Home » Posts tagged 'faith' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: faith
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
You Can Lead an Evangelistic Bible Study!
You can lead an evangelistic Bible study! I have mentioned on What is Truth? before the series of evangelistic Bible studies that the FaithSaves.net website has made available. The seven studies themselves can be viewed here, where one can also see an example by video of how one can present them to the lost. The files can also be downloaded and customized with updated church addresses here. They are in use in various churches in the United States and in foreign countries.
If you have never led an evangelistic Bible study before, I have had the privilege of teaching an extensive series on how to lead one which you can watch. We have gone through study #1, on the nature of Scripture, study #2, on the one true Triune God, study #3, on God’s law and man’s sin, and study #4, on the Person of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection. Study #5, covering repentance and faith, has been started. So now you can not only see a video example of how to lead an evangelistic Bible study, have extensive written notes that can help you to do it, but also have extensive video teaching on how to do it.
Thus, if you are not trying to preach the gospel to the lost and to follow the pattern in Acts of regularly giving more and more truth to interested people until they either repent and believe or are hardened and do not want the truth anymore, what is your excuse? Is it one that will stand up at the judgment seat of the holy Christ who died for the sins of the world? Can Christ die for every person, but you do nothing or nearly nothing to preach the gospel to them, both through clearly explaining the entire gospel in single interactions and through evangelistic explanation in repeated, regular sessions–an evangelistic Bible study?
Of course, there are many ways to explain to the lost the glorious riches of God’s grace. If your church has a different evangelistic Bible study that they like better, that still presents the full-orbed truth, that is just fine. But you need to be doing something. Christ did not save you so that you could be in the pew-warming ministry, but so that you can be in the ministry of making disciples from every kindred, tongue, and nation (Matthew 28:18-20).
–TDR
Faith and Resilience for Evangelism
The dictionary of Oxford Languages says that resilience is “the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.” The American Psychological Association writes: “Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.” Everyday Health says: “Resilience is the ability to withstand adversity and bounce back from difficult life events.” Psychology Today says: “Resilience is the psychological quality that allows some people to be knocked down by the adversities of life and come back at least as strong as before.”
Evangelism Is Hard
You get it. True evangelism, where someone preaches a true gospel and doesn’t depend on gimmicks or cut corners, is difficult or hard. So much so, most professing Christians do not evangelize.
Right before the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, verse 18 says: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” At least because of the difficulty of evangelizing the lost, Jesus prefaced His command to do it by reminding His followers of how much authority He possessed. “I have all authority to tell you to do anything, especially this difficult thing.”
Evangelism is unlike anything else that you do or will do. It’s not like sales. It shouldn’t be. We’re not selling a product out there. If you are going to sell something, you want it to be something that people want. In general, you can’t earn a living trying to sell things people do not want.
People Don’t Want It
The message of salvation, the gospel, is greater than anything. You can’t find a better “product.” Nonetheless, people don’t want it. You can only offer it. And even that’s not easy, because people very often won’t even give the opportunity.
You want to give the gospel and people say, no. Then you give the gospel, and they say, no. Sometimes, you give the gospel, they say, yes, and then fall away very quickly. Extremely disappointing.
If you are a painter, you get done with your day, and you look at results. You finished room or rooms, maybe a whole house. You get satisfaction or fulfillment out of those results. Same with mowing lawns or a large range of various jobs, almost anything else. Sometimes doing evangelism can feel like digging ditches and filling them. It doesn’t seem like anything is happening.
People Don’t Like It
As a whole, people are not happy even to see you show up, if you are there to evangelize. They put signs on their doors to discourage you. It doesn’t make you more popular.
I went to every door in our neighborhood. I’ve noticed since then that very often people won’t even look at us. They don’t want eye contact. I understand. With my peripheral vision, I look for them to glance my way, so at that very moment, I can wave in a friendly manner. They know I’m doing it so they keep their heads turned away the entire time.
Everything I’ve written so far after the first paragraph undergirds the need for resilience. I have a goal to evangelize every single day if possible. I know how to do it. Good conversations are a norm. I preach the gospel many times. Even with that, a vast number of times I have little to nothing to show for it.
What Provides the Resilience
Yes, the question comes, why do it? Or, why keep doing it? Getting through the hardship of the difficulty in evangelism is the resilience. I want to keep doing it, to keep going back to the well.
The key for me is faith. I believe in what I’m doing. When I say nothing is better than the gospel, that means I believe in the gospel. If I went months with no one receiving Christ, I still believe in how great it is. Heaven rejoices over it. I believe that. My labor is not in vain. I believe that.
I still struggle, but my faith keeps me going. My faith looks up to God. It looks to His Word.
My mind goes to a couple of traditional hymns we sing. In faith I have a resting place. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world.
James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Videos
There have been a number of debate reviews of the James White vs. Thomas Ross debate on the topic:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
You can watch the debate itself here on the What is Truth? blog, on my website, on Rumble, or on YouTube. If you did watch it, you can also examine some of the review videos. I intend to produce, Lord willing, a series of videos that carefully examine the entire debate. To this point, I have two debate review videos live (one made before the debate was live, and a second one, just produced, that begins to examine James White’s opening presentation).
Thomas Ross: Debate Review and Analysis part #1:
Pre-debate Review Video of James White & His Claims
Watch the debate review part #1 on Rumble
Watch the debate review part #1 on YouTube
In this initial debate review, I provide my thoughts on how the debate went and respond to James White’s claims about the debate in his Dividing Line program of February 21, 2023, c. minutes 5-18, entitled “Road Trip Dividing Line: Gay Mirage, Mass, Biblicism.”
Debate Review and Analysis part #2: James White & His Opening Presentation, part 1: Would the King James Version Translators have Preferred the Legacy Standard Bible and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text to the KJV and the Textus Receptus?
Watch the debate review part #2 on Rumble
Watch the debate review part #2 on YouTube
I now have twelve of these debate review videos. You can watch them all at faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. At least at this point I have not added the ten after the first two to this post to prevent the post from getting overwhelming. Please think about subscribing to my YouTube and Rumble channels to find out when new video reviews come out, as I intend to record some more debate review videos, Lord willing.
James White (Apologia Church): His Own Debate Comments in the Dividing Line
If you would like to hear what James White said about the debate afterwards, watch minutes 5-18 of his February 21, 2023 Dividing Line program.
Jeff Riddle: Reformed Baptist and Confessional Bibliology Advocate’s Debate Review
Dr. Jeff Riddle has produced some helpful post-debate reviews. You can watch part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on YouTube, or watch them on the embedded links below. I appreciate what Dr. Riddle has written on what he calls Confessional Bibliology. Dr. Riddle rightly wants to distance himself (as do most people who are happy to call themselves King James Only) from extremists like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger while recognizing the difference between the way the original language text is inspired as to its words and translations are God’s Word as to their substance (what he calls the principle of Authoritas Divina Duplex, if you want a little Latin). Whatever you wish to call it, I appreciate his perspective on this issue of Bibliology, although Scripture does not teach TULIP Calvinism (and it also certainly does not teach Arminianism).
Jeff Riddle Debate Review Part 1:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 2:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 3:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 4:
There is a written debate review here on What is Truth? by Dr. Kent Brandenburg: “The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?” as well as some follow-up posts by Dr. Brandenburg (follow-up part 1; part 2; part 3).
There are also some debate reviews by a gentleman named Nick Sayers, who has a website called Textus Receptus. I know less about his doctrinal position than I do about Dr. Riddle. Mr. Sayers belongs to a religious organization called “Revolution Church.” He made seven extremely long debate review videos (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7). A large percentage of what he points out is useful, although I would disagree with him at a minority of points. Everyone should repent and believe the gospel, and then be immersed into a Baptist Church, not a Revolution church.
I am not aware of any of the disciples of James White making any review videos dealing in detail with the substance of the debate. The best I could locate was a five-minute review by one of James White’s disciples named “Polite Leader.” Polite Leader completely ignored the fact that the Nestle-Aland text is a patchwork and many of the other extreme problems with the text White is defending, but I suppose one can only say so much in a video that short, and so putting in what he believed were James’ best points would be important, from his viewpoint.
Thanks again for your prayers for God’s truth and for me during the debate. To Him alone be the glory for the good for His kingdom that was accomplished by it, and to me alone be the blame for what I should have done better.
–TDR
Done. Yes, But….
REVIEW OF BOOK BY CARY SCHMIDT
Many times through my life, someone said, “Christianity is a ‘done’ religion, not a ‘do’ one.” Or something very close to that. I gravitate toward that message; done, not do. Sounds right. It is, insofar you treat “done” right.
Many who write “done” don’t give it the right definition. Let me explain.
Cary Schmidt and Done.
Cary Schmidt came from Hyles-Anderson in the Hyles days. He went to Lancaster Baptist Church, which is also West Coast Baptist College. Then he left there to Newington, Connecticut, where he still is. He wrote the booklet, “Done,” which many churches hand to the lost in evangelistic packets and to new converts. Many, many. Hundreds of churches hand out thousands of this book. It’s a tiny little book. It’s short, small, and easy to read.
I have never joined the West Coast and Lancaster, spiritual leadership and striving together, orbit. I’ve explained why here in the past. It relates to doctrine, the gospel, and ministry philosophy. I would not send anyone else into that sphere of influence either. If someone was in it, I would encourage him to get out. This does relate to the book, “done,” among many other things.
Before I talk about the problems of a false view of “done,” what is right about it?
What Is Right about Done.
Nothing is wrong with the general idea or concept of Done. It’s good. Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive). Jesus did everything on the cross for any person’s salvation. He completed the work of salvation. It’s results are ongoing (perfect tense).
Hebrews 10:12 says about the Lord Jesus Christ: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Four times the book of Hebrews records that Jesus sat down (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:2; 12:2). He sat down because His work on the cross paid the penalty for sin. He sat down too because of His burial, bodily resurrection, and ascension, all included and necessary for “done.” The gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).
No doubt, Jesus did everything. We needed what He finished. Religions and people in those religions, which teach and preach salvation by works, need to hear this “done” message. They say “do” instead of “done.”
So, what’s wrong? What’s wrong with “Done”? Nothing is wrong with the word “done.” We like it. Does Schmidt represent it properly though? He does not.
What Is Wrong
A False Presentation
One, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus did everything, but how do we access what He did? Schmidt in his little booklet says you’ve got to take the gift Jesus gave like opening a gift on Christmas morning. He makes the reception of the gift then, a two step process (p. 83): (1) Believe the gift is free, that it doesn’t cost you anything. (2) Receive the gift.
The way Schmidt describes it, the gift is under the tree, there wrapped and ready to take. People do not get the gift because they won’t believe that gift is free and then because they think they might have to pay, they don’t take it. Children know their gifts are free under the tree. People in evangelism, however, according to Schmidt can’t or don’t believe salvation is free.
The way you get the gift, Schmidt says, is ask for the gift. You believe that the gift is free. That is believing. Jesus paid for the gift, you don’t have to do that. It is done. Then you’ve got to receive the gift. Schmidt makes those the two steps for receiving the free gift of salvation. That is false. This is the major way that “done” fails. It is a big falsehood. There really is very little different between what he says and 1-2-3, pray with me. It’s a lengthier presentation of 1-2-3, pray-with-me.
Misuse or Perverting of Scripture
To make his completely false assertion about the gospel and salvation, Schmidt misuses verses of scripture: Romans 10:9, 13, Acts 16:31, and John 3:16. He leaves out important exposition of those verses. He makes them mean something other than what they mean. As a result, he twists all of the gospels and their presentation of Jesus Christ. I would call it a very carefully crafted falsehood.
The deceit of the “done” message comes from getting one portion of the message of salvation right and twisting another vital part of it. Many false religions do that, present some truth with error. People understandably love the “done” part of the gospel.
If you ask almost anyone in the United States, “Did Jesus die for you?” He will answer, “Yes.” In all my years of evangelism, almost everyone believes Jesus died for them. Schmidt leaves out the part of the plan of salvation that is the biggest stumblingblock to the lost, the most offensive part. He eliminates the hard part, maybe on purpose or maybe because people deceived him in the past (perhaps Hyles and Lancaster?).
Head Knowledge/Heart Knowledge?
Schmidt (pp. 86-87) says the problem for people is that they get the ticket of salvation (head knowledge) but they won’t get on the plane (heart knowledge). This is a false dichotomy about head knowledge and heart knowledge. It’s useful to make it sound right, even though it isn’t.
Schmidt is right that some people think they need to earn their salvation. They add works to grace. That is not the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge though. They will not acknowledge ( in their heads) that Jesus paid it all, because their religion says they must contribute to what Jesus did. However, that is not the biggest stumbling block today for English speaking people.
At the end of his book, Schmidt challenges the reader to become “done” instead of “do” by praying a prayer, which he records at the end to pray. He might argue, “I argue that someone who prays that prayer, the way he receives the gift, he will become a new creature.” When you read that short chapter, you find out that you become a new creature in that God takes your sins away as you pray that prayer. You are new now. You are forgiven, because you have prayed that prayer. The change is a removal of sin. Then you will grow as a Christian, whatever that means.
No Repentance or Lordship
“Done” says absolutely nothing about repentance. Schmidt excludes repentance from the presentation. When he quotes Romans 10:9, which says, “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” he says nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ will do everything for you. You just need to pray that prayer. That is the way you receive the free gift after believing it is free. Heaven is free for you, just pray the prayer.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To receive the kingdom of heaven, someone needed to receive Jesus Christ as King, which is to receive Jesus Christ. They needed to relinquish their own kingdom for His. This is not like asking for and receiving a gift. The kingdom of heaven is a gift, but it requires repentance. Where is that in this presentation? It isn’t there.
What About Believing in and Receiving Jesus Christ?
“Done” leaves out receiving Jesus Christ for who He is. “Done” leaves out a presentation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Nothing then is done, because someone does not know who Jesus is or receive Him.
Schmidt makes “done” about receiving the gift. No. Absolutely not. “Done” is about receiving Jesus Christ. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 both say, “believe in Jesus Christ.” Schmidt leaves that out. He quotes the two verses and says they mean, “Pray a prayer.”
Like John says at the end of his gospel, ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To get into the kingdom, you must receive the King. You are not in charge anymore, Jesus is. Schmidt leaves all that out, which is the biggest difficulty that people have with the gospel.
By doing what he did, Schmidt deceives his reader on the gospel. Most people reading what he wrote will not know what salvation is. He perverts the gospel of Christ by leaving out what scripture says about believing in and receiving Jesus Christ.
More to Come (I will deal with problem number two of “Done”)
Suzerain-Vassal Treaties & the Books of Moses: Joshua Berman
I had the privilege of interviewing Jewish scholar Dr. Joshua Berman, professor of Hebrew Bible at Bar-Illan University in Israel, on the fact that the books of Moses, the Pentateuch, follow the late second Millennium BC format of a suzerain-vassal treaty. This fact strongly supports the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and, hence, the existence of genuine and unavoidable predictive prophecy in the Bible, and, thus, the Bible’s Divine authorship. Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the suzerain or great King, and Israel is the vassal, the subordinate dependent on the suzerain.
When my wife and I visited Egypt last year as part of a faculty tour of Egypt led by evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier, we had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Berman in Luxor, Egypt, on the issue of suzerain-vassal treaties (he prefers to be called “Joshua.”) Joshua Berman explains the issue quite clearly and effectively, so if you find the terminology “suzerain vassal treaty” scary, watch the video below of the interview, and I suspect you will both understand the issue and see the value of it for Christian apologetics.
I have posted about apologetics videos recorded on this trip to Egypt in previous posts on this blog, such as this one on the famous Merneptah Stele.
Ironically, when I debated president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker, on the Old Testament, Mr. Barker claimed that “The Israelis over in Israel … the archaeologists are throwing up their hands saying, ‘No, there’s nothing. None of these stories has any archaeological evidence at all.’” Barker’s assertion was always ridiculous, as was demonstrated within the debate itself, but the interview with Dr. Berman provides even more evidence for the foolishness of Mr. Barker’s argument.
After the interview with Dr. Joshua Berman, other scholars, including Kenneth Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament), James Hoffmeier (The Archaeology of the Bible), and Meredith Kline (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy) are also quoted. You can learn more about archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here.
So please watch the video below. You can watch the embed below, or view it on faithsaves.net here, or on Rumble by clicking here, or on YouTube by clicking here.
–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
The Uncertainty of the “Textual Confidence” View of Preservation of Scripture
For those reading, next week either Monday or Wednesday, I will provide as concise an answer as possible to the question, “Which TR?” I’ve answered this question before several times, but it’s usually just ignored, never answered. I’ve never had it answered. It’s asked as a gotcha question, then I give the answer, followed by silence. I’m going to try to do the best I’ve ever done at the answer.
**************************
A group of four men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective recorded seven podcasts for youtube. These men posted their first on Monday, July 11, 2022. The purpose of their gathering in Texas for these recordings was to persuade people of a new position on preservation of scripture. They call it “textual confidence.” They’ve given their own new position an enticing or attractive label, but it is still new.
Confidence sounds very good. Confidence in Collective parlance is akin to the word “trust.” I believe that’s what they mean by “confidence.” Placing confidence in someone or something is trusting it or trusting in it. In the scriptural use of the word “trust,” God does not call for confidence or trust in the uncertain. Uncertainty also does not bring biblical trust. Confidence relates to God, Who is always certain.
As a label, “Textual Confidence” definitely sounds superior to “Textual Doubt.” The four men testify they want to help Christians have confidence in the underlying text of their English translation of the Bible. They say it’s not a sure, settled text, and unlike their opponents, they’re honest. This admission of less than one hundred percent surety, they argue, engenders confidence. The text of scripture is something pure like Tide detergent, not 100%, but still good.
The Collective Confidence falls short of certainty. Three of the men replaced certainty with what they call confidence. The discovery of textual variants, that is, variations in hand copies, destroyed their certainty. This shows they do not stand on biblical presuppositions. They also listened to men who contradicted certainty. Now they are confident in the text without certainty about the words. They reject certainty and also want to push their uncertainty on others, bringing every church in the world to the same position, what they call “unity.”
The Collective also says they’re just telling the truth in contrast to people with differing positions, deceived or lying. Those who take their view — according to them — are very nice, super balanced, great with their rhetorical tone compared to the others. Part of this, they say about themselves, is their focus on Jesus and the gospel rather than on the text of scripture. This implies that supporters of other positions than theirs elevate the Bible above Jesus in an unbalanced and perverted way. The latter is an example of their tone.
Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). Delivering the teaching of scripture is truth. What the Bible says about itself is true. The existence of textual variants does not change the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.
Many people have suffered for believing something different than they once did, including from family. No one will invite me to the same functions as Mark Ward. Certain doors close depending on what you believe. If you believe an error, the same thing will occur. I don’t condone a kind of mean or vicious form of separation that just cuts people off. I don’t practice that kind of separation either. Many evangelicals practice like this, even though they don’t even believe in biblical separation. Facing exclusion though doesn’t make a position right.
Two of the Collective testified to suffering from parents and siblings for changing positions on the Bible. I don’t think someone should hang on to a false position because they don’t want to lose their family. The Collective, however, treats this suffering as proof their new position is true and right. It doesn’t prove either position. No one should come to a conclusion for what’s right by comparing who suffers the most. This is common, however, among modern version proponents.
The Collective distinguishes their view from what they present as two false extremes, “textual skepticism” and “textual absolutism.” The men used Bart Ehrman as an example of the former. They weren’t clear who was the former, but I’m confident they’re talking about a wide range of King James Version and textus receptus advocates, anyone who is certain about the text of scripture.
A strong statement of the first podcast is that skepticism and absolutism come from the same place or are closer than what the audience may expect. The Collective says that an absolutist perspective turns people into skeptics more than skeptics do because of their defense of “every iota across the board.” I’m skeptical about this point, because the certainty that brings trust in scripture comes from what the Bible says about itself. Jesus defended every iota across the board.
Should people belief in the words of scripture as absolute, what someone might say is without variableness or shadow of turning? In other words, does the Word of God reflect the nature of God and its immutability? That is what scripture says about itself and it is what our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.
Modern textual criticism does not and has not increased trust in the inerrancy and authority of the Word of God. Since I’ve been alive, as the prominence of textual criticism grows, trust in scripture diminishes. Scriptural presuppositions on the other hand provide increasing spiritual strength through believing what God said, trusting in the Word of God as absolute authority. Greater faith proceeds from certainty, not uncertainty.
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
Recent Comments