Home » Posts tagged 'gospel' (Page 6)

Tag Archives: gospel

The Gospel of Matthew: Matthean Authorship, Early Date, Infallible Truth

The Apostle Matthew wrote Matthew’s Gospel.  But do you know when Matthew was written, and what the historical evidence is for Matthew’s date?  Was Matthew the first, second, third, or last gospel written?  Did Matthew copy from another gospel?  These, and similar questions, are answered in my written study on the evidence for the New Testament here.  But if you want a video on Matthew which answers the questions above, click here to view “Historical Evidence for Matthew’s Gospel: Apostolic Authorship, Early Date, God’s Infallible Word on YouTube (from the last Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church), or click here to view the video on Rumble, or view the embedded video below:

 

 

Sadly, in relation to the date question, not only theological modernists but too many theological conservatives and evangelicals ignore the actual ancient historical data to adopt dates significantly later than the data support, unnecessarily weakening the case for Christ.  This video does not do that, but argues for the date for Matthew, c. A. D. 40, actually supported by history.

TDR

Baptism & Salvation Debate Page, Douglas Jacoby

I have created a page for resources on the Douglas Jacoby-Thomas Ross debate on baptism.  Both parts of the debate video, as well as links to the places where the debate is live on Rumble and on YouTube, the blog posts where the speakers answered questions from the audience that were not discussed in the debate proper, and further resources, are all on this page.  I would, therefore, recommend that you visit this page in the future and make it your point of reference if you share the debate with others.

 

Click Here For the Page on the Douglas Jacoby / Thomas Ross Debate, “We Are Born Again Before Baptism” (part 1) and “We Are Born Again In Baptism” (part 2)

 

Baptism Salvation Debate Douglas Jacoby Thomas Ross

TDR

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

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

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

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

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

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

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

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

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

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

Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined

I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day.  Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”

To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:

 

Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath

 

and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.

 

There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?

 

TDR

Updated Seventh-Day Adventist evangelistic pamphlet

The evangelistic pamphlet for Seventh-Day Adventists, “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,” has been updated to include Ellen White’s statement: “[T]hose who claim that their faith alone will save them are trusting to a rope of sand,” Adventism’s teaching that Christ’s blood is useless for those who have committed one wilful sin, and (relatively recently) the addition of their teaching that baptism forgives sin.  If your church does not already have some good resources for members of this cult, I would like to commend this composition to you for your use.  Your Baptist church can get its church name on it by downloading a Word doc of the pamphlet at the All Content page at FaithSaves and then personalizing it.  Copies can be made through a Baptist printing ministry or by just making some on a copy machine.

 

TDR

Atheist Debate Quotes

I believe that the following quotations, from the president of the USA’s largest atheist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Dan Barker, and from the president of PATAS, the Philippine ATheism,Agnosticism, and Skepticism (Society), are helpful in illuminating Psalm 14’s statement:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Dan Barker [Freedom From Religion Foundation president]: “Even if Jesus did exist, even if I agreed …100%–yep, [Christ] rose from the dead; yep, there’s a God; yep, I don’t deny any of that—does not mean that He’s my Lord.  If He did exist, I will go happily to Hell.  It would be worse of a hell for me to bow down before a Lord regardless of the legend and historicity issue.  Even if I agreed 100%, I would still reject that Being as the Lord of my life because I’m better than that. …Amen. … I cannot accept Jesus as Lord.  You’re much more free to live and enjoy your life unshackled from the demands than have some Lord of your life.  To me, I think that’s more important than all this historicity stuff which you heard me admit is a matter of probabilities  I might be wrong.  That still doesn’t mean that Jesus is Lord.  He’s not the Lord of my life. (Dan Barker-Thomas Ross debate, “The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact”. 1 hr 48 min)

Benjamin Maisonet [PATAS president]:
Mr. Maisonet: “I can give a better explanation [for the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection than that it took place] … aliens did it. Its a better explanation … life could have come down and made it look like Christ resurrected [sic] from the grave. That’s more plausible than a supernatural, all-powerful [Being causing Christ to rise] … massively more probable.”  …
Mr. Ross: “I think you said there is no amount of historical evidence that would confirm, in your mind, that a miracle took place, no matter what, no matter what historical evidence there was?”
Mr. Maisonet: “Yes, I did say that, and I do agree with that.”
Mr. Ross: “So the historians who say that the resurrection is one of the best attested events in history–even if that’s the case, it wouldn’t matter, because it’s a miracle?” ….
Another illuminating exchange:
Dr. Ross: “So predicting the future to the year and to the day hundreds of years in advance [as Daniel did in Daniel 9, predicting Christ’s coming and His death] … we are going to say that we don’t know how it happened … [but nevertheless] no predictive prophecy, no matter how specific, would be able to show that there’s a God?”
Mr. Maisonet: “No. … [Even] assuming we grant that that’s how accurate the prophecy is.” (Thomas Ross / Benjamin Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the New Testament Gospels? 51-55 min & 1 hr 27 min in)
TDR

Bible Study #6: Eternal Security and Assurance of Salvation

I am pleased to let What is Truth? readers know that the video for evangelistic Bible study #6, “The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation,” is now available. The videos teach that once one is truly converted, he is always saved.  Assurance is explained Biblically–it is based on the marks given by God in 1 John of a new nature–rather than being based on ideas made by man, such as that those repeating a “sinner’s prayer” should have assurance, or everyone who ever thinks he made a salvation decision should have assurance.

So now we have available video teaching of Bible studies #1-6:

Bible Study #1: What is the Bible?

Bible Study #2: Who is God?

Bible Study #3: What Does God Want From Me?

Bible Study #4: How Can God Save Sinners?

Bible Study #5: How Do I Receive the Gospel?

Bible Study #6: The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation

Only study #7, on the Church of Christ, does not yet have its video available.

I would encourage you and your church to consider doing these Bible studies one-on-one with people who are open to God’s Word, and if someone is unwilling to do a Bible study in person to share the videos.  Those who are seeking an example of how to teach them to others will likely find the video helpful.

Click here to watch Bible Study #6: “The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation.”

The actual Bible studies can be downloaded as PDF files on the Bible study page here. On the All Content page at FaithSaves you can also download a Word document that you can put your church’s contact information into.

You can also help the content of this evangelistic Bible study get out by “liking” and commenting on the video on YouTube and subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube channel.

TDR

Worth Your Salt

When taking the opportunity to portray true Christian identity, Jesus used salt and light in Matthew 5:13-16.  Through these two metaphors, He painted a picture of the expected nature of a genuine believer.  In so doing, Jesus adhered to His original representation of salvation in the beatitudes (verses 3-12) and invoked the association with the Word of God (verses 17-20).

Salt can and will retard corruption and enhance taste if it retains its fundamental characteristic of saltiness.  Salt without saltiness is worthless.  Jesus said, “Ye are salt.”  Specific people are salt, those who have saltiness.  Very often scripture portrays unbelievers as worthless.  They aren’t functioning according to the image of God in which He created man.  They are like the branches of John 15, bearing no fruit and so thrown into the fire.  They are worthless branches.

At the time Jesus spoke, salt was of great value.  Roman soldiers were paid in salt, which pay meant they operated in a competent way.  They were worth their salt.

The blessed man, one with the ultimate fulfillment of true salvation and receives the kingdom of heaven, is persecuted for righteousness’ sake.  The righteousness stands up to and contrasts and conflicts with evil.  This is being salt.  A true believer’s righteousness will clash with false doctrine and practice.  He’s not salt if he doesn’t.

The standard for the genuine believer’s conflict to retard corruption is scripture.  The true believer lives according to and propagates the Word of God.   Scripture manifests the nature of God.  To take on the nature of God, the true believer retards decay by detecting and correcting false doctrine and practice according to the Word of God.

The nature of the world conflicts with the nature of God.  This results in persecution.  Rather than succumb to the pressure of that persecution, the true believer will continue as salt, retarding the corruption.  This doesn’t occur by destroying the law, but by fulfilling it, every jot and tittle (verses 17-18).  The genuine believe retains saltiness in the face of persecution.  It’s his nature and that won’t change with opposition, a characteristic Jesus front loads in His description of salvation.

