  Readiness comes by fortifying the soul.

Uppermost Affections

Second, you can please God by faith because God abides in the uppermost of your affections (Heb 11:6).  You live like He’s your Judge and He does not lie.  This rest in Him provides a settled peace that isn’t moved.

Thinking on These Things

Third, anxiety comes not from victimhood, but from not thinking on what is true, honest, just, etc. (Philip 4:8).  You’ll remain anxious if you adopt victim status.  You’re not one.  The peace of God keeps you through Christ Jesus, but only by thinking on it.  That’s in your soul.

Sidelining Deflation

Fourth, Satan wants you a casualty, someone out of the fight.  He uses those fiery darts that penetrate the heart, not in a deadly manner, but in an injurious or incapacitating way.  The Apostle Paul had an open door in Troas, but because he had no rest in his spirit (2 Corinthians 2:13), he missed an opportunity.  People become incapable of fulfilling God’s will because they subject themselves to fear and discouragement.  Their deflation keeps them sidelined.

Boldness

Fifth, Paul twice asked church saints, once of Ephesus and once of Colossi, to pray that he would have boldness.  Boldness comes when the Spirit fills a believer in his inner man.  He speaks the truth in love and the Spirit encourages him.

Filled with the Knowledge of God’s Will

Sixth, Paul prayed that the knowledge of God’s will would fill the saints of the church in Colossi (Col 1:9).  Furthermore, he says this knowledge of God’s will is in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.  God’s will is not arbitrary.  It is based on wisdom and understanding and not a feeling proceeding from the flesh.

Fleshly lusts debilitate everyone, both believers and unbelievers.  It is a very sad tale when they strafe the souls of believers.  They bring this on themselves.  Believers have all the resources in the grace of God to abstain.  They just won’t.  The worst thing very often that you can do to one of these professing believers is exhort or admonish them about it.  They are quick to speak, slow to hear, and quick to wrath.

Beach Heads or Gates

John Bunyan clued true believers to the methodology of fleshly lusts.  Before him in Pilgrim’s Progress, it was James 1:13-16.  The gates through which fleshly lusts pass are akin to the allies taking the beaches in the South Pacific and at Normandy.  The flesh forms a beach head through the eye gate, the ear gate, and the three other lesser senses:  touch, taste, and smell.  Abstaining from fleshly lusts means guarding those gates, stewarding them.

The Nazis had deadly holds on the Beaches of Northern France.  Those required removing for victory to occur.  Allied soldiers eliminated them at great cost.  Professing believers instead contribute to the fleshly strongholds in many different ways.  They talk like God gives them liberty to keep those deadly beach heads.

More to Come

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives