About Me

My photo
I am a born-again Christian, who is Reformed, but also charismatic, spiritually speaking. (I do not speak in tongues, but I believe glossalalia is a bona fide gift not given to all, and not as great as prophecy, for example.) I have several years of college education but only completed a two-year degree. I was raised Lutheran and confirmed, but I didn't "find Christ" until I was in the Army and responded to a Billy Graham crusade in 1973. I was mentored or discipled by the Navigators in the army and upon discharge joined several evangelical, Bible-teaching churches. I was baptized as an infant, but believe in believer baptism, of which I was a partaker after my conversion experience. I believe in the "5 Onlys" of the reformation: sola fide (faith alone); sola Scriptura (Scripture alone); soli Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (to God alone be the glory). I affirm TULIP as defended in the Reformation.. I affirm most of The Westminster Confession of Faith, especially pertaining to Providence.

Monday, April 15, 2019

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. 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 the 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 or 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 "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

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 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 of c. A.D. 1380 was the first in English but Tyndale 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." (Nota bene 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 in modern English, 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 the 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 Randy 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 now Biblica) rely on the Masoretic Text (added vowells) 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 (THE INSERTION OF VOWELS).   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 some 54 or so translators (HAVING OVER 100 ISN'T UNCOMMON BY TODAY'S STANDARDS) 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 NOW THE CSB (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 interconfessional 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 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 not translations and 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 (SELLING OVER 40 MILLION COPIES), 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 one 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

EXAMPLES OF FORMAL OR DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE:  KJV, NKJV, CSB, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, NASB, RSV.  EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE:  NLT, NIV, CEV, CEB, NCV.  EXAMPLES OF PARAPHRASE OR FREEFORM:  THE LIVING BIBLE, THE MESSAGE, GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN.  
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.

Easy-Believism Or Cheap Grace

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, (cf. The Cost of Discipleship) the famous Lutheran Nazi resistor, talked about "cheap grace." Our salvation is free, but it costs everything. "Easy-believism" refers to belief without commitment and lordship. We must accept Christ as the lord of our lives and the center of our being.

Simple acquiescence or agreement is not enough (the Romanists believe that agreement with church dogma constitutes a meritorious faith); one must believe in one's heart and decide to follow Jesus no matter the cost. Jesus said, "Take up your cross, deny yourself and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24).

William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, regretted that the twentieth century would usher in Christianity without Christ and faith without repentance. Your head belief must travel 18 inches to your heart to be heart belief. True faith loves Jesus and is a living relationship with Him.

Repentance is the flip side of faith and goes hand in hand with it. They compliment each other and need each other--they are different viewpoints. We are to leave the fundamentals of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. To get assurance we must examine our hearts and look at the fruit of our lives. The Word of God coupled with the testimony of the Holy Spirit will bring assurance of true faith.

Don't let anyone tell you that it is easy to become a Christian. Sure children can get saved but one must receive it as a child even if one is old. Jesus said to enter at the "narrow gate" for narrow is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life and "few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:14). Many preachers say, "Just believe! It's easy!" but the Holy Spirit must be working in the person's heart to convict them (John 16:8) and draw them to Christ (John 6:44). Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Soli Deo Gloria!

God gets all the glory and we are not the captain of our souls or the master of our fate--our ultimate destiny is in the hands of God. Arminians think this makes God look like a terrible tyrant, but in reality, He is sovereign over all.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Doctrine Of Cognizance

Some evangelical pastors are overly zealous about how people become aware of their salvation and think there must be a dramatic "attestation" experience. "What's your attestation experience"  This is called "initial evidence validation" and some Pentecostal churches say that only speaking in tongues is the evidence of being baptized in the Spirit. But Scripture says, "We were all baptized by one Spirit into the body..." (1 Cor. 12:13). Tongues (glossolalia) are not the only evidence of the filling or baptism: One may prophesy, one may feel great peace and freedom or relief, one may get a thirst for the Word and even a great desire or burden to witness boldly.

I was one of the only persons in the Bible study that couldn't nail down my conversion date--I guess I forgot how important it would be and by the time I was asked I had forgotten. For instance, if you cannot pinpoint your salvation to the day and even time you probably weren't saved. This is balderdash! You don't have to remember the precise moment that the Holy Spirit took up residence. Beth Moore says most of us don't remember the moment the Holy Spirit took up residence.

Charles Spurgeon has written that not all of us become aware of instantaneously, but some over a period of time. Billy Graham says, "We may not know the time the sun rose but we surely know it is up." 2 Peter 1:19 says that there is a time when "the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." We may repent one day and commit our lives to Christ another (I can remember when I repented and when I committed myself).

We may walk forward to no avail and dedicate our lives or renew them many a time before that real "assurance" sticks. Isa. 32:17 correlates assurance with righteousness ("The work of righteousness shall be peace and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever"). In other words, being righteous leads to producing fruit which gives assurance. "Bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God" (Col. 1:10). Nota bene that assurance is not a subjective thing but from the objective Word of God that we rely upon.

Many people think they got saved when they said a sinner's prayer. Actually going through the motions or memorizing the dance of the pious don't save--faith does. The devil can raise his hand, walk an aisle, say a prayer, etc. But can the devil produce the fruit of love for the Lord and good deeds the fruit of repentance (Acts 26:20)? That is like the Roman position that grace comes through the action. It is called ex opere operato.

For instance, they believe that the actual baptizing of infants washes away original sin and he would go to hell if not baptized. True faith is tested by its fruit and we are all fruit inspectors--ourselves first! It is the Word of God coupled with the testimony of the Holy Spirit that gives assurance. "The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Some Reprobate Then?

Jonathan Edwards preached in the 1740s to bring on the Great Awakening: "...Their foot shall slide in due time; the day of their calamity is at hand" (Deut. 32:35). When he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" this was his text.

Reprobate means condemned beforehand. Paul calls them vessels of wrath as opposed to vessels of mercy. It's God's call who we are. Even our niceness is God's gift to us, not our gift to God. God doesn't actively force a person to reject Him or disobey Him--He does it on his own accord. Jean Calvin called this doctrine the "horrible decree." The opposite of reprobation is the doctrine of election which is clearly mentioned in Titus and 1 Peter 2:7-9. I don't believe in double-predestination or that God makes some reject Him--that is called hyper-Calvinism and Calvin didn't believe that. God merely passes over the reprobate to go their own way (preterition).  "To the elect...." If you can prove reprobation which is a doctrine with much consternation like predestination (nobody likes to talk about it), you can by default prove election.

In my view, (doctrine of preterition) God passes over the non-elect and lets them go their own way, but all of us would reject God if He hadn't had worked in our hearts and wills to make us willing to do His will (cf. Phil. 2:13). Compare John 6:44 and 6:65 which says that one cannot come to Jesus unless it has been granted him and the Father draws him (woos him).

Three verses stand out to be brought to our attention.[All verses in NKJV.] Jude 4 says, "For certain men have crept in unnoticed who long ago were marked out for this condemnation...." 1 Peter 2:8 says, "They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which also they were appointed." And finally 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says, "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." These verses are pretty straightforward and don't need commentary

Is not God the potter and we the clay; cannot God do with us as He sees fit, whether for common or for honorable use. How then can God blame us if He chooses? This is the question that Paul anticipates in Romans 9:19, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'" If you can answer this you deserve a doctorate in theology. Nota bene that Paul knew ahead of time that people would wonder about election and try to reconcile it with free will. The fact is, is that we cannot resist God's will--He always gets His way.  Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is Theology?

Theology is literally the study 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'm writing this because every believer ought to know his way around the block theologically and not be an ignoramus, but have a working knowledge of basic doctrine or credo.

Theology is not an abstract science like economics with many conflicting schools of thought and interpretation. It is the "Queen of 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. You can have a sound theology and an unsound life, but you cannot have a sound life without a sound theology.

In sum, everyone has a theology and you cannot avoid it.  The question is how good and sound it is because we cannot have a sound life without sound theology, though sound theology doesn't guarantee sound life and spirituality.  
  Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Faith A Gift?

Is faith a gift or a work? "Who makes you to differ? What do you have that you didn't receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). Are we not clay in the hands of the potter? "For it has been granted unto you...to believe..." (Phil. 1:29). Jesus is the "author and finisher of our faith;" hence He originated it. Let us live according to "the faith God has distributed to each [of us]..." (Rom. 12:3).

Some believe it is a meritorious work because they believe in merit plus grace and not sola gratia or grace alone as the reformers championed. "This is the work of God [not our work] that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God [antecedent is faith as the gift], lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). If faith were a work then we would be saved by works.

Faith is not our salvation and faith is not reckoned as righteousness but unto righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 translation of dia meaning unto). Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation (cf. Acts 18:27; 16:14), and we don't put faith in faith but in God. Faith doesn't' save, Christ does! God opened the door of faith to the Gentiles in Acts 14:27, and He opened Lydia's heart to believe in Acts 16:14. It might be interpreted as God quickening faith within us (cf. Acts 18:27). The Spirit kindles faith in a dead person.

Why is this important? 1 John 5:1 says that "Everyone who believes that Christ is the Christ has been born of God [ESV]." That means that regeneration precedes faith--we don't conjure up faith and then get saved. If we could believe without regeneration, we don't need it to be saved and we would get some merit in our salvation. God gives us faith and expects us to use it. It is our faith but it is the gift of God. "Who believed through grace" means that we're enabled by God to believe as 2 Pet. 1:1 says, we have "received a precious faith like theirs." "... [B]ecause God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13, KJV). [NB: sanctification precedes belief.]

Thus we are given faith. This doctrine is important so that we don't have a merit-based rather than grace-based salvation. God wants all the glory (Soli Deo Gloria). To sum up, "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17).ail This Soli Deo Gloria!

Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into modern English). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament.

Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation).

The "Englishisms" in the KJV are hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.

In short, the best translation for you is the one you will read or that God connects with you in.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Error Of Sabbatarianism

I was almost caught up in the Seventh-day Adventist movement as a teen; however, I was able to study the Scriptures and disprove their legalism. Ever since I have been grace-oriented when it comes to observing the Sabbath. Warren W. Wiersbe mentions that nowhere in the New Testament are believers told to observe the Sabbath--it is the only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament. To me, every day is holy unto the Lord and I don't see a need to just have one day set aside. There is a reason that they called the Christian Sabbath the Lord's Day. (John said, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.")

The Bible says that to some every day is alike--and to others, they feel compelled to set aside one day a week (cf. Romans 14:4-5; Col. 2:16). Actually, the Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign of His covenant forever (cf. Ex. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12,20). Once you realize that you are not under the law, but under grace, you will be free to dedicate every day to the Lord.

The principle of rest is still in effect, but there is no sin in working on Sunday, for example. It was because of unbelief and disobedience that the people of Israel failed to enter into His rest. "He leads me beside the still waters/ He restores my soul." [So if you don't get your needed rest, God may give it to you anyway.] "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man" (Mark 2:27).

Clearly, there is no "hard-and-fast rule for the Sabbath, if you do decide to practice it as a principle of the Word. "My presence will go with you and I will give you REST." The Christian is fulfilling the spirit of the Sabbath by worshiping one day a week and not forsaking the assembling together of the brethren, as is the manner of some (Heb. 10:25). The Christian enters into a permanent Sabbath that the Jews were unable to attain, because of disobedience.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Error Of Churchianity

Some Christians "play" church and go through the motions of worship and never go for the right reason--to worship God--they say, "I didn't get much out of worship today!" (maybe they should concentrate on what they put into it). God condemns us for having worship without our heart in it or hypocritical worship, this is just "memorizing the dance of the pious." A real hypocrite (hypocrite means wearing a mask, or acting in a play) is not one who falls short of his ideals, but one who uses religion as a cover-up and knows he is insincere.

The theme of Psalms is Ps. 29:2, "Ascribe the Lord the glory due to His name, worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness." Deut. 17 condemns insincere and dishonest worship or sacrifice. Amaziah (cf. 2 Chron. 25:2) was known for doing the will of the Lord, but not with a true heart.

Someone has said that there are 4 persons that we show: The one God sees; the one you see; the one the world sees; and the one your intimate friends see. Let's be careful not to just have a "public persona" and parade our spirituality or piety. Worship should be a delight and our feelings should be in it (or we are blaspheming God--like doing it as a "duty" not because we want to) as the command "Delight yourself in the Lord..." says. In summary: Psa. 84:1 says, "My soul longs, even faints, for the courts of the Lord" and Psa. 122:1 says, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the house of the Lord.'"

We can worship or be edified in a "crowd," but we need to function in a local body of believers with our spiritual gift. Rick Warren says that there is no "one-size-fits-all" for worship and there are many ways to worship. He says we believe, we belong, we become. We are to be committed to our church as a token of our commitment to Christ--they go hand in hand--and then we will grow and be accountable.

I can't stand the legalistic crowd that goes to church thinking that will make them a Christian, like going into a garage will make you a car, or eating a donut will make you a cop. They are called the "nod-to-God" crowd, that thinks it is fulfilling its obligation by a short visit to the local church, just out of guilt. The true Christian wants to worship God and wants to fellowship with other believers with whom he is a "fellow in the same ship."

I think some megachurches miss the boat in worship, you just don't hear people say, "Amen" to the preacher (where is the worship in the Spirit and in the truth?). But different people are at different stages and God has a purpose for their existence--mega-churches aren't where I'm at, because I want to know my pastor personally, not just from afar.

Some think their religious performance is enough to save them. To some, it's only a formality and not a relationship. John MacArthur says, "We can't enter through our religious emotion or our sanctified feelings...Lip service is no good--there must be obedience...You don't get into the kingdom by sincerity, by religiosity, by reformation, by kindness, by service to the church, not even by simply naming the name of Christ; you get there only by personal trust and faith in [the person and work of] Christ." We can have a form of godliness and be empty. The church at Sardis had a reputation that it was alive, yet it was dead (see Rev. 3:1). We can even have "sanctimonious emotions" and not know Christ. There is a difference between knowing the Word and knowing the Author of the Word.

We can have many experiences in church and everyone has a different one, but I believe we should test our experiences by the Word of God and not the Word of God by our experiences. That's an important concept--we are not to become either rationalists nor empiricists (going by reason or experience only), but belief in the Bible (revelation) and sound teaching.

The more we learn the more we realize where the wiggle room is and what is not worth fighting about. We are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Sectarianism is a sin according to 1 Cor. 1, and we shouldn't divide into factions if we can help it.  As Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Gift Of Faith

This is an issue that separates theologians and some call it a doctrine that divides. If you believe faith is a work, then you are saved by works. If you believe faith is a gift, then you are saved by the grace of God. Titus 3:5,7 says we are "saved by grace." Faith is not something we conjure up, but it is bestowed on us through the preaching of the Word. "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). Regeneration actually precedes faith according to John Piper and John Orr. If we could believe without regeneration, what good is it? The Spirit is like the wind that blows where it wills. "For by grace are you saved by faith, and that (the complete deal) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." (Eph. 2:8-9).

We don't psych ourselves up for faith, and we don't catch it like an illness from others, we don't conjure it up--it comes directly from the Holy Spirit who quickens faith within us. He overcomes our hardened heart and reluctance to believe. God has the ability to cause us to do something willingly in His omnipotence. Some, on the other hand, have made faith into a meritorious work, and denies that there is any such "gift." What else could it be, a work? Are we saved by grace or works, then?

Some pertinent verses are as follows for meditation:

"For you have believed through grace..." (Acts 18:27). "...To those who have obtained like precious faith..." (2 Pet. 1:1). "For it has been granted unto you ... to believe in Him..." (Phil. 1:29). "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN born of God..." (1 John 5:1 ESV). Nota bene that this is the past tense indicating that regeneration precedes faith. "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him..." (John 6:29). "God ... opened the door of faith to the Gentiles..." (Acts 14:27). "God opened Lydia's heart to pay attention to Paul..." (Acts 16:14). "What do you have that you didn't receive?"
(1 Cor. 4:7).

Faith is our act (God doesn't have faith), but it is God's work. Soli Deo Gloria. God gets all the glory, and we have nothing to boast of. It isn't our virtue nor our wisdom, but God's. God is no man's debtor and isn't obligated to save anyone. It is grace that He saves anyone. God works all things "according to the pleasure of His will." "We are the clay, He is the potter" (See Isaiah 64:8).lSoli Deo Gloria!