Home » Posts tagged 'King James Version' (Page 6)
Tag Archives: King James Version
Go-To Page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
Thank you to all readers who are praying and/or fasting for me and for God’s kingdom and truth to be glorified and advanced in my upcoming debate with James White.
I have created a go-to page with information about the debate. Links to the video should be posted there when it becomes available, as well as being accessible on the KJB1611 YouTube and KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channels. The go-to page should be updated with specific debate times in case you wish to attend in person, as well as the debate livestream link which we are hoping to make available. So:
Click here to visit the go-to page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
–TDR
Christians CAN learn Greek and Hebrew-they are not too hard! Part 5 of 7
The first four blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable. However, are they learnable? Aren’t Greek and Hebrew too hard to learn?
Actually, Greek and Hebrew are emphatically NOT too hard to learn. They are not too hard because of the following reasons, summarized from pages 40-51 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages:
1.) Christians have their Almighty Father to help them learn the languages.
2.) The self-discipline involved in learning the languages can contribute to their sanctification.
3.) Scripture is not God hiding Himself. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are God’s “revelation,” not God’s obscuring Himself.
4.) For century after century, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek were the languages of the common man, not of the elite few.
5.) A very high percentage of Koine Greek speakers picked it up as a second language, while having a different native tongue. So can modern English speakers today.
6.) The Hebrew Old Testament was comprehensible to the simple rural folk that comprised the large majority of Israel.
7.) The Greek New Testament was comprehensible to the slaves and lower class people who constituted the large majority in the first century churches.
8.) It is harder to master modern English than it is to learn to read the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament.
9.) English speakers assume English is an easy language while Greek and Hebrew are allegedly difficult, but their assumption is invalid–because we have already mastered English, we do not think much about what was involved in learning the language. Someone starting from scratch would more easily learn to read Greek or Hebrew than he would learn to master modern English.
10.) The vocabulary of the average four-year-old child is larger than the number of words one must learn to gain a solid grasp of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.
11.) The inspiring examples of those who learned the languages as children, or without grammar books, or despite extremely pressing work commitments, or in the face of other hardships, show that learning the Biblical languages is eminently attainable.
12.) Numbers of countries world-wide are officially trilingual, while fifty-five nations are officially bilingual. There is no reason why people in these countries can master two or three languages in order to make money and efficiently function, but Christians cannot learn Greek and Hebrew in order to better know God and His Word.
The facts above are important, both to encourage people who are contemplating learning the languages and to refute Ruckmanite notions that Greek and Hebrew are impossibly difficult, so one must simply stick to English, not even use Greek or Hebrew lexica, and ignore the treasures God has laid up for His people in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.
–TDR
Learn Greek and Hebrew? Reasons Christians Should, part 4 of 7
Is it valuable for Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Greek and Hebrew help the believer to practice God’s Word and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. The more closely one beholds Christ’s glory in the mirror of Scripture, the more conformed to His image the Christian becomes–and Greek and Hebrew help believers see that ineffable glory.
2.) Greek and Hebrew help the Christian teach God’s Word to others. Every one of the Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and must be preached and taught to all of the Lord’s saints in true, Baptist churches.
3.) Greek and Hebrew help believers to compose quality Christian literature.
4.) Greek and Hebrew are essential for Baptists to make faithful translations of Scripture into the many world languages that still lack God’s holy Word. It may be tolerable for an evangelist / missionary to translate Scripture from English if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, but it is far, far better to translate from the original languages. The Ruckmanite / Riplingerite idea that one must translate foreign language Bibles from English rather than Greek and Hebrew is evil.
5.) Greek and Hebrew contribute to bold preaching.
6.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid in apologetics, evangelism, and in the refutation of error. Whether before crowds in a public debate or one-on-one at a door, knowing the Biblical languages helps in evangelism and in defending the faith.
7.) Greek and Hebrew help Christians defend the Authorized, King James Version. Attacks on the KJV by proponents of modern versions can be answered far more effectively if one knows Greek and Hebrew himself and so can respond much more effectively to allegations of mistranslation in the KJV.
Much greater detail appears in the first forty pages of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
–TDR
Should Christians Learn the Biblical Languages? Part 3 of 7
Should Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Computer tools are insufficient substitutes for actually knowing the Biblical languages. There are many precious gems in Scripture that someone who knows the Biblical languages will see easily, while one who does not will likely miss entirely.
2.) Computer tools do not enable a student of Scripture to follow the syntax of the Biblical languages, or to catch markers punctuating a discourse.
3.) Computer tools are unlikely to enable a reader to grasp the exegetical significance of the Hebrew accent system.
4.) Sometimes computer tools are making exegetical, interpretive decisions, not simply identifying forms in the Biblical languages (compare the study of Matthew 6:13 in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages).
5.) The student who does not know the Biblical languages will often find himself at the mercy of others as he studies the text fo Scripture. It is hard for him to accurately evaulate arguments made in scholarly commentaries, for example.
Romans 12:3; Ephesians 4:11; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; John 1:1; Genesis 1:1; Habakkuk 2:4, and other texts illustrate these truths. Questions such as whether all teachers are pastors; whether divorce can be justified; the exact affirmation of John 1:1 about Christ’s Deity; the emphasis in the first verse of the Old Testament; the theme of the entire book of Habakkuk and the entire book of Romans, and others are all greatly impacted by details of the Hebrew and Greek Biblical language text.
To understand these arguments, please read Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages up through page 23. I trust that the exegetical insight into the passages examined will be a blessing as well as illustrating the value of the Biblical languages.
–TDR
Should Christians Learn Greek and Hebrew? Yes! Part 2 of 2
While not all Christians need to learn Greek and Hebrew, knowledge of the Biblical languages has historically been viewed as necessary for students in Biblical seminaries, colleges, and institutes. Why?
Summarizing the first five pages of the study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, the answers to this question include:
1.) Jesus Christ learned Greek and Hebrew. if the Savior learned and honored the Greek and Hebrew languages, those who follow Him can do likewise.
2.) Learning Greek and Hebrew shows reverence for God’s inspired and preserved revelation. Belief in verbal, plenary inspiration and verbal, plenary preservation leads to the study of Hebrew and Greek as a necessary consequence.
3.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid the study of God’s Word. Many conclusive examples are supplied in the larger study which this blog post is summarizing.
4.) Greek and Hebrew help one observe more accurately and thoroughly, understand more clearly, evaluate more fairly, and interpret more confidently the inspired details of the Biblical text.
5.) Accurate translations are authoritative in their substance, and so it is proper to refer to the English Authorized Version as inspired in a derivative sense. However, there are details of God’s inspired revelation that can only be understood by those who know Greek and Hebrew. One can affirm not only that the KJV is inspired whenever it is accurate, but even that it is perfectly accurate and has no errors in translation, and still see tremendous value in learning Greek and Hebrew.
Indeed, study of the Biblical languages is a good and necessary consequence of the fact that God has revealed Himself and His will in Hebrew and Greek words.
Please read the entirety of the first five pages here, and feel free to comment on them below. May they prove edifying, whether or not one ever learns the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew.
–TDR
Should Christians Learn Hebrew and Greek? Part 1 of 7
I have composed a work explaining why Christians, and, specifically, Bible-believing, separatist King James Only Baptists should and can learn Hebrew and Greek, the Biblical languages. View the complete work here. While my first purpose in writing was to encourage my current crop of students, I believe that this work will be edifying to a broader readership, including those who never learn the Biblical languages. First, it exposits Biblical principles that relate to this topic, and, as an exposition and application of Scripture, has value. Second, it exposits a number of specific passages where controversy currently exists, enabling Christians to have Biblical answers in these inspired texts. Third, it explains the relationship between the original language text dictated by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old and translations. Can one call translations “inspired,” and if so, in what sense? Fourth, it answers the unbiblical extremism of Ruckman and Riplinger that is a stain to the advocates of the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. When peole want to find out what a Biblical word means, it is fine if they want to look at Webster’s English dictionary, but they should definitely be looking at a Hebrew or Greek lexicon, contrary to the advice of false teachers like Mrs. Gail Riplinger. Fifth, it can encourage Christians to see that learning the Biblical languages is not only desirable, but is an eminently attainable goal.
I am not planning to introduce the entire text of my study on these topics into the blog. I intend to summarize its arguments in several posts. Please read the actual work itself for more information. Learning Hebrew and Greek are desirable and attainable goals for Christians.
Please feel free to comment on this post or the rest of the posts in this series, but kindly read the work I am referencing first. Thank you.
–TDR
Does the KJV mistranslate with the phrase “God forbid”?
The phrase “God forbid” is relatively frequently asserted to be a mistranslation in the King James Version:
Me genoito … means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which … with small warrant … [has been] seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version.” (John William McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, The Four-Fold Gospel [Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914], 593.)
The phrase appears in both the Old and New Testaments, in English, in the following texts:
Gen. 44:7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:
Gen. 44:17 And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.
Josh. 22:29 God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.
Josh. 24:16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
1Sam. 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
1Sam. 14:45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.
1Sam. 20:2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
1Chr. 11:19 And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.
Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Rom. 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom. 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom. 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
1Cor. 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal. 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Does the KJV mistranslate the Hebrew and Greek phrases in question? The answer is a clear “no”! The phrases are idiomatic phrases that involve the invocation of God. Please see my new article at FaithSaves.net on this topic, “Is ‘God Forbid’ a Mistranslation in the KJV (King James Version)?” for more information.
No verse in Scripture promises that God would give English speakers an infallible translation in their language, although one would expect God’s special providence to be upon the Bible He knew would be that of the world-language for many years. Nevertheless, King James Only believers do well to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of KJV renderings, as, in vast numbers of instances, the KJV’s translation decisions prove to be justifiable, and critics prove to be wrong.
–TDR
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
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
Recent Comments