The Verdict: Guilty As Sin...

This doctrine is referred to as the doctrine of "total depravity" by Calvinists and is the first point in the acrostic known as TULIP.

In Latin you say mea culpa or I am to blame: put away the pointing of the finger and the blame game!   We cannot just blame Adam for our sins because, though we are culpable with Adam who stands as the head of our race, we all individually verified and confirm our status in the divine verdict and sinned, because we are born sinners. Psalm 51:4 says, "In sin did my mother conceive me." The theological maxim says: "We are not sinners because we sin, rather we sin because we are sinners." Billy Graham says, "we cannot escape our birthright." Original sin is the name given to the result of the first sin, not to the first sin per se. It is not environmental or societal that we sin but intrinsic to our very nature.  "We didn't cease to be human we ceased to be good," says R. C. Sproul.

 It is commonplace to assume that man is basically good (as humanists believe) but man is basically evil. And this nature permeates his makeup through and through. It is like being pregnant; you cannot be only a little pregnant. If man were basically good, why is sin so prevalent and so universal; wouldn't we see some sinless personages? If it's environmental, how did it get that way? The rub is that we are basically, intrinsically, inherently evil and no part of us escapes the corruption of sin and doesn't have a fallen nature. Our complete soul: intellect, affections, and volition. They say, "nobody's perfect" and "to err is human;" and this is a right diagnosis.

Sin is not peripheral or tangential to our nature but we are totally flawed (note that we are totally depraved, meaning every aspect of us is flawed, but not utterly depraved, meaning as bad as we can be)  by a sin nature, through and through.  We are not as bad as we can be, but as bad off as can be.  There is no sliding scale or grading on the curve even though the run-of-the-mill sinner looks like a saint compared to the likes of Nero or Hitler who are seen as paradigms of evil. Even though some never lose faith in the basic goodness of man, it is not man's estimation of man, but God's estimation of man that counts. We are radically corrupt and totally corrupt, but not utterly corrupt; we are as bad off as we can be but not as bad as we can be. We are degenerated and are degrading to the imago Dei that we have as icons of God. When we expose the dark side (like the moon--and everyone has a dark side) we see that God's diagnosis is correct and we are all found wanting on God's scale of justice.

There is a "catch-22": we don't know how bad we are till we have tried to be good, and we must try to be good to know how bad we are. We all have "feet of clay," says Chuck Swindoll (weak spots as well as our forte, or strong suit). We have gone from creation to corruption, from perfection to rejection. We cannot clean up our acts because Jesus sees through the veneer. Sin permeates the core of our soul and as Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." We cannot do anything apart from Christ's power (John 15:5).

Those who are in flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). "All our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). We must be wooed by the Holy Spirit, we don't come to Christ all on our own--the Spirit draws us!  "No man can come to Me unless the Father grants it..." (John 6:44). "You were dead in trespasses and sin..." (Eph. 2:1). What can a dead man do to please God?  Soli Deo Gloria!

Whatever Became Of Sin?...

The man of few words President Calvin Coolidge was asked by his wife what the preacher preached about: "Sin" Then she asked him what he said: "I think he was against it." I'm not out to get anybody nor do I want a soapbox and I don't have an ax to grind; I simply think sin is not mentioned enough in the church today.

I heard that a renowned preacher doesn't preach on the "divisive" issue of "sin" allegedly because it is such a "killjoy" term. Today we hardly ever hear a preacher denounce sin or preach repentance. Sin doesn't exist in their jargon. Sin is a "taboo" word to some preachers who only want to preach what their church wants to hear. Eminent psychiatrist Dr. Karl Menninger, M.D. wrote a book called Whatever Became of Sin? as it is ignored in the therapy and since it is the root of all problems, it should be encountered. Famous philosopher Albert Camus wrote, "The absurd is sin without God." That means that if there is no God, there is no sin!

Actually, we are all sinners since sin is universal (we say "to err is human" and "nobody's perfect." Original sin is the result of that first sin in the so-called "perfect environment" of the garden of Eden. We must all see ourselves as sinners, even the worst of sinners to be saved: John Bunyan wrote, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners and Paul said that "Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Even Isaiah said, "Woe is me, I am undone...."

Samuel Rutherford said, "The greater sense of sin the less sin." The more sanctified we become the more aware of our shortcomings we become. It is the job of the preacher to take a stand and denounce sin and to intercede corporately for the church. To become Christians we must "renounce" sin and repent of all known sin. We cannot escape our birthright, says Billy Graham, and have a sin nature and even though we are saints, says Martin Luther, we are at the same time sinners (cf. Gal. 12:17).  Sin is the disease and the cause of all problems.

Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4); transgression of the Law; iniquity or deviating from right; trespassing or egoism (putting self first); unbelief (Rom. 14:23--"Whatever is not of faith is sin.") All unrighteousness and wrongdoing is sin (1 John 5:17; Gal. 6:1). Any thought, word, deed, act, omission or desire contrary to the Law of God is a sin. Any want of conformity to or transgression of the moral law is a sin. Sins cannot be labeled "mortal and venial" like Romanists insist, because all sins are mortal in the sense that they separate us from God and no sin is mortal in that it can cut off your salvation. According to Psalm 19:12 there is "unknown sin:" We are responsible for what we know but that doesn't mean we aren't sinning unbeknownst to us. It is only because we have a mind and a will that we are capable of sin; animals cannot be sinners or immoral.

A ""run-of-the-mill sinner looks like a saint compared to Adolf Hitler but can still go to hell--it doesn't matter how deep the water is that we drown in. There are sins of omission like failing to love our brethren; this is falling short of the glory of God or missing the mark and failing to achieve the aim of hitting the diving target. Sins of commission are when God forbids something like lust and we go ahead and do it, willingly or unwillingly, presumptuously or ignorantly.

All sin is against God (David prays, "Against you and you only have I sinned," in Psalm 51:4). Sin can be against our neighbor also according to 1 Kings 8:46. When we sin against God we violate His holiness, when we sin against our fellow man we violate their humanity. When we sin we are not demonstrating our freedom but proving our slavery if we do something unprofitable--"All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable, all things are permissible but I will not be brought under the power of any." (Cf. 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Not all sins are as heinous, or egregious but some are actually an abomination to the Lord and detestable in His sight. Just calling sin "weakness, faults, mistakes, quirks, peccadilloes, etc. is like labeling poison "Essence of Peppermint" and making it more dangerous.

James 4:17 says, "If you don't do what you know is right you have sinned." The only cure from antinomianism or legalism is a knowledge of the Scriptures: "For by the Law is the knowledge of sin (Indeed it is the straightedge of the Law that shows us how crooked we really are.)" We are all culpable before God and to ourselves and to our fellow man and God doesn't punish us for one another's sins (Ezek. 18:4 says, "The soul that sins shall die.") We can be glad that God doesn't deal with us according to our sins or punish us according to our iniquities (Psalm 103:10).

Finally, no matter how we have sinned God is greater and bigger than our failures: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isa. 1:18).   NB:  Karl Menninger defined sin as the refusal of the love of others [and God].  Soli Deo Gloria!

Christian Faith Or Religion?

R. C. Sproul says that Christianity is not a religion but a faith because of the body of knowledge affirmed by its adherents and the virtue of faith exercised by the same in its understanding of redemption. A good definition of faith is cited as follows: Not belief without truth, but trust without reservation. It is said that true faith is not believing despite the evidence, but obeying in spite of the consequences.  The biblical definition, of course, is Heb. 11:11 as follows: "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." You don't have to have all the answers to believe, even a child can accept Christ!

Sproul decries the so-called "blind faith" terminology that some say Christians have. Not knowing why you believe or don't believe is blind faith too.   Actually, salvation is a step into the light, not a leap into the dark. "Faith is the antidote to blindness, not the cause of it" (Sproul). He goes on to say that using that term is an "outrage to God and demeaning to Christians." We don't have faith in faith per se, that is fideism, it's the object of Christ that saves.

I shall begin by affirming what faith is not: It is not head belief (the belief must move 18 inches from the head to the heart), storybook faith or mere assent or acquiescence; it is not lip service; true saving faith is given, not achieved (it is not human accomplishment, but divine achievement); it is not easy- believism or faith without commitment; It is not simplistic, though it is simple enough for a child; it is not childish, though it is childlike; it is not gullibility, superstition (believing something for no reason), or being credulous; it is not believing something you know isn't true (we have sound reasons to believe and God doesn't expect us to believe despite the evidence; it is not solely sincerity, though this is required; it is not faith for its own sake or faith in faith. Expressions like "Keep the faith" are useless if not in the correct object or person. 
  
Faith has many definitions: it is the opposite of sin; it is a choice and an action word that has legs; it is obedience (Bonhoeffer said, "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes."); Faith is one way of looking at repentance; there is not saving faith without genuine repentance (the flip side of the coin, as it were, cf. Acts 20:31); other names for faith are reliance, confidence, trust; we "walk by faith, not by sight."

  We don't need all the answers to believe (and believing doesn't mean you know all the answers-you know the Answerer), just a preponderance of the evidence. There is a surfeit of knowledge available as historical and logical evidence that the honest enquirer can search out. We don't believe despite the evidence; the historical proofs of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence is compelling and would be admissible in a court of law.

Faith is something only humans are capable of since we have the Imago Dei or image of God. We have the intelligence to know God, the emotions to love God, and the volition to obey God; We have this equipment; animals don't and cannot have a relationship with God as we can. They are oblivious to His presence.

Philosophers refer to a "properly basic belief" in that you can experience the love of Christ; as Psalm 34:8, NKJV, says: "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good...." The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

 Billy Graham cites a classic example of faith: A daredevil walked across the Niagara River on a tightrope, then with a wheelbarrow. He asked the on-lookers if they believed he could walk a man in the wheelbarrow across; they said, "Affirmative!" But when he asked for volunteers no one stepped forward (no one had real faith). To put it succinctly, faith is born when we give up (deny ourselves), surrender (to his lordship and will) and commit (to take up our cross to follow him). Many want to be leaders, but we need to be followers first.

Finally, there is a difference between believing in God (even the demons do this) and believing God.  We long for more than a knowledge about God, but a knowledge of Him--to know Him, not just know He's there.  We must believe in the God who is there, and believe in Him as He is.   The latter takes a relationship to fulfill.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Prosperity Theology Or Karma?

This is an age-old complaint: Asaph is appalled at the prosperity of the wicked in Psalm 73. Surely the reward of the wicked is in this life ("...whose reward is in this life...").  The Bible says that the rich and the poor have this in common: The Lord is the maker of them all. To be sure, prosperity is not the sign of God's favor or the litmus test for specific personal blessing--they may just be following the "law of the jungle" and the "survival of the fittest" rule better than the pack.

Some modern-day preachers insist that, if you aren't prospering or aren't in excellent health and successful, that you are out of the will of God or are lacking in faith--like you haven't turned in your spiritual lottery ticket yet. God does indeed bless some of the faithful in all ways even making them rich, and God does indeed bless all believers in some ways--but it is to the discretion of the triune God who gets what blessing.

We live in the "what's-in-it-for- me" gospel or "name-it-and-claim-it preaching where they ask what can God do for them, rather than what we do for Him. This is a spin on Jack Kennedy's speech ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!). Have we forgotten duty to our Creator? They are jumping to conclusions by insisting that God wants all believers to be prosperous (now by whose standard anyway?) and even healthy (we all will die, for instance-it's not cancer that's terminal, it's life (caveat emptor)! Buyer beware!

Watch out for the "prosperity gospel" or even "social gospel", which are misnomers and portray a counterfeit message. If you can't preach this gospel to the starving everywhere it is not the true gospel. They want you to believe that all you need is the right formula, right blessed water, prayer, or faith seed. This is bogus! God promises to meet our legitimate needs and not necessarily our wants. And the reason He meets our needs is so we can do good works (2 Cor. 9:8). Jesus said you will know them by their love (John 13:35), not their prosperity!

Don't store up treasures on earth! Don't rejoice in your 401(k)but in the Lord! I have been told that I'm rich because I don't have any debts and I live in the relative security of income (regardless of how low it is), it meets my needs and gives me enough to give away to God's causes. Being rich (look at the average world income) is only relative and a matter of definition. We are to be spiritually rich--woe to him who is fiscally rich but not spiritually rich.

Now to my thesis: teaching prosperity theology is like teaching karma because you treat God like a soda dispenser or coke machine trying to get what you want out of Him. Press the right buttons, etc. You get the impression that you deserve to be rich because you have sown the seed of faith. Actually, it says in Deut. 8:17-18 that God is the one who makes one prosper and in Isa. 48:17 it says that God leads you in the right ways to riches ("For your own good I teach you and lead you along the right path"). But God also prospers the wicked who play by the rules of God's economy. It also rains on the wicked.

The believers that I know that are prosperous are that way because of good work ethic and wise investments, not because they tithed their way to riches. God is no man's debtor though You cannot out-give God, this is not a ticket to riches (1 Tim. 6:5 says disparagingly that those "...who think that godliness is a means to financial gain" are in error. Karma teaches that you deserve what you get(even from a previous life) and that is contrary to grace and God's blessings. No matter how rich or poor we are, we owe our blessings to God.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Truth with a Capital "T"

"For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, ESV).

As Pilate posed to Jesus, "What is truth?"  He denied any universal truth that could apply--thus denying a God that would necessitate this.  Allan Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind says that today they teach that truth is relative--(e.g., what's true for you may not be right for me) logic dictates that even this statement has no truth value!  A famous philosophy professor told his class, "You can know nothing for certain!"  A student replied, "Are you sure?"  He retorted, "I'm certain."  Contrariwise, there is truth and it is knowable.  Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the  life."  He didn't just tell us the truth--he claimed to be the embodiment or personification of it.

We all have presuppositions that prejudice our take on reality and delineate our worldview--you have to start somewhere  (e.g., is there a God?).  Absolute truth depends on Jesus who came to bear witness of the truth and doesn't ever change--that's why the Bible is apropos to all times and eras.  It never goes out of date or wears out.  It is always relative to all cultures and situations.  Truth is timeless!   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is "Karma?"

I'm getting disgruntled thinking of Christians who believe in "karma."  The law of karma states that there is an accumulation of good and bad karma and that the total net differential is one's karma. This is the belief that bad deeds (there is a causal relationship between deeds and events) catch up to you and you can offset them by good deeds or "good karma."   It is analogous to the business executive with a private jet that plants trees to offset his carbon footprint (his guilt).

Ultimately, it leads to the belief that you are judged by whether your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds to get into heaven. That is to say, some deserve heaven and some don't.

Buddhists and Hindus believe in "karma" and that everyone is an island suffering his own "just dessert."   The Hindus of India have trouble with the lower castes because they think they are getting what they deserve. "If someone is suffering, that's his karma."  Buddha taught that we are all an "island to ourselves."  Remember the disciples asking Jesus "Who sinned, the baby or the parents, that he should be born blind?"   They say, "What goes around, comes around."  During the "killing fields" of Cambodia in the '70s, the Pol Pot and the  Khmer Rouge was torturing 300,000 refugees and it was the Christians that showed mercy, not the Buddhist monks.  You might say they thought they were getting their comeuppance.

I believe in the "Law of the Harvest", and that we reap what we sow, according to Gal. 6:7.   Remember what Hosea said:  "They sow the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind"  (Hos. 8:7).   If we sow to the flesh we will reap destruction, and if we sow to the Spirit we will reap eternal life (our destiny respectively).  There is a way out with the Lord, and that is mercy and grace.  Psalm 103:10 proclaims, "He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities."  That is the essence of Christianity:  We get what we don't deserve (grace) and we don't get what we do deserve (mercy).   I heard one guy say that all he wanted from God was what he deserved!  Well, do I need to point out that we all deserve hell?   Thank God that there is a God of a second (or third, etc.)  chance!  God doesn't keep a record of all our sins to hold against us, but has thrown them to the bottom of the sea and sent them as far away as the east is from the west. (Cf. Mic.7:19; Psalm 103:12.)

The big dilemma is how do you explain the sufferings of Christ and of Job? I have heard it said by a wise man that if we suffer it is so that others won't have to, and if we don't suffer it is because others have.  Thank God for forgiveness and a fresh start;  we can be born again to a new life in Christ no matter we may have botched up our life.   We are all a "work in progress."    "Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of unfailing love, and break up your unplowed ground..."  (Hos. 10:12).   karma is a word that should not be in the believer's conversation, except in disapproval.   In summation:  karma is balderdash and hogwash.  (We have a personal loving God that cares for us individually who knows each of us and has a plan for our lives.)  "He has not dealt with us according to our sins...."  By and large, karma is simply a mechanical, iron-clad law of cause and effect for good and bad deeds and their effects.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Works Imperative?

   

"...Set an example of good works yourself..."  (Tit. 2:7).

 There is a grand distinction between religion and Christianity:  works out of a pure motive and not for applause versus to ingratiate oneself, or to get brownie points with a deity.  Religion says, "Do!" while Christ says, "Done!"  Christians are not "do-gooders" per se but do good deeds because they want to, not because they have to.  The key is not "in order to," but "therefore."  Good works logically follow a changed life, through which Christ lives. Changing lives is Jesus' business and the point of salvation.   In a works religion, you never know how much is enough!

Since salvation is a gift only in Christianity, the person is free to do good out of gratitude.  We don't have to, but want to! Many Americans have fallen prey to the misconception that achieving the "American dream" or "living the good life" is all that is necessary to accomplish salvation; that they have "made it."  God requires perfection and any effort to earn one's way is in vain.  We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone (a living one), in the person and work of Christ alone according to the Reformers.

Some misguided souls subscribe to the credo that since salvation is by grace alone, works aren't necessary or don't follow (but we say grace is necessary and sufficient).  The Reformed doctrine is that salvation is "by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."  Works equaling salvation is the essence of religion; combining works and faith for salvation is legalism.  Faith that produces no works is antinomians, being against the law or lawless.  The prevalent view that faith alone without any evidence (some will say gifts of the Spirit like speaking in tongues) will suffice is erroneous, being initial evidence validates salvation or the filling of the Spirit.  This is known as antinomianism or "no-lordship salvation."

Nota bene: if you don't have good works to "work out" (cf. Phil. 2:12) your salvation is suspect.  The kind of works I am referring to is good deeds not works of the law.  We are not saved by works;  but not without them either--but unto works!  Works (or righteousness) prove faith to self others and God, as well as yourself (cf. Isa. 32:17); but are not the substitute for it.  We must put our faith into action--as James would say, "The faith you have is the faith you show" (cf. James 2:18).

There is no irreconcilable difference between Paul and James; they come from two vantage points:  Paul was dealing with those who couldn't do enough and thought the Law of Moses was necessary;  James was dealing with "do-nothing" libertines.  Paul would say, "I'll show you my works."  James would counter, "I'll show you my faith."  Paul talked about being "rich in faith" (1 Tim. 6:18).  James talked about being "rich in deeds" (James 2:5).  James says, "But someone will say, 'You have faith, I have deeds,' Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do"  (James 2:18).

Faith doesn't have a dormant or inert stage; it can't be left in mothballs! It goes places!  Faith and works are distinguished, but cannot be separated.  Faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26).

Our works will be judged (for reward)  not our faith per Romans 2:6; Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:1  (our faith is a gift according to Rom. 12:3, Acts 14:27; 2 Pet. 1:1, et al.)!  "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10).  "God will repay each person according to what he has done'"  (Rom. 2:6).   Our works have to do with our testimony (Matt. 5:16; Tit. 1:16, 2:14)--"By their works they deny Him."  We are to be a people "zealous of good works" (Tit. 1:16).  We are to be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" and  "are created unto good works" (2 Tim. 3:17; Eph. 2:10).  The faith we have is the faith we have is the faith we show!  Faith must be authenticated by works or it's suspect.

It is important that we give the glory to God (Soli Deo Gloria).   "I venture not to boast of anything but what Christ has accomplished through me" (cf. Rom. 15:18;  Amos 6:13).  Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing."  Isa. 26:12 reads, "All that we have accomplished you have done for us."  The reason God blesses us is so that we can bear fruit (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8).  We are commanded to do good works (Gal. 6:10; Phil. 2:12).   Most of all the importance of it all is summed up:  "Bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God"  (Col. 2:10)--note how they are correlated.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Christians Always Obedient?

God gives His Spirit to those who are obedient! (cf. Acts 5:32).    The point is that believers are obedient to the faith (cf. Acts 6:7, Romans 1:5; 16:26).   Nonbelievers are referred to by Paul as "sons of disobedience." The writer of Hebrews equates unbelief with disobedience in Heb. 3:18. John MacArthur says that faith is only manifested in obedience. Paul referred to the "obedience of faith." Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that only he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes. But Uzziah disobeyed God by offering a sacrifice and God made him a leper. King David disobeyed God by committing adultery and conducting a census. Moses even disobeyed God and was kept from entering the promised land. And so all believers are disobedient in some sense.

But Luther said we are sinners at the same time justified. We obeyed the gospel and are considered obedient. Heb. 5:9 says that God gives eternal salvation to all who "obey" Him. Acts 2:39 says, "He gives the Holy Spirit to all who obey Him." And so, if we are Christians who have salvation and the Holy Spirit; consequently we have already "obeyed Him." We are forgiven of all our sins of omission and commission--if we were remiss God filled in the gap in our stead.

When Jesus says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" He is talking to unbelievers who didn't obey the gospel to repent and believe in it. There are no believers to whom Christ will say this--we don't just call Him Lord, but we have Him as our personal Lord and Savior. There are no such creatures as "carnal Christians" who have not accepted Christ as Lord; nevertheless, there are Christians who are in the flesh and living defeated lives.   CAVEAT:  CHRISTIANS ARE JUSTIFIED SINNERS (CF. GAL. 2:17).     Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Tithing Mandatory?

You will not find a Protestant sermon on tithing until the nineteenth century. The early church Fathers said that Christians don't tithe, they give offerings. The Roman Church, however, taxed its members but this is not the same thing. The interest in tithing began when the church became more evangelical and needed money for missions, which really got jump-started in the 19th century.

Now, most fundamentalist churches preach tithing, though the mainline denominations, by and large, don't. There are some scholars, even today, that preach against tithing as mandatory. However, Congress outlawed mandatory tithing.

Now, why would anyone be against tithing? Firstly, no one can out-give God and the principle of giving an orderly amount that is commensurate with your income still stands. But, and this is an important "but," the tithe was a tax on Israel as a theocratic state to support the temple. They had no choice and it was duly collected. It is parallel to us as we pay our taxes. Sure, God is going to bless the individual who gives selflessly, but not because he thinks he is obligated to.  God is no man's debtor.  "For God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). We are not to give by compulsion or because we "have to"--we should give because we "want to."  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Translations Relevant?

I recently heard a guest preacher--and I admit a good one--say that the King James was the best translation (he has been preaching for 64 years--old school!) and that most of the other translations are not "worth reading." I took umbrage but I listened to his sermon patiently and forgave him for his slight indiscretion. This really got me to thinking, though. When I saw him after the sermon I asked in a civil manner if he could come up with any reason to fault the NIV, a Bible used in my church--no response. I told him I thought the best translation--if you have to pick one--was the ESV; he told me to "enjoy it!" I wouldn't put someone down for enjoying his version, believing it is the best translation, but to say others are not worth reading I don't understand.

I enjoy many translations.  Charles Swindoll says that if you only listen to one preacher you will lose objectivity; I think the same goes for reading just one translation. Subjective judgment based on feelings is not the real reason to be partial to a translation. It is easy to understand that a preacher from Wales would think this though: because you like "Englishisms," or archaic words that are in Elizabethan English doesn't mean it's the best translation even if it's the best English (which is 400 years old this year).

It's good to enjoy your Bible but that doesn't make it the best one. However, bear in mind that having an "Aha!" moment,  inspiration or illumination does not mean your reading the "right" translation; like when neo-orthodox Swiss theologian Karl Barth said the passage "becomes" the Word of God when we have an "existential experience" with it such as: getting goosebumps, chills down your spine, or a warm feeling such as a burning in the bosom like Mormons get from the Book of Mormon to authenticate it. Enjoy the Word of God period; no if's, and's or but's about it,  case closed!

I read several versions and have memorized most of my verses in the New King James Version. I think that you can get "Bible fatigue" by reading too much of one version because the freshness wears out and you may not get the fresh insights and a new take that you can get from an unfamiliar version that might make you think twice. This is especially true when I read my Luther translation into German. If your doctrines depend upon one translation, then you are in trouble; the only "inspired version" is the original (no longer extant) autographs in the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

We have a group of "King James only" people in our church that really said aloud "Amen" when the preacher said this. What about the people of France, and Germany? Do they have an "inspired version" too, or must they learn English? I read Martin Luther's translation from the original languages into Modern High German daily and I think his language is faultless, but even Luther made mistakes. I showed three obvious mistranslations to one of these King James adherents but they are adamant. This kind of stubborn thinking is divisive and counterproductive to a church.

The important thing is that people are reading God's Word--God protects His Word!; when I bought a Bible at Walmart for $5 and one of these adherents asked me what version it was saying, "Too bad, the King James is the "inspired version!" He went on about how it was "authorized" and the "first one." With all due respect, the King James Version was the favorite amongst evangelicals until 1978 when the New International Version replaced it, now there is a resurgence of what seems to be nostalgia and a throwback to the "good old days." Now, don't get me wrong! I think every well-read Christian should be familiar with the King James, especially since it has influenced our culture and language so much--many phrases of our language are right from the King James Version--it is English at its best!

Actually the Wycliffe translation ca. A.D. 1380 was the first in English ( though not modern English),  but Tyndale, a student of Luther, was the "Father of the English Bible,"[the New Testament published in 1525 in Germany because it was illegal in England and the Old in 1535 after Coverdale completed it, not knowing Hebrew--he used Luther's German Old Testament]. The Geneva Bible (first with verses and not to have Gothic letters, the one favored by the Puritans, as a household Bible and used by Shakespeare, d. 1616), the Great Bible, the official pulpit Bible dedicated to King Henry the VIII, whose eyes Tyndale prayed would be opened when he was burned at the stake, and the Bishops Bible, published 1568 for Queen Elizabeth I (revised for the King James and the "official" Bible of the time) preceded it, too. The official didn't mean popular, but it became popular later, and thus we have the King James which used Elizabethan English that had already been out of style just to sound "majestic." (Note that the King James Anglican translators were offended by the Calvinistic Geneva Bible.) Virtually all translations up to modern times have used Tyndale as the starting point directly or indirectly.

I think the NLT, the New Living Translation, popular for new believers, is nearly a paraphrase, but it is still technically a translation--and is an example of "dumbing down" the Bible. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, is the most literal, but difficult to understand figures of speech and idioms. The NIV is an easy read at a low-grade level and translates thought for thought instead of word for word, and it claims to follow the King James where it is accurate, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, such as idioms. It was the work of over one hundred scholars working from the best manuscripts and saw the need for a Bible in contemporary English. The NKJV or New King James Version tries to stay faithful to King James, except for the "Englishisms" and archaic words. Many people who loved the King James will accept this one readily. I recommend the ESV or English Standard Version which claims to be as literal as possible and this version doesn't do your thinking for you or "digest" it before you get to it. The CEV or Contemporary English Version is "user-friendly" for those seeking easy comprehensibility and speedy reading because it is written at the elementary-school reading level; it tries to be "lyrical and lucid" to the listener as well as the reader. I like to compare my Martin Luther translation to see how he translates something--it is very enlightening. The important thing is that you get a translation you can feel comfortable with--and don't judge people by their translations; for instance, the RSV of 1952 and 1971 or the Revised Standard Version, the first modern translation was largely a revision of the King James Version, was published by the National Council of Churches, which is dubious by evangelical standards.

If you want to be accurate and are debating doctrines you have to go to the original languages or trust some scholar of these languages, but when you do that you can be taken advantage of because you're vulnerable, and can be led astray if you're not a Berean who searches the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11).   [My brother tells me a good idea is to read the preface to see what kind of translation the publisher is trying to make and the disclaimers (such as not showing dynamic equivalence or mood word translations like Oh! or Ho! etc.) to note.] Some translations use functional (or thought-for-thought translation) equivalence that is what the author is trying to say in a way we can understand it and others use formal or word-for-word equivalence whereas the translation is more literal to what was written in the original. The goal is to get an experience that the original audience had when reading as a balance of the two--not so literal you can't understand it, and not so paraphrased it does your thinking for you.

A word to wise is sufficient: The King James and the New International Version (International Bible Society) rely on the Masoretic Text as published in the Biblia Hebraica (from a 12th-century copy), but the NIV also consults the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament. The American Standard Version or ASV was a revision of the KJV in 1901. The New American Standard Bible or NASB (from the Lockman Foundation) relies on Nestle's Greek New Testament. The NIV relies on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Texts for the New Testament. Sometimes notes are given such as: other manuscripts read as follows, the best manuscripts read so and so, etc. Sometimes we can go by what the Church Fathers said or quoted, e.g., they never quoted the longer ending of Mark. The newer translations have the advantage of better manuscripts than they had available for the Authorized Version, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and thousands in other translations to compare and see if the veracity of the copyists can be trusted. There is no evidence of the corruption of the text.

Some people are impressed that because 54 translators were commissioned for the Authorized Version that it was the best; actually more translators were used for the NIV, which was international in scope, and the result wasn't affected by sectarian bias,--using many denominations of translators--and the team for the ESV was over 100 different scholars, but the Anglican translators of the King James were subject to bias and didn't like the popular Geneva Bible that was published in Switzerland.

There is a niche market for everyone;
as they say: "to each his own!" The issue is whether we go to the lowest common denominator or try to edify believers. Words are the building blocks of knowledge and to use simplistic language is counterproductive because it compromises doctrine. For instance, the English prof who is a baby believer would not feel handicapped with the KJV while the mature believer who is unsophisticated in reading should probably read the New Living Translation by Tyndale publishers, the NLT, which is trying to stay loyal to the legacy of the Living Bible. To mention a few specialty Bibles: the NET Bible or the New English Translation Bible (lots of interpreters, textual criticism and study notes available at NETBible.org on the internet), the Holman Christian Standard Bible or HCSB (very contemporary translated by 90 scholars representing 20 evangelical denominations under the aegis of the Southern Baptist Convention), The Message is a paraphrase full of very modern, contemporary idioms, the NCV or New Century Version is based on the ICB or International Children's Bible, the NRSV or New Revised Standard Version is for mainline and inter-confessional adults, the NAB or New American Bible is Catholic, the AMP, or the Amplified Bible (good for word study), and the J. B. Phillips, A Translation in Modern English (a classic).

Some translations just try to put it in contemporary English which changes every generation and needs constant updating (the NET re-translates every 5 years). It is good to make an informed decision though and not pick one just because it is a best-seller. One must strike a balance between being completely literal where it is a word for word or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence, that is thought for thought and optimal equivalence, which is a balance of both. There is a trade-off between readability and literal accuracy--nuances of meaning exist. A totally literal translation is not readable (try reading an interlinear Greek text), and a totally readable one is not literal--there must be a compromise. Idioms don't always translate and are misunderstood if translated literally, as anyone who has studied a foreign language will tell you--like jokes that lose something in the translation; some things are untranslatable.

[Paraphrases are translations too but take great liberties with the text, mixing in interpretation with "pseudo-translation."] I think The Message by Eugene Peterson is a valid paraphrase by a true believer, but it is limited as a paraphrase and should be reckoned as just that--you won't even recognize some of the verses. The TLB or The Living Bible by Dr. Kenneth Taylor was the New York Times No. 1 best-seller in 1972 and 1973, but that is also a paraphrase. They may aid in study or give insight, but don't use them for proof-texting.

As for me, I have several Bibles of different translations and don't rely on a certain one as gospel truth and error-free but get edified by them all. I think we should be tolerant of others who favor different translations than the ones we've grown accustomed to. I still know so many verses in the NKJV that when I'm reading another version I can compare the verses. The psalmist said, "O how I love your law!" I really don't know which translation I like the most because I'm too busy reading the various versions and all I know is that I love the Bible, regardless of the version it's the Word of God. [The New Testament writers were often quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation.]

Soli Deo Gloria!
1 comments:

Randy Broberg said...

On target. One minor point is I think the "thought for thought" -- the so-called dynamic equivalence method is still a translation. A paraphrase departs even more from the original. Also, read any translation's forward to see what method it claims to use.

What Is Theology?

Theology is literally the study (ology) of God or Theos using the Greek. It is like a "God-talk." Theology has a bad connotation for some but I hope to clear this up:

I want to make it clear that every believer ought to have at least a working knowledge of basic doctrine and preferably to know the way around the block theologically. There are negative connotations to the word "theology" but it is about a doctrinal credo that we pursue.

Theology is not an "abstract science"  (according to R. C. Sproul, one of America's most influential theologians), like economics with many conflicting schools of thought and interpretation. It is the "queen of the sciences" because it deals with the truth of Jesus who is the embodiment of truth. It is not a fool's errand of speculation, but a revealed knowledge from divine revelation. We could not know God apart from revelation because the finite cannot penetrate the infinite--God must take the initiative because no man can see God and live.

Great preachers are those who have honed their theology to perfection and can then deliver the goods. Every Christian is a theologian, what kind of theologian is open to question. We all have a theology; the question is whether we have sound theology.  Note: You can have sound theology and an unsound life, but you cannot have a sound life without a sound theology.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Appreciating Humility

Humility is something we appreciate in the other guy, just like the virtue of patience. It is not low self-esteem; nor thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less. But as soon as you think you are humble you are not! Phil. 2:5 says, "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus [who humbled himself]." Isaac Watts penned a famous hymn, "When I survey the wondrous cross/On which the Prince of glory died/My richest gain I count as loss/And pour contempt on all my pride."

God is opposed to the proud and gives grace to the humble according to 1 Pet. 5:5 and James 4:6. Isaiah 66:2 says that God will look at the one who is humble. Yes, pride is spiritual B.O. and we must stop making ourselves the center of our universe. John the Baptist said it succinctly, "He must increase, I must decrease." It's ironic that we do appreciate humility in the other guy!   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Good Is ABC Preaching?

Case in point: Some churches are only hearing what "their ears are itching to hear."

Some Christians demean or disparage pastors who preach mainly to the infant Christians and do what you would call preach the basics or "milk" of the word. Christ never spoke above his listeners' comprehension and targeted his audience. Knowing your listeners and audience is key! It is more irresponsible to preach mainly solid food when there are baby believers or lambs that need the milk of the Word. There is something wrong with a wise-guy believer who thinks he knows a lot but has never mastered the basics--this goes for any endeavor.

The mature Christian doesn't get sick of milk just because he can handle solid food or the meat of the Word. "As newborn babies desire the pure milk of the Word..." says 1 Pet. 2:2. The adept pastor aims at his imaginary listeners and feeds them milk and solid food--something for everyone. The mature Christian, it should be noted, is apt to dig into the Word himself and get his own meat. However, we all need the gift of teaching in the church and it was given for a reason: Jesus said, "Feed my lambs;" Feed my sheep." He said sheep twice to make sure that Peter didn't get into a strict milk rut or diet, as it were.

The human body never outgrows its need for milk, a staple in the diet, for nutrition (calcium and vitamins A and D, for instance, and also a good source of protein). Likewise, we never outgrow our need and taste for milk: At the least, we are learning how to feed others milk and share the basics with baby believers--we have to learn and relearn until it is second nature; we can't just say, "O, I've heard of that!" Paul said that he would repeat something and that it was no bother for him and good for them to hear it again (cf. Philippians 3:1).

Now, to be sure, solid food is for those who have their senses trained to discern good and evil according to Hebrews 5:14. Preaching milk only will not feed the adult believers and preaching solid food will go over their heads and discourage the baby believers. A balance must be found, but we must never despise the basics or grow tired of them.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Genuine Repentance Is The Requisite For Salvation

Salvation is a summons to faith and is a turning from sin to God. Some believers refer to their salvation experience as when they repented or forsook sin. Paul says, "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret..." (2 Cor. 7:10). God isn't fooled by mere outward show: He says, "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (Joel 2:13). William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, deplored the rise of salvation without repentance.

Billy Graham says that genuine repentance and saving or true faith go hand in hand and are complementary to each other; faith is like the flip side of the penitent coin. Repentance is a recurring motif in the Bible. Jesus opened His ministry proclaiming, "Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand." One must bring forth the fruits of repentance for it to be real (cf. Matt. 3:8: "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance"). Faith and repentance are linked or coupled by Luke in Acts 20:21, "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul said, "...Repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with [your] repentance."

Repentance is not a one-time act but according to Martin Luther a progressive lifelong event. We never stop repenting. This was the first of Luther's Ninety-FiveTheses.

Repentance is "coming clean" and it is "throwing in the towel." It is more than "eating your humble pie," and it is not a human work but the work of God in the heart. Watchman Nee says, "Our end is God's beginning." We all have to come to our limits or the end of ourselves. 2 Tim. 2:24 says that God "grants" repentance. "Then to the Gentiles God has also granted repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). It is a gift.

It is doing an about-face, doing a 180-degree turn, or making a U-turn. You renounce and repudiate sin--all your sins. Note that is imperative--it is a mandate. It is not simply regretted, feeling sorry, or emotionalism. Attrition is like feeling sorry over the consequences like getting caught. Esau had attrition and regretted what he had done. Contrition is true repentance. "A broken and contrite heart, you will not despise..." (Ps. 51:17).

We are commanded to preach repentance: "And that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations..." (Luke 24:47). "Unless you repent you shall likewise perish," Jesus said in Luke 13:3.

The Greek word metanoia means "afterthought" or to "think after." One must have a complete change of heart: intellect, affection, and will. Our whole being and soul is involved.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Plain Talk on Eternal Security

This doctrine is important because eternal security is linked to the assurance of salvation. These doctrines can be distinguished but not separated. If we don't know whether we will persevere how can we be sure of our salvation? If it were up to us none of us would make it.

Mentioning the phrase eternal security is a no-no to some Arminian believers because they say that those words are not in Scripture. True, but neither is trinity, Bible,  deity of Christ, or Father-God, yet they use these terms. It should be pointed out that this is just semantics because "eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption" are mentioned in the Bible (Heb. 5:9, 9:12). Do you realize that eternal life is a gift that is possessed in time, and eternity? John 5:24 says, "...Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." Logically, if you have eternal life right now, how can it be temporary or end? We are not saved on probation, but permanently. Hebrews 7:25 reads, "He is able to save forever [completely] those who come to God....  

God never disinherits us, and like the analogy of a child to a family, we are in God's family by adoption and that is an everlasting arrangement. Our salvation cannot be forfeited by our bad behavior, because God disciplines His own and if we sin unto death He takes us home, rather than be condemned. True, there are some whose faith is spurious from the beginning, whose seed never took root; they will fall away and leave as it is written and apostatize--their departure manifests their true condition. 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." There are spiritual dropouts but true faith endures.

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints says that we will endure to the end because of God's power to hold us (1 Pet. 1:5 says we are kept by God's power). If we were left to our own strength none of us would endure or persevere. Preservation is a better word than perseverance because God gets the credit and glory.

Looking at the analogies: We cannot be "un-born," "un-adopted," or "un-justified." God doesn't renege on his divine promise as the Supreme Promise Keeper who gave the Holy Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance. Contrary to Romanist doctrine we have continuity in the state of grace and there are no egregious or heinous sins that require penance to get back to the state of grace. If we do sin we have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1 John 2:1; Heb. 7:25). No matter what sin we commit, Jesus intercedes for us. Finally, Rom. 8:30 says it best, "And those whom he called He also justified." This means God loses no one. NO ONE IS LOST IN THE SHUFFLE OF THE GOLDEN CHAIN OF REDEMPTION.     Soli Deo Gloria!

Example Of Two Brothers In Action

The Two Brothers, trans. by Karl W Broberg from Hermann Hesse

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"  (1 John 3:17).

"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"  (1 Tim. 5:8).


Once upon a time, there was a father, who had two sons. The one was beautiful and strong, the other was small and crippled, for that reason the big one despised the small one. This didn't please the younger one at all, and he decided to wander into the wide, wide world. After some time had passed, he met a carrier [Wagoner], and as he asked him where he was going, the carrier said, he must lead his treasures to the dwarfs in a glass mountain. The small brother asked him, what the reward was. He got the answer that the reward would be diamonds. Then the small one wanted all the more to go to the dwarfs. Then he asked the carrier if he believed that the dwarfs would accept him. The carrier said that he didn't know, but he took him with. Finally, they got to the glass mountain, and the overseer of the dwarfs rewarded the carrier richly for his efforts and released him. Then he noticed the small brother and asked him what he wanted. He told him everything. The dwarf said he should only follow him. The dwarf accepted him gladly and lead him to a grand life.

Now we will see about the other brother. It went good at home for him for a long time. But as he became older, he came to the military and had to go to war. He got wounded in his right arm and had to beg. Then the poor guy happened upon the glass mountain and saw a cripple standing there, he didn't suspect that it was his brother. The small bro recognized him at once and asked him what he wished. "O, sir, I am eager and glad for any crumb of bread, I am so hungry!" "Come with me," the small one said, and went into the cave, whose walls were glistening from diamonds. "You can take a handful for yourself if you can bring down the stone without any help," said the cripple. The beggar tried to do it with his one healthy arm, but naturally, he couldn't. Then said the small brother, "Maybe you have a brother, that I would allow to help you." Then the beggar began to cry and said, "Once I had a brother, small and misshapen, like you, but so good-natured and friendly, and I haven't known of him for a long time." Then said the small brother: "I am your brother, you shall suffer no want, remain with me."

Science Owes Christianity...

Science was made possible by the discovery of a rational universe, perceived by a rational mind, using rational modus operandi. Induction, deduction, experimentation, measurement, repeatability, theory and hypothesis make science possible. The Eastern religions don't believe in a rational universe, but in Maya or that the universe is a figment of our imagination and that it isn't really real. It was the Christian worldview of 15th century Europe that really got the scientific method off to its debut. Sir Francis Bacon is considered the "Father of the Scientific Method." All of the early great scientists (Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, et al.) were Christians. In fact, science owes its existence to Christianity. But the ironic thing is that now science seems to be thinking that religion, in general, is the "enemy" and incompatible with the scientific method.

Science is only one avenue to the truth. Some things are not verified by test tube, repetition, measurement or confined to laboratory conditions. E.g., you cannot take a pound of love and a pint of partiality nevertheless we affirm their existence.

All worldviews require presuppositions (propositions that cannot be proved), and so-called "natural science," as opposed to the supernatural, does too. In fact, it takes more faith to believe a naturalistic universe without any intentional design than it does to simply believe in a supreme being. The evidence is in favor of a deity, but people are not willing to take the leap of faith in the direction of the faith because of moral issues, not intellectual problems. They don't believe because they don't want to believe, not because they can't. "Even though he performed many miracles there, they would [not could] not believe in him" (John 12:37).  "The heart of the matter, is that it is a matter of the heart," says Rick Warren.    Soli Deo Gloria!

Common Sense On The Will

There has been debate over the will of man for centuries. Martin Luther debated Erasmus in a diatribe The Bondage of the Will, and Jonathan Edwards wrote the book The Freedom of the Will. Most of the problem lies with semantics because people don't understand the definitions. No one is saying we are automatons, chatty dolls, or robots, so to speak. But Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hands of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." Jer. 10:23 says, "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." Prov. 20:24 says, "A man's steps are from the LORD, how then can man understand his way?" "...Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom. 9:19). There are numerous passages that seem to indicate that God is in control.

There are two kinds of free will. The will to do the divine and to do the mundane or temporal. We have not lost the free will to do a secular activity. We do not have the desire or inclination to choose Christ apart from a work of grace. "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44). Our destiny is ultimately in God's hands and He chose us according to His foreknowledge before the world began. (This refers to the doctrines of election and predestination.) Cf. Rom. 9:16, "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy."

Is His sovereignty limited by man's freedom? The most fanatic Calvinist will admit that man is free to do what he desires to do. God never forces anyone to do anything he doesn't want to do--that would be coercion or determinism. He feels no outside force but God is still able to influence Him to do His will. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13; cf. Col. 1:29; Heb.13:21).

The will is defined as that by which the mind chooses and is the referee, as it were. Finally, Prov. 16:9 says, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." He is "Lord of all."NB:  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL/SPIRITUAL FREEDOM AND MUNDANE FREEDOM.   Soli Deo Gloria!

How Depraved Are We?

Man is depraved through and through, as bad off as he can be, but not as bad as he can be. It is like being pregnant; you can't be a little pregnant. Note that this is God's estimation of man, not man's estimation of man. Sin affects every aspect of our being which means we have a radical corruption or total depravity. Rom. 7:18a says, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh."

I don't mean utter depravity (that we are as bad as we can be), but total depravity (every aspect of our being is spoiled by sin). We all have feet of clay (we all have weaknesses not readily apparent) and can't "clean up our act;" nor ingratiate ourselves to God. We show our solidarity in Adam when we sin--we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. It is not okay to "fudge a little" because we a diabolically alive--we all are like a moon that has a "dark side" no one can see. We may be a run-of-the-mill sinner compared to Hitler and see ourselves as saints in comparison; but Christ is the standard and exemplar, not Hitler.

We are inherently bad, biased to evil, having lost our inclination to good at the fall. Evil permeates our nature and we are defiant volitionally. This is all God's estimation of man, not man's estimation of himself. This is called original sin by some. Augustine of Hippo said we can only do evil (non posse non peccare). But Jesus sees through the veneer and our facade. We are "by nature children of wrath" and enemies of God before we are saved.

We must see how bad we are to be good and we don't know how bad we are till we've tried to be good. There are many verses that support depravity including Jer. 17:9 ("The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?"); Isa. 1:5-6, 64:6; Jer. 13:23; Rom. 8:8; Gen. 6:4-5. The law shows us how we are: "Indeed, it is the straightedge of the law that shows us how crooked we are" (J. B. Phillips trans. of Rom. 3:23).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Do We Need "Big Brother?"

Many people are enraptured with the TV show "Big Brother" and have a negative attitude towards what it represents. I am a big bro myself. I played a roll growing up with three younger siblings that I don't regret. Today many people see the government as a big brother, as it were, interfering in our lives and telling us what to do. When we depend on the government for everything and have forgotten personal responsibility we are using the government as a big brother. Many people today are dependent on the government for welfare, entitlements, and employment. Government is ordained of God and we are to submit unless it contradicts Scripture, and Israel had mandatory welfare set up  (see Deut. 15:4).

God wants us to ultimately trust in Him and not in government--He is our Provider. The best way to acknowledge this is to give thanks and trust him to give us our daily bread. In the Bible, a big brother is called a "kinsman-redeemer" and is an example of someone in the family buying back or redeeming a relative who is a slave or destitute. The book of Ruth shows a kinsman-redeemer marrying Ruth. In analogy, Christ is our kinsman-redeemer. He is our big brother! Everyone is dependent in some sense but don't forget God is the Provider and is only using the government or job, etc., (you don't owe your soul to the company store, as they say).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Heavenly Sports

Some wonder if there will be losers in heaven. There will be no sore losers or bad sports. We won't be depressed if our team loses because we did our best and it was fair and there is nothing to be bitter about. In other words, no bittersweet results. We will be free to enjoy the sport per se and for its own sake, for the love of the game, not just because we won.

We will be in a win-win situation in which we can't lose because what is important is how we play the game and the effort you put forth and what we learned about Jesus and fair play. There are so many things to learn from sports that apply to life. We will be generous in defeat and humble in victory. The old saying that says it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game will ring true. But there will be an honor to whom honor is due and there will be no jealousy to ruin it. Losing a game doesn't make you a loser--a loser is one who gives up and doesn't try. 

I really wonder if hockey can be the same game in heaven because of the violence which would have to be eliminated. And football without being mean-spirited or tough on the opponent physically--but remember we will have resurrection bodies and will not feel pain. Some sports like tennis would not have to be changed because they are inherently non-violent and fair. We would probably have instant replay and there would be no umpire or referee errors to worry about. No one would get kicked out of the game because of tempers. I'm sure there will be sports and games in heaven and the rules will be perfect with nothing to complain about.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You A Sabbatarian?

Sabbatarian is defined as one who religiously and strictly keeps the Sabbath holy (defined as making separate or consecrating to the service of) as unto the Lord per the fourth commandment. There is no hard-and-fast rule as to what a Sabbath should be and Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath--it is His day. According to the law of Moses, breaking the Sabbath was a capital offense. Sabbath doesn't mean "seventh" but "rest." We owe our concept of a weekend to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Going to church every Sunday doesn't make you a Sabbatarian. Deciding that you need one day a week to rest is not being a Sabbatarian unless you keep it holy. Going to the ballgame or mowing your lawn on Sunday is not a violation for non-Sabbatarians.

My pastor has gone to games on Sunday. If you work on Sunday and you're taking another day off does not make you a Sabbatarian. Ministers, who work on Sunday often take Mondays off are by my definition not Sabbatarians. Taking a break is not necessarily keeping the day holy. Jews were forbidden from pursuing "pleasure" on the Sabbath (Isa. 58:13). The principle of "rest" is in effect still and God warns in Hebrews that Israel failed to enter into His rest.

The Sabbath day was given as a sign to Israel ( Neh. 9:14; Ezekiel 20:12,20). Christians are not to be judged as regards a Sabbath (Col. 2:16). The only one of the Ten Commandments or the Decalogue not repeated in the New Testament is the fourth about the Sabbath. The principle of rest still applies but "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). We owe our concept of the weekend to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Christians enter into His rest (Heb. 4:3). Rom. 14:5 makes it clear that we are to be convinced in our own mind and not to judge some who consider one day more sacred than another. To some, all days are equally holy.

Seventh-Day Adventists consider the Sabbath still in effect and insist that this implies that it should be Saturday which the Jews keep holy and that the earliest Christians actually didn't change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday or the Lord's Day as John calls it in Revelation. It is reported in Didache 14:1 that early Christians met on the Lord's day by the end of the first century A.D. We do have a day set aside to worship and gather together to break bread and collect offerings (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. l6:2). This is circumstantial evidence and there is no command in the New Testament to observe the Lord's Day. In conclusion: you have the freedom to be a Sabbatarian or not one if you will, but not to judge others.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is The Bible Anti-gay?

This is a loaded question that assumes that it is alright to be homosexual and you are wrong to judge (the official name for this deviant behavior is homosexual not "gay"). The Bible per se is not against any type of person individually, but warns all sinners to repent and that God has provided a way of salvation for sinners. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and this is what is so offensive to them: they cannot admit they are perverted when the Bible plainly tells us so: (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Lev.18:22, 20:13). Speaking of being against something: Calvin Coolidge heard a sermon and his wife asked him what it was about and he said sin, and when she asked again he said I think he was against it! God is, by definition, against sin, and cannot co-exist with sin any more than matter can exist with anti-matter.

Perverted means this was not the original plan for man. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God meant for sex to be between a man and a woman who were committed in love to each other, i.e. marriage. Otherwise, the kids would grow up insecure and abnormal. It is alleged that boys who grow up without a father image develop deviant behavior or even criminal behavior e.g., Nietzsche and the many blacks in America that grew up with only mothers. Now, I'm not against mothers bringing up children, but God intended for there to be a father figure.

So the Bible is the antidote to sin, as it were; all sin that is, including alcoholism, theft, murder, rape, lying, cheating, etc. Jesus can cure of any addiction or sin problem. "Such were some of you," Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:11. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly define homosexual behavior as wrong, but homosexuals claim they are born that way and therefore cannot help it. Well, a heterosexual was born that way too, and that is no excuse for lust or rape, et cetera.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17). Churches should welcome homosexuals just as any other sinner and show them the love of Christ in forgiveness and cleanliness. Remember how he told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more! We love the sinner but hate the sin! We are not to single out homosexuals and hate them or become homophobic. Amen!  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are We 100 Percent Spiritual?

Everyone has heard of the expression "so spiritually minded and no earthly good." Some Christians talk of their favorite sports team with the enthusiasm that should also belong to the Lord. It is a shame if we cannot praise God with equal zest. Now there is nothing wrong with sports that teaches so many valuable life skills and lessons, but it is not to be an idol or a religion as it were. They say the second biggest religion in the State of Hockey (Minnesota) is hockey. This is not really a compliment.

I believe we will play sports in heaven, though with fair play in all aspects I would add. (No checking or free-for-alls in hockey, but our resurrection bodies won't feel pain. Baseball is a gentleman's sport and I believe we can play it in heaven and we won't be depressed if our team loses--we will praise the Lord anyway!) If we can show great enthusiasm for sports we should also be able to do it for the Lord.

All of our time in heaven won't be occupied with worshiping God per se, though we will praise God continually in what we do, work, leisure or play. There are special angels that spend all their time worshiping God, but we will have duties to do and responsibilities to attend. So don't let anyone tell you not to talk of mundane subjects because they are not "spiritual." "Whatsoever you do, do to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). Brother Lawrence wrote a book Practicing the Presence of God in which he wrote about work being worship and finding God's fellowship in everything you do. Martin Luther taught that work is worship when done to the glory of God.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Friends Of Jesus

Abraham was the "friend of God" so we are grandiose to think we are exclusively the "buddy" of Jesus by the same token. I don't believe in any exclusive thinking for the believer or building of barriers or dichotomies between fellow brethren. Some Christians imagine that they are "buddies" with the Lord. We are servants. Paul calls us doulos or slave. John MacArthur says we are not His "sidekicks." ("Well done good and faithful servant.") Jesus called us all "friends" in the sense that we know His will and what He is doing. We cannot be egotistical in thinking we are above other Christians or a cut above others, because Christianity is egalitarian and we are all one in Christ. There is neither male nor female, et cetera.

If we are not His friends we are His enemies; there is no middle ground. Let's not let it go to our heads that we are all as believers the "friends" of Christ. He said that "Whoever is not with Me is against Me..." (Matt. 12:30). There is no dichotomy of believers whereas some are carnal and non-spiritual and others are mature. We are all works in progress but nevertheless "friends" and "brethren" of the Lord himself.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Science & The Bible Part 2

St. Augustine said that "deep within man there dwells the truth." However, the big lie of the West is that there is no absolute truth--truth with a capital T! If there is no truth, as Pilate thought, then there is no God by inference. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it has no scientific absurdities and where it does say something scientific, like the water cycle, it is accurate. The French Academy of Science in 1861 said that there were 51 "facts" in the Bible that were controverted by the scientific fact--today not one of those scientific facts is believed and so you see that science is a moving train, but the Bible stays the same. It is never outdated. Truth is always relevant.

Theologians like to say that "All truth is God's truth." All religions have an element of truth mixed in with the error. They have just enough truth to be dangerous and religion has just enough reality to vaccinate you from the real thing. Psychology has some truth and Psychiatry has part of the answer and a piece of the puzzle, but the Scripture is sufficient to solve our problems and Jesus not only has the answer but is the Answerer! Christianity is not true because it works, as Lee Strobel says, it works because it is true. TM works for some, but that doesn't mean mantras are good, we should meditate on the Word only.

We all have preconceived ideas that prevent us from being objective--in fact, total objectivity is impossible, except for God. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.,l (professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary) says that the scientific method cannot arrive at absolute truth. (Inference is flawed.) We are all prejudiced and that means "being down on what we're not up on." God gives enough light to see the truth if we can accept it and are looking for it, but he leaves it an open question and doesn't force truth on anyone, leaving enough darkness for people to reject the truth.

If truth could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we would be forced to accept it. If God were proved, then He would be no greater than the mind that proved Him! One needs faith because the "supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason." (Blaise Pascal) The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. "Taste and see that the Lord is good..." (Ps. 34:8).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Science & The Bible...

You know that in the early twentieth-century modernism was the rule and society thought that science had all the answers. Evolution, a scientific tenet of FAITH has infiltrated philosophy and ethics, even justified itself by it. The so-called "survival of the fittest." Today we are in danger of lapsing into "scientism" where we see science as a faith or religion and the ultimate authority.

Some things are out of the REALM of science--like ethics and morality. Specifically, you cannot put God or religion in a test tube and say, "How interesting!" God is neither tangible, visible, nor audible to most of us and there are no laboratory conditions for God--"For without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Heb. 11:6).

The main reason people believe in evolution is that they don't want the consequences of believing in God and that would affect their sexual mores. There is absolutely no proof of it and it can't be proved, but they believe it nevertheless because the only alternative is unpalatable-- theism.

Science can tell us the "know-how" but not the "know-why." To existential and metaphysical questions we must turn to philosophy or religion. Jesus is the answer to the equation and he is also the "Answerer!" To know Christ is to know the truth. He did not just tell us the truth but became the embodiment of truth itself.

We must be careful not to personify science and make it an idol in our search for the truth; anything that comes between us and God is idolatry. We have nothing to fear from the truth. Truth does not go against reason but beyond it. 

St. Augustine said that "deep within man there dwells the truth." However, the big lie of the West is that there is no absolute truth--truth with a capital T! If there is no truth, as Pilate thought, then there is no God by inference. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it has no scientific absurdities and where it does say something scientific, like the water cycle, it is accurate. The French Academy of Science in 1861 said that there were 51 "facts" in the Bible that were controverted by the scientific fact--today not one of those scientific facts is believed and so you see that science is a moving train, but the Bible stays the same. It is never outdated. Truth is always relevant.

Theologians like to say that "All truth is God's truth." All religions have an element of truth mixed in with the error. They have just enough truth to be dangerous and religion has just enough reality to vaccinate you from the real thing. Psychology has some truth and Psychiatry has part of the answer and a piece of the puzzle, but the Scripture is sufficient to solve our problems and Jesus not only has the answer but is the Answerer! Christianity is not true because it works, as Lee Strobel says, it works because it is true. TM works for some, but that doesn't mean mantras are good, we should meditate on the Word only.

We all have preconceived ideas that prevent us from being objective--in fact, total objectivity is impossible, except for God. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.,l (professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary) says that the scientific method cannot arrive at absolute truth. (Inference is flawed.) We are all prejudiced and that means "being down on what we're not up on." God gives enough light to see the truth if we can accept it and are looking for it, but he leaves it an open question and doesn't force truth on anyone, leaving enough darkness for people to reject the truth.

If truth could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we would be forced to accept it. If God were proved, then He would be no greater than the mind that proved Him! One needs faith because the "supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason." (Blaise Pascal) The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. "Taste and see that the Lord is good..." (Ps. 34:8). Soli Deo Gloria!

   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is The Place Of The Law?

The moral code has not been rescinded which is summarized by the Ten Commandments, except for the Sabbath requirement which is a principle more than a legalistic burden (cf. Romans 14:5; Col. 2:16).  The law was made for lawbreakers and rebels according to 1 Tim. 1:9. We obey the law out of gratitude and not out of obligation: because we "want to" not because we "have to." Obedience is a "therefore" not an "in order to." The law is holy, righteous, and good if one uses it righteously. So, we don't have to become somewhat "Jewish" to be good Christians. Judaizers are wrong missing the point and want to burden themselves with the law.

Does the law of Moses serve any purpose today? There were 613 laws in the books of Moses. They were of three classifications: ceremonial (ritual); governmental; and moral. Only the moral laws are still in effect and are fulfilled in the command to love our neighbor as Paul said. "The entire law is summed up in one single command: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14).  We are under a higher law:  the law of love  The law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ as Paul said in Galatians 3:25. "If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law." "Cursed is everyone who relies on the law for righteousness" (Gal. 3:10). Paul said in Rom. 6:14, "...You are not under the law but under grace."

The law has been set aside as a way of life, either justification sanctification, or obedience. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for those who believe" (Rom. 10:4). "For if justification were through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Gal. 2:21). "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming not the realities themselves..." (Heb. 10:1). The law is obsolete for Christ "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and ordinances" (Eph. 2:15) has made it irrelevant to us as a way of life, except for the moral code (it is still wrong to murder, for example).

Our relationship to the law is like a husband and wife and when one dies the other is free from the union. We are free in Christ and shouldn't be yoked again in bondage. The Law adjudicates or declares a man to be a sinner and does not exculpate him or free him from guilt. Only in Christ can we be free even though we say, "Mea Culpa" (I am to blame).

Romans 3:20 says that by the Law is the knowledge of sin. Paul wouldn't have known himself as a sinner unless he heard that he shouldn't covet. It is by the Word of God that the Holy Spirit convicts and it is His job to convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Isaiah 55:11; cf. John 16:8). One law that is not repeated in the New Testament is the Sabbath law (cf. Neh. 9:14). This law was given as a sign (cf. Ezek. 20:20) to Israel that they were His people and comparing Rom. 14:5 and Col. 2:16 we see that this is not commanded or re-instituted in the New Testament. Finally, we serve not in the old written code of the law but in the new way of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 7:6). Watchman Nee said that the day he was delivered from the law was like heaven on earth.

The Formula of Concord (1577), the Lutheran confession of faith, established the so-called three-fold purpose of the law: To reveal sin; to establish decency in the society at large, and to provide a rule of life for the regenerated through faith in Christ. (this is according to R. C. Sproul). On the other end of the spectrum is Martin Luther's Against the Antinomians which refuted those who thought the law had no purpose (literally "against the law"). Sproul says that the law (here the moral law) does not sanction the idea that everyone has the right to do as they please in their own eyes or the right to do wrong just because we are not "under the law."

The law prepares us for grace and if we love Jesus we will do His commandments. "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). The law is a mirror according to Luther that shows us our true selves. The Hebrews, upon receiving the law, didn't pray for mercy but said they would obey it--what a mistake! Legalism is mainly adherence to the letter of the law and exclusion of the spirit of the law according to Sproul. He says, "The antidote to legalism and antinomianism is a serious study of the Word of God."

The law should be used in witnessing because the "law is perfect, converting the soul" (Psalms. 19:7). Billy Graham says that the law is not a panacea but a diagnosis. "It condemns but does not convert, it challenges but does not change." Charles Finney says, "By a convicted sinner, I mean one who feels condemned by the Law of God as a guilty sinner. I remark that this [the Law] is the rule and the only just rule by which the guilt of sin can be measured." Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the sinner."

D. L. Moody says, "God, being a perfect God, had to give a perfect law, and the law was given not to save men, but to measure them...They try to save themselves by trying to keep the law, but it was never meant for men to save themselves by...This, then, is why God gives us the law--to show us ourselves in our true colors." John Wesley says, "The first use of [the Law], without question, is to convince the world of sin." Yes, when He comes He will convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (cf. John 16:8). John Bunyan says, "The man who does not know the nature of the law does not know the nature of sin. The world at large is under the law until they are redeemed from its curse. 

The Law was given to convince us we cannot keep it!     Soli Deo Gloria!

What is Subjectivism?

Just because we have the right to interpret Scripture doesn't mean we have the right to interpret it any way we want to. The obverse of privilege is responsibility--to interpret it right!  Just because we feel something is true doesn't make it so: e.g., not believing in the election because we feel it seems to make God out to be a despot. We cannot fabricate our own truths! We are obliged to cutting it straight so to speak. Quakers believe they should heed the "Inner Light" and Mormons follow "the burning in the bosom." There have been many "mystics" who claim special revelation and new interpretations that only they have been privileged to know.  We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts!

Remember the road to Emmaus: "Were not our hearts burning within us?" Karl Barth said that passage becomes the Word of God when you have an "existential experience" with it. Well, that could subjectively mean anything: Does he mean getting goosebumps, chills down the spine, or "burning in the bosom?" Somehow God can convict us of the truth and speak to our hearts; it is usually different to each individual. Reading into the Scriptures what we want to see is called eisegesis (reading into the Bible), and correct interpretation is called exegesis (reading what's there). Also, we don't interpret it to justify our behavior but to change it!

God can speak through the air vent if He chooses, but He has chosen to primarily speak through His Word. "And the Word of the Lord tried him." "He revealed Himself to Samuel through His Word" (1 Sam. 3:21). "For it is no empty word for you, but your very life" (Deut. 32:47). "Do not My words do good to him whose ways are upright?" (Mic. 2:7). Note that God uses His Word.

Swedish scientist, philosopher, and theologian Emmanuel Swedenborg was a mystic that decided he would eliminate some of the books of the Bible that he didn't "feel" were scriptural. Today we have a sect following his errant teaching. If God is going to reveal the meaning to you He will do it to other members of the body also as confirmation. "For no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..." (2 Pet. 1:21). In summary: Subjectivism is a road to mysticism and we must endeavor to be objective, even though there is no such thing as total objectivity except with God.  Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is The Place Of Doctrine?

That is a loaded question since most people have a preconceived idea of what doctrine is. Doctrine is important; don't bail out theologically (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). We all have a credo; we all have doctrines; some of us just don't have sound doctrine. Usually, they think of something dogmatic or doctrinaire or narrow-minded. They want to avoid doctrine. Actually, if we realize that all doctrine means is "teaching" then half the problem is solved. Who's against teaching?

Doctrine isn't just for intellectuals. You don't commit spiritual or intellectual suicide when you join a ministry or church. You are committing spiritual suicide if you ignore doctrine: It is a given and we are all theologians in a sense. We cannot avoid doctrine: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). "Those who are wayward in spirit shall gain understanding; those who complain will accept instruction [doctrine, as it were]" (cf. Isa. 29:14).

There is value in knowing the scoop, as it were, or being "clued in," because this gives us confidence and these two, according to Charles Swindoll, are like Siamese twins. Doctrine feeds the soul and is the spiritual bread that Christ referred to when He said, "You shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (cf. Matt. 4:4). Just because we are privy to some doctrine doesn't make us a cut above other Christians. " The mere presence of doctrine can leave us cold, even if it is sound doctrine." It is necessary for spiritual wellness but not sufficient.

We don't have the right to believe what we feel is right but must obey rules of hermeneutics and logic that apply to any other book as well. Avoiding controversy is un-Christlike because Christ didn't shy from controversy: "to avoid controversy is to avoid Christ" (see John Stott's book Christ the Controversialist) The early disciples were devoted to the apostles' doctrine or teaching. Remember, God wants us to be "mature in our understanding." Ignorance is not bliss! It is a childish faith that balks at learning Scripture in depth. The meat of the Word is for those who "have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (cf. Heb. 5:14).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Cutting It Straight

We are told to "rightly divide the Word of Truth," which literally means "cutting it straight" or rightly interpreting according to proper hermeneutic principles. I have heard that we should interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament or vice versa. Well, you can sometimes interpret the Old in light of the New and sometimes the reverse. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine and so forth. Examples are Jesus talking about the abomination of desolation and referring to Daniel and about Isaiah talking about the virgin birth and Luke saying Christ fulfilled it. Or Peter saying that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Joel 2.

We have teachers that say, "Where in the New Testament are we told to obey the law?" Is this fair? We are not under the law as it says in Rom. 6:14 (the ceremonial and governmental institutional law) but still must obey the moral code. Morality doesn't change, but Christ said that all the law is fulfilled in loving God and our neighbor. "Love is the fulfillment of the Law." The messianic Jews, though sincere, are plainly wrong, seeking to put themselves under bondage again when they have been set free (cf. Gal. 5:1).

There is the argument that we don't have to obey the sabbath laws because this is the only commandment not repeated in the New Testament. We ought to live in the New Testament and not in the Old Testament. I realize that the only Scripture the early church had was the Old Testament but they also had the prophets and apostles. There are 613 laws in the books of Moses and the only ones that apply to us are repeated in the New Testament. The New Testament is to be looked upon as the fulfillment of the Old. The law does have a purpose: to convict of sin and lead one to Christ. Paul said that if it wasn't for the law to not covet he wouldn't have considered himself a sinner. It is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ says Paul in Galatians.

So, one must be very careful to know the place of the law when interpreting the Scriptures. "For by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20). Or "Indeed, it is by the straight edge of the law that we realize how crooked we really are" (J. B. Phillips).

Christianity was a break from Judaism and not another sect of that religion. Thus the New Testament stands alone as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, just as Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. The Old Testament looks forward to Christ while the New Testament presents Christ. The Old looks forward to Christ and We look back to Christ; the important thing is that we are both looking at Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!