The opposition to darkness isn’t selective.  It’s every jot and tittle.  As Jesus continues, it is teaching not just the “essentials,” but even the least of God’s commandments.  The righteousness of true Christianity supercedes the righteousness of the Pharisees.  It doesn’t dumb down righteousness to a standard that can be kept by men.  This is the salt losing its saltiness and becoming worthless.

Churches today are becoming worthless at retarding the unrighteousness of the world, because they are not standing up for righteousness.  They stand up for selective or relative righteousness, not every jot or tittle. They are ashamed of many points of scripture and refuse to be salt where Christianity most clashes with the world.  They are not worth their salt.

Improved Evangelistic Bible Study #3 Is Now Available!

I am happy to report that a version of evangelistic Bible study #3, “What Does God Want From Me?” which covers God’s law and the penalty of sin to awaken or convict a lost sinner, is now available in an improved version.  It is now nicely in color with good looking pictures and other features that make it more physically appealing than it was previously.  Studies #1 and #2 in this “prettified” format are also available.  Studies #4-7 are being worked on and, Lord willing, will become available in the not-to-distant future.

 

Please note as well that video files of the studies being taught are also being made available–#1-5 are currently live, and the videos for #6-7 are in the list of things to get done.  We would appreciate prayer for helpers with the video projects.

 

You can watch Bible studies #1-5 or download the “prettified” studies #1-3, as well as the older versions of #4-7, at the page here:

 

Foundational Bible Studies

as well as viewing them on YouTube here.  Feel free to “like” them, post a comment on the YouTube channel, or share them on social media (if you are on social media, I am not on it) as these things help other people find and watch the studies.

If you wish to personalize these resources by adding your church address to them, you can also do that by accessing MS Word files of the evangelistic Bible studies at the All Content page here.

 

TDR

PATAS, Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society) Debate live: Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels? Ross / Maisonet

I am pleased to inform What is Truth? readers that the Thomas Ross – Benjamin Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?” is now live and can be watched on YouTube.

 

Click here to watch the Ross-Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?”

 

The debate took place in Manila, Philippines, in 2019, where I was teaching a class on the preservation of Scripture and preaching for Bro Billy Hardecker of Mt. Zion Baptist Mission in Manila, but issues with the audio and video lining up kept the debate from going live until now. The quality is still not absolutely amazing, but considering the non-first-world setting and the equipment used, I am thankful for the quality that is present. Mr. Maisonet was (and I assume still is) the president of the Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society), or PATAS.  He told me that he replaced the previous president because that person had been stealing money from the organization.  Atheism and agnosticism are much less common in the Philippines than they are in the United States, which may be one reason that the president of PATAS was born in the United States and moved to the Philippines.  In any case, Mr. Maisonet, as the president of PATAS, was a good representative of atheism in the Philippines.  He made the sort of popular-level arguments that one will run across in personal evangelism, rather than the more scholarly type of arguments against the accuracy of the New Testament made by Islamic apologists such as Shabir Ally.  I confess that I did not find his argumentation particularly convincing, but he seems to have thought he made a good case, and I will allow those who watch the debate to evaluate what was said based on facts and logic in God’s world.

 

PATAS Philippine Atheist Agnostic Society

 

The PATAS debate was set up at short notice, so I employed a lot of the material from my debate with Dr. Ally on “The New Testament Picture of Jesus: Is It Accurate?” which is also in my study on evidence for the New Testament from archaeology, prophecy, and history.  In my view, which is admittedly biased in favor of God and His Word, the arguments made for the historicity of the New Testament have now stood up well against both Muslim and atheist apologists.

 

Feel free to subscribe to my KJB1611 YouTube channel,”like” and comment on the debate, and share it with others, if you believe it deserves it. Also, if you would be interested in sponsoring a debate with a non-Christian philosophy or a pseudo-Christian cult, please contact my church.

 

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives