Home » Posts tagged 'Scripture' (Page 7)

Tag Archives: Scripture

A Hebrew word for “repent” in the Old Testament is nocham and it’s mainly used of God. It first appears in Genesis 6:6: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” The Old Testament makes those kinds of statements several times. Compatible with that, consider the last two verses of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6):

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Elijah comes, who is John the Baptist, and preaches to Israel. The LORD motivates Israel with His coming and smiting the earth with a curse. If they listen, God withholds the curse. If they don’t listen, the curse comes. The curse may or may not come. This is a warning. So what happens? A relatively few listen. The rest are cursed. This isn’t predetermination. This is how the sovereignty of God works. God does intervene with the warning and then later with the curse or punishment.

To read Malachi 4:5-6 any other way, complicating it with a wrong view of determinism, would pervert the plain meaning. The two ideas of Genesis 6 and Malachi 4 are complimentary: (1) God repents of what He was going to do because of what men have done, and (2) Men repent and God changes what He was going to do. Both of those concepts, which are in scripture in multiple places, speak of men, including unsaved ones, having a free will. They can make choices.

Men making choices doesn’t limit God. God makes up the rules, His laws, and He uses the responses of men to orchestrate His will according to providence. Man is not the determiner. He doesn’t make the rules or the laws. The Lord uses the wrong response by man and the right response by man both to still accomplish His purpose.

God does predetermine events. He knows everything. He has the power and wisdom to do whatever He wills. His will is perfect. Because all of this, God has free will to the greatest extent.

The Influence of Calvinism

Calvinists say, “Man doesn’t have free will, he has natural will, which is not free.” There are many ideas behind it, but nothing in scripture backs it up. The idea, that I read, is two main influences on the Protestant view of free will, Augustine and then later Luther’s writing, The Bondage of the Will. The Bible will get you a certain distance toward the point of Calvinism about free will, but it doesn’t get you all the way.

Calvinism, out of what seems like desperation, crafts a title, like R. C. Sproul uses, the “humanist view of free will.” He surmises this view is the majority view of believers, but when I read the view, I can’t imagine anyone believes it. Is this a scientific study based on poll research? He defines it this way:

[T]he choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.

Every choice comes because of prejudice, prior disposition or inclination. A high enough percentage thinks there is prior inclination or disposition, that I would say everyone believes that, just the opposite of what Sproul says.

The Bondage of the Will

Just because someone acts on the basis of his strongest inclination at the moment of that choice, terminology used by Jonathan Edwards in his work, Freedom of Will, does not contradict freedom of will. An unsaved man lacks in moral ability, but there are other means by which someone can choose Jesus Christ. He has the freedom to choose.

Romans 3:10-12 say man neither seeks after God nor understands God. Ephesians 2:1-5 say the lost are dead. I read though that the truth sets some free from being a slave to sin (John 8:32-36). All these though say to me that man can’t initiate the salvation. That’s also what I read in the Bible; we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Can there be spiritual death and bondage to sin and free will? I’m writing, yes, but it’s also because it’s what I read in scripture. If man can’t do anything, because he’s in bondage, then he’s not responsible for anything. Yet, he is responsible. He’s responsible because God does reveal Himself to man. I read this in Romans 1 among other places.

When men asked Jesus in Luke 13:23, are there few that be saved? His answer put it on man and his obvious not striving to enter into the narrow gate. Everything fits this way. You read the parable of the soils in Matthew 13. Jesus starts teaching in parables so as not to harden their hearts. A less hard heart results in greater reception to the seed. The truth can harden a heart. Jesus talks about four types of hearts and all of these are about reception of the truth.

The Word of God, God’s Revelation

The Word of God, God’s revelation, is the supernatural cure for spiritual death and bondage to sin. Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is powerful. It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

Revelation that defeats bondage and spiritual death starts with general revelation, which is general in its audience. This is the grace of God that appears to all men (Titus 2:11). Jesus said the truth is what sets someone free (Jn 8:32). Determination isn’t what sets people free. Regeneration isn’t what is said to set people free. Jesus freed dead Lazarus from the grave with His Words (Jn 11:43). God said, let there be light and there was light (Gen 1:3). Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

Faith is not a work. It is a gift. Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” It is given to believe on Christ. 2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” These saints obtained like precious faith.

God gives faith. God gives it by means of His revelation. He gives it by means of the Word of God. Without revelation and without the Word of God, someone cannot believe. God initiates salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.

Tension

I don’t mind the claim of “a tension.” I think there’s a tension. The tension comes with two possible questions. For the Calvinist the question concerns why someone or who is predetermined to Heaven or predetermined to Hell. For a non Calvinist at least like myself the question concerns why someone responds to God’s revelation and some don’t. I have many verses behind the tension that I believe. All of scripture fits that tension. The Calvinist says something like, God is sovereign over everything and He doesn’t have to answer, like the Potter doesn’t have to answer to clay.

I can agree with the Calvinist about tension. God can do whatever He wants, and it’s always righteous. He’s always righteous. We are clay and He is the Potter. However, the Potter gives answers all over His Word.

Let’s say you’re the parent and your child asks why? You answer, I’m your Dad, that’s why. That’s true, but that’s not the kind of answer that we get again and again and again in scripture.

I would say that man’s will is in bondage. Maybe I and the Calvinist agree. Perhaps it’s just how the bondage is removed. Scripture says that God’s revelation is the delivering agent. Since the Calvinist believes in determinism, it seems to me that he makes up this regeneration by the Holy Spirit that precedes faith. I’ll leave it at that.

Faith pleases God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. God isn’t glorified by adding something to scripture even if it’s for the purpose of glorifying God. I’ve noticed with Calvinists today, that for apparently completely depending on God’s sovereignty, they use Finney-esque new measures to accomplish church growth. I can listen to most Calvinists and hear them tie church growth success to human methodology. This is where I tell them I’m more Calvinistic than the Calvinists. I’m not trolling them. I think it’s true.

In another ironic turn, I say, the truth shall set you free. The Calvinistic view of free will is not biblical. It is not the truth. I have often heard and read Calvinists say that they just got their Calvinism from scripture. I can’t imagine anyone reading the Bible and getting a deterministic position. Unlike the Bible, it is conflicting and perplexing. From the very beginning of scripture to the end, the Bible tells a story in which men make choices based on free will.

Pragmatism, Playing Games, and “Recovering from Fundamentalism”

December 15, 2021 / 9 Comments on Pragmatism, Playing Games, and “Recovering from Fundamentalism”

If you look at a picture of the attendees of a professional baseball game during the 1940s, you see the crowd filled with men in suits and ties. I don’t know if they called them fans then, but were they legalists? Anyone who would wear a suit and tie to a baseball game must be a legalist. That’s what I’ve heard about men today who wear that to church. They’re legalists.

On the other hand, if someone now wears skinny jeans and a t-shirt while he preaches, that, my friends, is, what I’ve been told, someone who understands the grace of God. He’s also recovering from fundamentalism. Maybe you didn’t think it was that simple, but that’s how men, who refer to themselves as “recovering fundamentalists,” do characterize those who wear a suit, shirt, and tie, when they preach the Word of God behind the pulpit.

Men who wore suits to ball games in the 1940s had their reasons. They didn’t wear suits everywhere they went and doing anything they did. Men for similar reasons in the 1950s wore suits when they traveled on an airplane or other kinds of public transportation. In many instances still today, men will wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral. This was a way to show respect in a culture that put a premium still on showing respect.

Some still consider events and places sacred. You’ve heard the question, “Is nothing sacred any more?” Events and places once treated sacred are not any more. A culture where little is sacred surrenders its means, its symbols and expressions, for treating anything sacred. It blurs the distinctions between the sacred and the profane.

More than ever today being comfortable and casual is more important in priority than respect and sacredness. Men come as they are. In 1 Corinthians 13:5, Paul teaches that love does not behave itself unseemly. Something unseemly is unfitting of the occasion, like having bad manners. If something can be unseemly, it can obviously also be seemly.

Personal comfort is about yourself. “You do you.” Respect, which relates to something else besides you, is less important, of lesser value, than you. Love is fruit of the Spirit. Love seeketh not its own. That’s God and not you. Many, if not most, worship the idol of “you.”

IFB Off-Ramp

In a very recent youtube video entitled “The IFB Off-Ramp,” Mark Ward interviewed, whom he identified as one of the “recovering fundamentalists” (RF), whom I don’t know. His interviewee had debated a Ruckmanite IFB over “KJV Onlyism,” also abbreviated KJVO. Behind the RF in the interview was a piece of modern artwork with a row of varied abstract headstocks of guitars, promoting also a kind of modern music.

The RF says he wants to help and encourage men to be scriptural. The commonality between Ward and the RF was replacing the King James Version with a modern version. In the comment section, John Brock, perhaps the former academic dean of Maranatha Baptist University or a close relative, wrote:

Mark, good vid. I appreciate your spirit and the work you do. I would love to see Nathan’s organization change its name to something less demeaning to the IFB faithful. “Recovering” is commonly used for sinful vices and applying the term to Bible believing Christians/churches is more apropos to the enemies of the cross. Your ministry is special and done so well. I appreciate the sensitivity that you have. The average believers in fundamental Baptist churches are sincere brethren and demeaning them with broad strokes is unhelpful and can be unloving. I also would tend to respect the common dress expectations of a church (when invited as a speaker) rather than to parade differences on things of lesser significance. Keep placing the emphasis on lovingly, respectfully but courageously affirming the truth regarding our precious Book.

Mark Ward answered also in public:

I totally understand where you’re coming from. I think I’ve made my peace with the name, because as an internet writer (blogs and YouTube) I have come—a bit reluctantly—to realize that some amount of “clickbait” in one’s headlines is part of the game. I say some amount because me and my old editor at the Logos Blog agreed we would never promise something that didn’t come true. But we knew we were fighting for eyeballs. You can see that in my video title here: “The IFB Off-Ramp.” That’s probably a bit more attention-getting that strictly necessary.

Brock presented at least two criticisms: (1) Change the name of RF because of wrong aspects especially about the meaning of “recovering” and how it demeans independent Baptists, and (2) respect the common dress expectations of a church.

Ward dealt only with argument one. He justified to Brock the titles Recovering Fundamentalist (RF) and IFB Off-Ramp because they were (1) clickbait, (2) part of the game, and (3) fighting for eyeballs. You get a bigger crowd if you use the methodology.

Mark Ward didn’t answer either of Brocks points. He essentially said that you’ve got to do certain means and methods to reach a certain end. The end justifies the means. Some might be familiar with this as pragmatism.

Pragmatism?

Do modern version advocates, most often critical text proponents, follow scripture as the basis for what they do? Both Ward and the RF say that’s what it is. I don’t hear anything scriptural in particular coming from either of them in the interview, except for Ward’s brief reference to 1 Corinthians 14:9 and his intelligibility argument. I’m not going to address that again here.

From my observation and many others’, IFB has been steeped in pragmatism. They’ve used gimmicks or carnal means to attract crowds. They’ve been doing that for decades, because it was a good way to get eyeballs. It is proverbial “clickbait” and “playing the game.”

This IFB pragmatism also either followed, led to, or paralleled a superficial, 1-2-3 pray-with-me “gospel” for numbers. The two feed off each other. You can’t keep a crowd attracted by superficial means with an in depth presentation. It also must carry with it certain characteristics fitting of the spirit of this age.

When almost the entire infrastructure and happenings around an apparently serious dealing with scripture is modernistic, worldly, compromising, and casual, that affects the message. As someone famously wrote: the medium is the message. All of the surrounding and environment and context affect the understanding. It’s like blowing an uncertain trumpet. The message will lose its intelligibility. This all relates to Christian worldview.

What does it mean to recover from this brand of fundamentalism? Does it mean going to more that is superficial, like the modern art, pop music, and casual and worldly dress? Many adherents to evangelicalism want a church with a modern version. It’s a prerequisite that goes along with all the other pragmatism that is used to get eyeballs. Most everyone in the theater seating doesn’t care what the underlying text is.

Mark Ward is willing to associate and fellowship with Recovering Fundamentalists. The real deal breaker would be if they used only the King James Version. On the other hand, if someone preaches a true gospel, evangelizes in a scriptural way, and has a reverent assembly with robust expository preaching, even using the original languages, but it uses only the King James Version, that divides Mark Ward. The RF are Mark Ward’s bedfellows. These are his people.

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will

December 6, 2021 / Leave a comment

As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it. After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again. Are my fingers typing on their own?

Okay, so here’s how it seems to me. I’m just reporting. I recently heard something about free will. I’ve thought about it before. I thought about it again. Then I decided to write about it. No one coerced me and no one prevented me. I typed freely what I want on my keyboard. I look forward to the day when I find out what really happened.

I believe God gave me the freedom to choose. He gave me my will, so I have one and the freedom to use it. I take responsibility for this writing, because it is mine. No one made me do this. No one stopped me from doing it.

At the same time, whatever truth I can know on free will comes from God in His Word. No truth about free will can contradict another truth. God does not contradict Himself. He cannot lie.

The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will

The Calvinistic doctrine of free will conflicts and perplexes. Calvinism says, sure, man is free. He chooses what he wants to do, but he chooses to sin. It is in his nature to sin. He wants to sin.

Being depraved, man possesses free will, but the will only to sin. Calvinists say that will only to sin is free will. That means he does not will salvation either. He does not want God or righteousness.

Man can choose. He doesn’t always sin. He can choose paper instead of plastic. Calvinists consider that a “natural” choice, the realm in which man does exist. They also call this “secondary causation.”

On the other hand, other factors seem to come into play with Calvinism and free will. Conflict and perplexity rise. God knows everything, past, present, and future. If He knows everything, then He also predetermines everything. Man cannot do anything that God does not know. Knowledge equals determination and Calvinists do not separate those.

Since God knows everything, He also wills everything. If God wills everything, then God determines everything too. Calvinists say the alternative to determinism is that God does not know the future, just all the possibilities of what might happen, or “open theism.”

If God determines everything, then He also determines sin and suffering. God predetermines, determines, or ordains sin. He’s got a purpose for sin according to His will. God knows every sin, so He determines it all. He determined sin, He determined Hell, and He determined to send most people to Hell.

God ordains suffering for sin. You might say Adam and Eve sinned. They did, but every man also sinned in Adam. Every man deserves suffering for sin, starting in this life, ending in his death, and furthermore in his eternal punishment.

If man is not to go to Hell, he cannot choose not to go there. He chooses only to go there, because his will is depraved. If he chooses not to go there, God causes that. He does that through irresistible grace. God chooses who goes to Heaven. God the Spirit regenerates those He chooses to receive the Lord God. Then God keeps them. He loses none of them.

People sometimes use the word “robot” to describe what seems like a lack of free will. Calvinists say, men are not robots. God’s sovereignty to Calvinists though means God determines everything. It’s perplexing and conflicting that God determines everything, yet man is not a robot.

Everyone God does not choose to save those He chooses for Hell. He chose them to Hell before their birth. Knowledge is love. Foreknowledge is knowing ahead of time. Knowing ahead of time is loving ahead of time. Loving is electing to save. God does not love ahead of time those He also chooses not to save. He chooses them for Hell.

On the other hand, if man chooses, then salvation is of man. Man becomes the operative agent of salvation. If it is not God working, then it is man working. God is not sovereign. Man is. All combined, this conflicts and perplexes.

Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?

I can say I get it. God is in charge. He is in control. For that to be true, I can’t have man choose. He can’t be a decider. That makes me more on God’s side, and I want to be on God’s side. But is it true? Does that really represent scripture? I don’t see it for a number of reasons. It is not how all the passages harmonize with one another. If Calvinism represents scripture, then scripture itself conflicts and perplexes, and it just doesn’t.

When I say Calvinism conflicts and perplexes, I mean that Calvinism conflicts with the Bible and perplexes me over its seeming disharmony with scripture. No truth will contradict other truth. It must harmonize. Passages must agree with each other. The right explanation of every passage fits with the right explanation of all other passages.

I can’t expose all the conflict and perplexity with the Calvinistic doctrine of free will in one post or even two. I agree with both some of what I read in Calvinism and some of what I read in other historical theological systems. With whatever the Bible says, I concur. I dissent with whatever differs with God’s Word.

Calvinism or even Reformed theology did not start with Genesis 1:1 or Genesis 50 or Isaiah 10 or Isaiah 40-48 or with the Apostle Paul and Ephesians 1:11. If someone in the day those passages occurred read those passages, and he could have read Calvin, he would not read Calvin there. Joseph and his brothers would not say that God meant them to do the evil they did. God determined them to do evil. Calvinism forces scripture into it. It doesn’t harmonize all the passages.

Someone can fit Ephesians 1:11 into Calvinism, but then Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t fit the rest of scripture. To fit Ephesians 1:11 into all of scripture, which it does, it must abandon Calvinism.

There are good things about Calvinism or Reformed theology. I like them. I like listening to their proponents on those things. They are better than other men, other theologians.

Not only does Calvinism conflict and perplex related to scripture, but it conflicts with itself. It is incoherent with the data of scripture, but now it is incoherent with historic Calvinism. It’s as if Calvinism now allows God to determine modernism and pragmatism. With the new Calvinist, God uses modernism and Calvinism for good, justifying the two when it is convenient for the Calvinist without regard of his free will.

For instance, God determines Daniel Wallace looking for manuscript and James White practicing textual criticism and judging textual variants according to humanly designed standards. God determines contemporary Christian rockers or rappers to increase church attendance. They mold God’s sovereignty to fit man’s purposes.

(To Be Continued)

The Shell Game Played With Words About the Bible

November 23, 2021 / 3 Comments on The Shell Game Played With Words About the Bible

You know right now the concern about the gender of pronouns used to address the sexes. The controversy revolves around calling a biological male, “him,” or a biological female, “her.” People change the meaning of the words and expect us to play along. You know it’s a man, but you call him, a her. You call he, a she.

Let’s say we’re talking about the words of scripture. Inspiration applies to words. God inspired words. And then someone says, I believe in the inerrancy of scripture in the context of words. We think he means, no errors in the words. I think he even knows that we think he means words. However, he doesn’t mean words. He’s not saying that there are no errors in the words.

Someone holds up a Bible and calls it the inerrant Word of God. He doesn’t mean words. He means something different. It’s hard to say what he means, but it’s probably the following. Inerrancy means that you can trust that the teachings of the Bible are without error. He doesn’t bring up inerrancy in the context of the teachings of the Bible. He brings it up in the context of words. He’s playing a shell game, moving those shells around very quickly. You thought he meant words, but he didn’t.

You think the bead is under the shell. That’s what someone wants you to think. The bead is words, but you see a shell. Words aren’t under the shell. It’s teachings, and even that is ambiguous, because even with that, he doesn’t mean teachings.

When someone says the teachings of scripture are inerrant, if that’s even what he means, because that can become very ambiguous, he doesn’t mean that you can’t find errors in the Bible. You can. However, all things considered, if you take all the combined passages of the Bible to come up with those teachings, all the right teachings are available in the Bible.

Men don’t even agree on what the Bible teaches, let alone on what’s right that it does teach. Two different men can say they believe in inerrancy and then disagree on ten different doctrines of scripture. It’s a hypothetical inerrancy. Let’s just say it. It isn’t inerrancy. I can agree to an ambiguous, hypothetical inerrancy, and then agree that the Bible is inerrant. I can hold up the Bible and say, this is the inerrant Word of God.

When I say the Bible is without error, I mean that it is without error. Every Word that God inspired has been preserved in the language in which it is written. Since inerrancy relates to what God inspired, if there are missing words, then it isn’t inerrant any more. I believe that and not in a hypothetical way. I’m not going to say that we both agree the Bible is inerrant, fully realizing that when you say “inerrant” you don’t even mean “inerrant.” You mean something that allows you to believe the Bible is inerrant without believing that it is inerrant. This is like calling him, her.

If the Bible is perfect, then it can’t be given extra perfection. There are those who do not believe it is perfect. They also don’t believe that scripture says that scripture is perfect. They believe that it is inerrant, but it isn’t perfect.

I would say, don’t call the Bible perfect if you don’t believe it. Also, don’t call it inerrant, if you don’t believe it is inerrant. Don’t make perfect and inerrant mean something different than what they obviously mean in light of what the Bible says about itself.

I can go through my Bible and show you a doctrine of its inerrancy and perfection. Then I ask, “Does the Bible teach that it is inerrant and perfect?” You say, “Yes.” So then I ask, “Okay, so which Bible is the inerrant and perfect one?” You say, “None are.” So is the teaching of the Bible inerrant and perfect?

I believe the Bible is perfect and inerrant because the Bible says so. Then you start peppering me with individual words, phrases, verses, and even larger passages. I explain every one of those texts based on the presupposition that I have. I can do it. Now let me get into your presuppositions, how you came to having them, or whether they are reverse engineered.

You say, I can see that there isn’t a perfect Bible. So now when you look at the passages that teach the Bible is perfect, they’ve got to mean something else. Where do those presuppositions come from? How did you get those presuppositions? How is that conservative?

I’m not playing a shell game when I say the Bible is inerrant and perfect. Many others are.

Free Logos & Accordance Books!

November 5, 2021 / 2 Comments on Free Logos & Accordance Books!

Free books with Logos and Accordance Bible software–great! I own–and use regularly–both Logos and Accordance Bible software. I believe Accordance has superior resources for detailed exegetical study of Scripture in the original languages, so I use mainly Accordance for my study of the Bible itself, whether for my own devotional reading, for sermons and for teaching, and so on. I also use Accordance in case I need to look a word up while hearing the great expository preaching at Bethel Baptist Church. I use Logos for most of my commentaries and reference tools, because, in my opinion, the books are easier to read and reference in Logos. Logos also has a superior read-aloud feature, so I can listen to practically every book I have in my Logos library read aloud to me while I am doing errands, driving, and so on.

You can regularly get free books with both Accordance and Logos. To get free books on Accordance, sign up here for their mailing list where they tell you about their free books. Make sure you read down or at least scroll down to the end of their emails, as they sometimes put the free books at the bottom, to get you to read the whole thing. There are several free books you can get from Logos each month. Click here to find out about the Logos free book of the month. You can also get on their mailing list so that they tell you each month about the free book. Logos has a Catholic division called Verbum which also offers a free book every month; you can get this month’s free book and sign up to get notified each month here. Sometimes the Catholic free books are idolatrous garbage, since Catholicism is an evil false religion, but other times they are useful works by patristic writers or some other worthwhile volume (at least for free!). Logos also offer free e-books that are not searchable in the same way their Logos and Verbum resources are; I sometimes get those for free as well, although I have not found them especially helpful.

Maybe you say, “I don’t own Accordance or Logos. Why should I get free books from them?” You can get the free books and use them even if you never buy anything with Accordance or Logos. For example, sometimes Logos has given away expensive and very useful commentaries as their free book of the month. (Other months the books are not as useful, but the price is still right.) You can open and read the free books within the Accordance or Logos laptop/desktop or phone apps even if you never buy a Logos or Accordance base package. What is more, if you ever do buy an Accordance or Logos base package, you don’t have to pay for what you already own, so if you have gotten a lot of books for free already, then you are also getting a discount on whatever base package you eventually purchase. (That’s another reason I take the free Catholic book each month as well as the free Christian/non-Catholic one; if they throw the Catholic book into a base package I end up buying later, I am paying less for the base package.)

Why do Accordance and Logos give away free books? They do it because they think you will eventually buy something from them if you sign up. With the free books, they also tell you about discounts on other books in order to get you to buy them. It probably works, too; if you get enough free books, you probably will eventually buy a base package. But that wouldn’t be too bad–both Accordance and Logos Bible software base packages are very useful for studying God’s holy Word. There are definitely worse things to spend money on.

–TDR

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory

October 19, 2021 / 2 Comments on The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory

People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.

Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology

The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.

Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.

Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.

Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.

Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.

The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.

Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.

Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

God discourages the increase of the knowledge of evil. Do not become curious with evil. Upon eating, however, Adam and Eve, ceased their simplicity concerning evil (Rom 16:19). God forewarns the knowledge of evil and we need no other basis for the knowledge of good other than God. God is good. All goodness comes from above (James 1:17).

Carnal Knowledge

Critical theory posits a special knowledge, like that of the gnostic. What the theorist knows now is evil, because he stopped listening to God as a basis for what he does. He doesn’t want to do what God tells him to do. He wants to do what he wants and now with an objective basis for his knowledge, his theory. Like James wrote, temptation occurs when lust draws us away and entices us. Rather than knowledge or truth, critical theory is lust, like what Adam and Eve had in the garden.

When someone does what he wants, he now has experiential knowledge of that thing, something like carnal knowledge. He functions according to his own lust, his own feelings. He’s being true to himself, so true by his own presupposition. His truth is his truth. He’s authentic. He listens to his music. He eats what he wants, drinks what he wants, watches what he wants. A man wears a dress because he wants to wear it. She pierces herself wherever and with whatever she wants and lies with another woman if it’s what she wants, if she’s being true to herself. This clashes with God, but God is only a construct anyway of a white patriarchy for the purpose of power.

The person who knows evil is a person of the world, doing what he wants, experiencing it all for himself. Maybe his parents said, no. They’ve warned, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. He is wise unto that which is evil, which is impressive in this world. He has a worldly vocabulary that conforms to how he wants to talk. It’s not profanity any more. That was all just a construct. It’s authentic speech, art imitating life and life imitating art. It’s like the pursuit of Solomon without God — altogether vanity and vexation of spirit.

That the knowledge of evil makes one wise is a lie of temptation. Critical theory standardizes lies and turns them into a curriculum. Someone can claim an expertise, become a licensed operator of these lies. Theorists don’t just condone the lies, but institutionalize them.

Eve saw the fruit of the tree. It was good. It would make her wise. This was critical theory. She was now woke. No one constructs his own reality. The effects of her eating was reality, was true, and both Adam and Eve dealt with those consequences. Every man will face that. In the end, the theories, that aren’t even theories, won’t make any difference before a holy God. All theorists will stand before God and understand with impeccable clarity the objectivity of truth, not constructed by man, but revealed by God. Best for everyone that they do not wait until then, but start listening to Him now as their source of knowledge.

What Does “Led By or Of the Spirit” Mean?

October 5, 2021 / Leave a comment

If you are a professing Christian, you have heard such a sentence as, “I was led by the Spirit.” I’ve heard it in the form of a question, “Are you led of the Spirit of God?” It can be put in the negative, “He isn’t led of the Spirit,” very often speaking of a believer, implying that some believers are led of the Spirit and others are not.

“Led by the Spirit” or “led of the Spirit” are both in the New Testament, each one time.

Romans 8:14, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 5:18, But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

The Greek words behind “led by” and “led of” are the same. “By the Spirit” and “of the Spirit” both translate one Greek word, pneumati. Even though the English translates them differently, they are the identical Greek words in both places.

The Greek word translated “led” is the same in both verses (ago), except in Romans 8:14 it is third person plural and in Galatians 5:18 it is second person plural. In Romans 8:14, those led are spoken about and in Galatians 5:18, they are spoken to. This does not change the meaning of “led.”

If the language is in scripture, which it is, the language of the above two verses is not intended to be vague, amorphous, or malleable in quality. It has a meaning and isn’t an instrument to be used in whatever way convenient. It isn’t to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. So what does it mean?

I very often hear “led of” or “led by” the Spirit to be the Holy Spirit speaking to someone directly. The Holy Spirit informs someone of what he is to do, where he is to go, or how he is to operate. This is separate from scripture. This is a common understanding of this phraseology today. Someone can just make “led by the Spirit” something equivalent to the Holy Spirit telling someone something.

If the Holy Spirit does talk to people and this is His leading, how does He do it? How does someone know it is the Holy Spirit doing the talking to him?

To be “led of the Spirit,” I’ve also observed of and from others, is about synonymous to be “filled with the Spirit,” very little to nothing differentiating the meaning of these two, filled or led. Do they mean something different?

I’ve found that the same people who think that being led by the Spirit means the Holy Spirit talks to you, also think that if He isn’t talking to you, then you are not led by the Spirit. If you were to say, the Holy Spirit doesn’t still talk to people, they might ask, and they’ve asked me, “Then how does the Holy Spirit lead you?” Many people don’t think the Holy Spirit can lead you without revealing something to you. In a technical way, that’s called revelation. They think revelation continues from the Holy Spirit today.

One historical occurrence that got me thinking about being “led by the Spirit” is the story of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Part of the Mormon story is that God spoke directly to Joseph Smith, including what Mormons call his first vision in a grove of trees in New York. As you continue reading the history of LDS (the Mormons, the title: Latter Day Saints), continued revelation is a big part of their theology. Many Mormons say God has spoken directly to them. This is a big part of their understanding, that God can and does keep talking to people, even today. Almost every split in Mormonism, however, has also been between one group that says God did speak and the other rejecting that He did say something to them. How do you know?

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century Princeton Theological Seminary theologian, Benjamin (B.B.) Warfield, wrote a large chapter (pp. 151-179) on “The Leading of the Spirit” in his book, The Power of God Unto Salvation. I recently read an article online that quoted Warfield on this subject. I agreed. In that chapter, Warfield wrote about the usage in Romans 8:14:

In the preceding context Paul discovers to us our inherent sin in all its festering rottenness. But he discovers to us also the Spirit of God as dwelling in us and forming the principle of a new life. It is by the presence of the Spirit within us alone that the bondage in which we are by nature held to sin is broken; that we are emancipated from sin and are no longer debtors to live according to the flesh. This new principle of life reveals itself in our consciousness as a power claiming regulative influence over our actions; leading us, in a word, into holiness.

In this chapter, Warfield is saying that “led by the Spirit” is referring to or means “sanctification.” He says, “a synonym for sanctification.” He continues:

When we consider this Divine work within our souls with reference to the end of the whole process we call it sanctification; when we consider it with reference to the process itself, as we struggle on day by day in the somewhat devious and always thorny pathway of life, we call it spiritual leading. Thus the “leading of the Holy Spirit” is revealed to us as simply a synonym for sanctification when looked at from the point of view of the pathway itself, through which we are led by the Spirit as we more and more advance toward that conformity to the image of His Son, which God has placed before us as our great goal.

It is not that some believers are led by the Spirit and some are not. Every believer is led by the Spirit. Whoever the Lord justifies, He also sanctifies. Being led by the Spirit isn’t something mysterious and inexplicable. It isn’t a unique dosage of the Spirit’s power or a higher life with the Spirit. It is the normal Christian life. Every believer is led by the Spirit. It is not a unique experience that someone seeks for and receives as a special blessing for certain believers.

You do know that someone is saved because He is led by the Spirit. When someone is not led by the Holy Spirit, that is, he isn’t being scripturally sanctified, then he also isn’t justified. He’s never been saved. One of the ways you know you’ve been saved is that you are led by the Spirit of God. As Romans 8:13 says:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Being led by the Spirit in verse 14 is parallel to ‘through the Spirit mortifying the deeds of the body’ in verse 13. Those who live after the flesh, they die. Those who are led by the Spirit, they live.

How does the Holy Spirit sanctify? He does that through scripture. Like Jesus said, we’re sanctified by the truth, and God’s Word is truth (John 17:17-19).

Hearing voices in your head is not being led by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not continue giving new revelations. The Holy Spirit leads by your following the Words of Christ, which dwell in you richly (Colossians 3:16). Someone led by the Spirit is characteristically obedient to scripture. He has a living faith and walks by faith. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

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

October 1, 2021 / 4 Comments on 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

An Orthodox View of Our English Bibles? Considering Fred Butler’s KJVO Book and the Doctrine of Preservation

September 21, 2021 / 11 Comments on An Orthodox View of Our English Bibles? Considering Fred Butler’s KJVO Book and the Doctrine of Preservation

Whenever I read the word, “Bibles,” I get a bit of a chill down my spine. Which Bible is the right Bible if there are plural Bibles, not singular Bible? Isn’t there just one? Why are we still producing more and different Bibles? How many are there? What I’m describing is the biggest issue today with translations, not the King James Version, but now it gets little to no coverage compared to other so-called problems.

Many anti-KJVO books have been written, most often, and this continues to be the case with Butler’s book, calling KJVO (King James Version Onlyism) “dangerous.” It’s true that many KJV Onlyists do not believe a scriptural bibliology. I would contend that most are sound, but it’s true also that many are not. That would be a worthwhile criticism of KJVO, confronting those who do not believe in the preservation of scripture, who do not believe God preserved His Words in the original languages, apparently necessitating God’s correction of them in an English translation. This happens to be the same doctrinal position as Fred Butler. He just deals with the consequences of that belief in a different way.

I don’t know how “dangerous” it is to believe in a single Bible of which translation for English speaking people is the King James Version. How will that get someone in trouble? What’s the danger? Even though Butler calls the position dangerous, he doesn’t explain why anywhere in his book, which I find is most often the case with books of this kind. In general, KJVO take the general position that there is only one Bible, which there is. That is a biblical, logical, and historical position: one Bible. Several Bibles is not.

In his preface, recounting his own personal journey away from the King James Version, Butler says,

I found myself helping them [speaking of others also departing] think critically through KJVO argumentation, as well as develop an orthodox view of our English Bibles.

Why and how is it orthodox to refer to the Bible in the plural, “Bibles”? Again, there is only one Bible, and historically Christians have believed in only one. Some type of multiple-versionism, I believe, creates far more confusion and danger. Usually orthodoxy refers to doctrine. Is the doctrine behind multiple versions and textual criticism orthodox? It’s popular today, but not orthodox.

I’m not going to debunk most of the arguments of Butler’s book. His book is exploring zero new territory others cover much more than he. He mainly addresses KJVO advocates of either double inspiration or English preservationism, very low hanging fruit. He barely to if-at-all distinguishes one view from another. He lumps Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with Edward Hills, D. A. Waite, and David Cloud. He uses a very broad brush. I would not anticipate his persuading one person to his position.

One unique argument I had never read was that KJVO are not Calvinist. The idea here is that if you’re not a Calvinist, then you must be wrong in this position on the Bible. The biggest movement of those who exclusively use the KJV as an English translation are Calvinists. The Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession, as well as many of these Calvinist confessions, hold to the perfect preservation of scripture, which is a one Bible position.

An orthodox view should be a scriptural view. Butler doesn’t establish any kind of biblical and historical view of the preservation of scripture. Butler writes this:

It is true God calls us to have faith, but our faith is grounded upon objective truth.

What is objective truth? Is textual criticism objective truth? No way, and he doesn’t make that connection. It can’t be made. Scripture is the truth on which bibliological positions stand. Butler takes the view agreed by modern evangelicalism, not based upon scripture. He has not faced a bit of criticism from the evangelicals who interview him. He should sit down for a talk with someone who does not take his position to see how his arguments will stand up.

Most people who use the King James believe that it is an accurate translation of a preserved original language text. Obviously, the King James Version itself has changed since 1611. KJV supporters know that. This indicates that they believe that the preservation of scripture occurs in the Hebrew and Greek text. Butler writes:

The Bible never claims God’s Word is only found in one translation. KJV onlyism is unsupported by the Bible itself.

Maybe that confronts Ruckmanism, but I’ve never heard a single person attempt to defend single-translationism from the Bible. The French, Spanish, Russian, etc. can all have a translation from the same text as the King James Version. Butler knows this, but he makes this claim anyway, and it’s a strawman. It doesn’t help anyone. More than anything it gives fresh meat to evangelical friends in an evangelical bubble. On the other hand, he never lays out what the Bible does claim.

There are varied views on preservation among evangelicals. I don’t know of one modern version supporter, who believes in perfect preservation of scripture. Daniel Wallace doesn’t believe scripture teaches the preservation of scripture and he has many supporters. That is now a very common view. He believes in the preservation of the Word, but not the Words. Butler takes a view that might be the most common for evangelicals. Most evangelicals in the pew don’t know this position, but perhaps the majority of conservative evangelical leaders take the position Butler describes:

Yes, I believe God preserves His Word, but I believe it is in the totality of all the available manuscript evidence, variants and copyist errors included.

Try to find that in historical bibliological literature. You won’t find it. It really is a reactionary position to textual criticism among evangelicals. It isn’t a biblical position. Nowhere does the Bible teach it. It’s very much like what you might read on creation today. Confronted with science, professing Christians invent a day age theory for old earth creationism.

Almost all of what Butler finds are theologians, often unbelieving ones, willing to admit that there are copyist errors, which produce textual variants. He and others act like KJVO don’t know that or don’t believe it happened. The history of God’s preservation of scripture is not the same parchment and ink making its way down through time in a pristine condition. God preserved His Words. This physical copy view is not taught in the Bible and it’s only made up as a straw man to create a faux argument.

When you read Butler’s view in his above quote, look carefully at what he says. First, he says God preserves His Word, not God preserved, completed action, like Jesus said, “It is written,” in the perfect tense. He doesn’t say “Words,” because He would never say that. It’s God’s Word in a very ambiguous sense. Jesus said, my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Where does the Bible or even history present this “totality of available manuscript evidence” position?

For Butler the text isn’t settled, like the Bible speaks about itself. He doesn’t know what the Words are. He doesn’t know all of the ones by which He is to live by. I would contend he doesn’t even believe the position he espouses. How would he account for new evidence, which is still coming? What does he do with a passage like 1 Samuel 13:1? I’ve never read an evangelical, who takes his position, who believes that we possess a manuscript with the very words of that verse.

What motivated me to write this post was one aspect of Butler’s book and that is his attack on the teaching of preservation in scripture. Among everything that he writes, I want to deal only with Psalm 12:6-7, mainly to show how men like him deal with these preservation texts. He writes:

The one passage that nearly all KJVO advocates use for establishing the promise argument is Psalm 12:6,7. . . . The immediate antecedent for the plural pronoun them is the plural pronoun, words. Thus, it would seem to make sense that we can conclude God has promised to preserve His words in a physical text.

The Hebrew language, however, is sharply different from English in that it has grammatical gender, something not common to English. In Hebrew, the pronouns will match the antecedent nouns in both number and gender. Here in Psalm 12:6, 7, the two thems of verse 7 are masculine in gender and with the second them being singular.

The closest antecedents in our English translation, the two nouns words found in verse 6, are feminine, so they do not match the masculine thems.

Butler goes on to say that “them” refers to the poor and needy back in verse 5 because they’re feminine. Butler’s argument here has been thoroughly debunked. He’s wrong. First, however, there are many verses in the Bible that teach the perfect preservation of every Word of God. Psalm 12:6, 7 are two of many. There is a great chapter on these verses by Thomas Strouse in Thou Shalt Keep Them, our book on the preservation of scripture. I’ve also written a lot on it (here, here, and here).

Here’s the short of it. Repeatedly in the Old Testament, and as a part of Hebrew grammar, a masculine pronoun refers to a feminine Word of God. You see it again and again in Psalm 119, the psalm entirely about the Word of God (verses 111, 129, 152, 167). There are many other examples. You can find this very rule in Gesenius’s Hebrew grammar, which I used in second year Hebrew in graduate school.

The number argument doesn’t work either, which is why the KJV translators translated the pronoun, “them,” the second time. That’s also Hebrew grammar. It is very common after a plural pronoun for a singular to follow in order to particularize every individual in the group. A collective plural is suggested by the singular. This is also why the NKJV translators, who are not KJVO, translated it “them.”

The Hebrew grammar says just the opposite of what Butler writes. Critical text and modern version men continue to trot out this argument, when they should well know that it’s been answered many times. I’ve never had one of them attempt to deal with it, because it is irrefutable. It’s why many, many preachers and theologians through the centuries, including Jewish scholars, have said that “them” in verse seven refers to God’s “words” in verse six. The gender disagreement argument is a moot point. Without gender, the rule reverts back to proximity, and “words” is the closest antecedent to “them.”

Either Butler didn’t know the gender disagreement argument or he assumed that his readers wouldn’t know any better. Knowing the Hebrew grammar and reading what he wrote, it reads like he was just borrowing from the writings of other people. I’ve read this argument from Douglas Kutilek online. He’s been confronted with the Hebrew grammar and he’s never answered me or anyone else on it. He does not know what he’s talking about.

So much more could be said in review of Fred Butler’s book, but rest assured that God has preserved every one of His Words in the language in which He inspired them, and made them available for every generation of believers. The King James Version is an accurate translation of those Words.

LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists

September 7, 2021 / 3 Comments on LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists

The visions or revelations of Joseph Smith came about in America at a time in this country when many others were receiving their own visions or revelations, paving the way for Smith’s and the acceptance of his by others. The United States was a land of equality, equal opportunity, and populism. It despised a king and state religion. It liked, loved really, democratic society, where everyone’s voice was heard, and it was, therefore, acceptable to get your own personal revelation from God as a part of your personal relationship with God. That spirit is still very alive in America. Americans distrust their own institutions and this is woven into the fabric of being an American. That includes the institution of the church.

In early nineteenth century, especially on the frontier, people operated in many unconventional ways, depending on superstitions in medicine, farming, and predicting the weather. It was not unusual to use dowsing to find water with a special, forked stick. People could see signs everywhere, giving them guidance from above or within. Snake oil salesman got their name in this era, literally selling snake oil, promising cures to almost anything, circumventing the conventional manner of tending to one’s health.

Joseph Smith was 14 years of age when he had his first vision or revelation from God, and the Smiths, Joseph Smith Sr. and mom, Lucy, weren’t members of a church. Joseph Jr. didn’t come up with the idea of getting visions. It was a thing to have. Only special people had them.

The Smiths couldn’t find a church they liked or agreed with, were still looking, and then Joseph ‘heard from God’ that there was no true church to join. Convenient. Churches have set beliefs and if you are a rank and file non-clergy, you might disagree, your opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and you don’t have a means of having your own in those situations. You might not want the church doctrines and practices imposed on you and also their financial obligations. You want a church where perhaps everyone could share, like is seen in the first church in Jerusalem in Acts chapters 2 and 5. That’s what churches should do, accept your way and then take care of you with little expectation.

On top of everything above, even though there was freedom, it was tough to navigate the new world, especially if you were not born into wealth, grinding it out to earn a living. Many made it through subsistence farming, sometimes succeeding, perhaps enough to invest in a cockamamie get-rich-quick scheme, lose everything and start over again. People still are very allured by the suggestion of some easier path to success, willing to subject themselves to whatever comes along that promises to work better, reinventing the wheel.

Joseph Smith lived in an environment, a culture, that someone could believe that God was talking to him directly. All of the new, astounding doctrines and practices of LDS came by this manner, contradicting doctrines and practices hitherto already established in the history of Christianity: the preexistence of human souls or spirits, God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood, celestial marriage, polygamy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same being, God organized the world but did not create it from nothing, and proxy baptism for dead people. It was also revealed to him through a story that all of these beliefs were the original truth that had been lost and buried for 1400 years. On many occasions, Joseph Smith and then other Mormon leaders received revelations at a time that fit whatever it was they needed to hear from God to make a pronouncement to deal with that situation.

Matthew Bowman writes in The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (pp. 10-12):

The Smiths had unwittingly moved into an ideal location for a family with unresolved spiritual yearnings, the center of what one historian has called “the antebellum spiritual hothouse” and another “the burned-over district.” . . . . The optimism, instability, and freedom of the New York frontier were life’s blood to the eclecticism and experimentation always to be found at the margins of mainstream Christianity. The Shakers, for instance, so named for their physical worship services, had fled to America from a disapproving Britain under the leadership of Ann Lee, whom they believe to be Christ reincarnated. In the United States, they found fertile ground for both converts and settlement, and in 1826 they established a colony less than thirty miles from Palmyra. . . . North of Albany, the farmer William Miller sat by the fire in his home in Low Hampton, New York, feverishly working out the precise date of the Second Coming from the book of Daniel for his thousands of followers, who were convinced that they needed no trained pastors to interpret scripture for them.

But the Smiths had always been drawn — particularly Lucy — not to such visionaries but to the more mainstream ecstasies of evangelical revivalism. The force behind revivalism was the Methodists, who . . . urged potential converts to embrace Christ in a personal divine encounter. At Methodist camp meetings, itinerant preachers, though frequently uneducated and even unlettered, learned how to muse the Holy Spirit among their listeners. Between rousing and sometimes raucous gospel hymns, they offered not prepared sermon on doctrinal topics but emotional appeals, promising forgiveness, warning of hell, reaching their hands to the heavens, and pleading with the crowd to leave sin behind and walk forward to be saved in the arms of Christ. . . . “Men are so spiritually sluggish,” declared Charles Grandison Finney, the great revivalist of the age, “that they must be so excited that they will break over their countervailing influences before they will obey God.” Finney’s talents shone in a month-long revival in 1830-31 in Rochester, a few miles from Palmyra, in which he converted hundreds. . . .

The sort of spiritual manifestations the Smith family had already experienced were not new to most revivalists. Portentous dreams were common particularly among itinerant Methodist preachers, as were the type of healings and providential manifestations Lucy had experienced. . . .

It was in this atmosphere that Joseph Jr., then a young teenager, began thinking about religion.

The ecstasies and visions of revivalism were the seedbed or hothouse for Joseph Smith and the new religion. What makes this acceptable? Some might say, because what they revealed was not false. I don’t know that they can say, that what they’re saying is in fact true. How do you know it’s true, if it is? Someone could say, it’s scriptural. Well, then you don’t need a vision or a revelation from God. It’s already in the Bible. If cannot be proven to be false, then it is an acceptable vision or revelation.

If someone can hear revelations from God, how do those differentiate from scripture? If they are from God, that is equal to scripture. One cannot accept visions and revelations as from God. That opens up Pandora’s box. It’s not acceptable. And yet it is today. You really can’t question it. You’ve got to accept whatever version of it. How does a LDS today distinguish evangelical visions from their LDS ones? It really just buttresses the point of Mormon visions and revelations, that God is still talking to men. He’s still talking to Mormons.

LDS do not have a kind of closed canon of scripture. They have their continued visions, their continued revelations, even if they don’t like the LDS teachings, which many LDS has a problem with, and with their prophets. What has pushed LDS along is their continued revelations. I had a long talk last Saturday to an LDS man, coming out of the garage of his big house, a CEO of a small software company, and he disconnects from LDS doctrine, but he’s got his own testimony, his own experience, his own way of connecting with God, so he can pick and choose. LDS is fine with that. They encourage it. They might call it “the burning in the bosom.” Before Joseph Smith got his first vision, he prayed James 1:5, and that’s become the pattern of LDS since then.

I estimate that a majority of Baptists still get direct messages from God. They call it different things, but these impressions are authoritative, nonetheless, very often for some of the major decisions of their lives. When they give testimony to the important decisions, they don’t say, it was scriptural, my church was fine with it, so I had the liberty to do it, so I did. They say, I knew, God told me. Sometimes God also told the spouse, as a validation. Both knew. Both heard.

The one who questions the experience is the one who says he’s in authority, he’s a king, taking away from the egalitarian nature of receiving visions. Some kind of exegesis of an authoritative book is not sufficient for a genuine Christian experience. Obviously there are contradictions, because many have been excommunicated for contradicting the vision of someone in authority, Smith or Brigham Young. The acceptance of a democratic community fine with your receiving your vision or revelation is the level playing field. Revelations aren’t just for the elite few, but for anyone. This is the “antebellum spiritual hothouse” that we still live in.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: Scripture

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Four)