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.