The Romans Road — Anglican Edition
After 35 years of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of England, the groundwork is being laid for re-uniting both religious bodies under the pope. Yes, you read that correctly. The original and largest expression of the historic Reformation in England is undoing the work that had been done. Since the theology of the Reformation was largely abandoned by the Anglican Church up to at least a hundred years ago, it only makes sense that Romanism would rush back in to fill the void. After all, what’s the point of remaining separate from the apostate Roman Catholic Church if you’ve already apostatized from the biblical “Apostolic Succession” which is maintained by “continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)?
Read, “Anglicans, Catholics Discuss Unity,” from CNN.com.
And then read “Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion” for more information from the Roman Catholic side.
And here is what the Anglicans have to say for themselves . . . “Statement from the Co-chairs of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, on Anglican – Roman Catholic relations”
Dear Bloggers, You’ve Got a “Llove” Letter!
Check out my pastor’s new website! www.lloveletters.com. Notice that he’s got a book for sale, too!
Blogging under the identity of “Christian West,” my pastor will be regularly attempting to encourage believers who read his blog to “excercise the Disciplines of Llove.” Click here to read his first post on his blog. . .Failure Is Underrated.
From Rasict Ruckmanism to Reformed Theology
I just saw a great Day of Discovery program on television. The month of February is Black History Month. This month was selected because it contains the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. I’ve been noticing that Day of Discovery has been observing this by airing several of their programs which feature the contributions of great Christian African-Americans in American history, many of which I’ve seen in the past. This weekend, however, they kicked off a three-part series called Africa & the Bible. I got really excited about the first one, The Myth of a Cursed Race (at this link, you can watch the video online!). Part of the introduction of this video on the Radio Bible Class website reads, “Are all races created equal in God’s eyes? Down through the ages, some people have viewed those with darker skin as somehow less human—using skin color as an excuse to enslave and marginalize people.”
The reason I found this program so exciting was the fact that, in the past, during my sojourn in the worldview of “Ruckmanism,” I was taught this view that is among the historic blemishes that tarnishes the reputation of Christianity, along with such low points as the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. The view espoused by Europeans and Americans to justify the forced slavery of generations of Africans did not originate in the turmoil which led to the American Civil War, but is centuries old, and is ingrained in the thinking of many in some form or other, to this day.
There are three books by Peter Ruckman in which he perpetuates this harmful interpretation of Genesis 9:20-28, which has been used to subjugate and generally look down on the African race. Their titles are, Segregation or Integration, Discrimination: The Key to Sanity, and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Not that I recommend your buying these books, but for your information, these titles may be found at Peter Ruckman’s PDF bookstore catalog.
Segregation or Integration is found on page 15 of the 16 page PDF file; Discrimination: The Key to Sanity is listed on page 9; and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series is on page 1. These writings by Peter Ruckman persuade many of his readers to adopt a racist worldview in relation to the African race. I was persuaded to believe it for a while. I was persuaded to believe it, not because I have any animosity toward black people from my own experience, I was persuaded to believe it because I wanted to believe that Peter Ruckman was a great Bible teacher. Many of his readers adopt this racist view out of a similar motivation. They’re not bad people. They are misled people.
I am thankful that before I adopted the extreme views of Ruckman, I had had enough exposure to the greater evangelical world and its way of thinking that as I forced myself to subscribe to Ruckman’s bankrupt views, I was always aware of the evangelical views, or at least attitudes, which highlighted to various degrees, the holes in his teachings. Luther once wrote that “reason is a whore,” being able to serve whatever purpose you want. For a period of a few long years, I prostituted my mind to this tragic worldview called “Ruckmanism.”
But my mind had a prior commitment to learning the truth. In my late teen years, back when I was considering the claims of charismatic theology, I determined that before I run off willy-nilly from the Independent, Fundamental Baptist tradition in which I was raised, I would first learn exactly what it is that the IFB tradition teaches, and only if they are in error, will I ever leave the tradition in which God had me raised. As I read and thought, I came to the conclusion that the strain of teaching I need to follow is whatever is the most conservative Baptist teaching that I can find. So as I began my journey toward the “right,” eventually I found myself dangling by my fingernails from the lunatic fringe clutching the writings of Peter Ruckman under my other arm. Because I considered Ruckman one of the most “conservative” writers I’d ever read, I figured his were the views I needed to adopt. So, I began the process of assimilation.
I sincerely thought I was learning the truth. I sincerely wanted to believe that I was learning the truth. But even though I wanted to believe the views of this “most conservative” of Baptist teachers, the much more reasonable views of the greater evangelical world always haunted me–the kind that respected the King James Version, but had more confidence in the modern, critical, eclectic text of Scripture; the kind who confessed (whether in a creedal, or non-creedal way) “one holy catholic (universal) church,” as opposed to my “local church only” theology; the kind who thought Martin Luther King, Jr., was a genuine American hero, rather than merely an adulterous, communist-sympathizer who wanted to unleash a dangerous “jungle culture” on this Christian nation.
By God’s grace, as time progressed, and I continued to search for the truth, the holes in Ruckman’s teachings grew and grew, until one day I had to admit to myself, “You know, if I were honest, I’d half to admit that I simply don’t believe this stuff anymore.” In fact, I can tell you the exact spot where I stood when I was finally willing to have this thought. I was mixing ink at the Reformation Station (my nickname for the print shop at which I used to work with my friend, Gage Browning, but this was before he was hired), listening to R. C. Sproul on my Walkman teaching about the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. This was the moment when enough light had pierced the dark views of Ruckmanism that I began the process of genuine Reformation.
This is the reason I found Day of Discovery’s program, Africa & the Bible, part one: The Myth of A Cursed Race such an exciting and enlightening program. I highly recommend it. In fact, I’m about to go back to RBC’s website and offer my “gift of any amount” to their ministry, so that they can thank me for my support of their ministry with the gift of this three part series. I’m sure someday in the future I will be able to share it with others in my future teaching ministry at church. And then at or around February 23, I’m going to the theater to view Amazing Grace, the film about William Wilberforce’s successful efforts to abolish slavery in England two hundred years ago.
When Bad Church Government is Combined with Bad Church Leaders
My friend, Gage Browning, frequently repeats to me what he heard from an experienced man of God, whose name currently slips my mind. If I were to guess, it was probably a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary under whom his father, Dr. Thomas R. Browning, studied. But that’s just a guess. The quote goes something like this: “Bad church government run by good people is better than good church government run by bad people.”
Anyway, I tell you this to introduce to you what happens when bad government is combined with bad people. It can cause some serious damage. Take a look at Dr. Kim Ribblebarger’s weblog, The Riddleblog to find out the gory details, and the prescription for Reform.
Are Calvinists Treating Arminians Fairly? You Be The Judge!
“I have never studied Arminian[-ism], but I sense that he [Jacob Hermann, aka, Jacobus Arminius] has been much maligned by Reform[-ed] theologians because of their intractable insistence on all things Calvinistic. Shame on them.”
–Al Dager
Media Spotlight
These words of Al’s made me think to see what I could find in the words of those who admit they are Arminians, so we can see whether we Calvinists unfairly malign them. A good place to start, I guess, would be the Five Articles of Remonstrance, since this is what the Synod of Dort responded to, framing for all time the original form of the whole ongoing Calvinist/Arminian debate.
Article I – That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Article II – That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.
And here’s a link to Wikipedia’s general entry on Arminianism.
Hope this helps Al Dager, and all of you other professed not-Calvinist-but-not-Arminian-either believers!
Al Dager Responds!
I communicated with Al Dager, just so I would not be talking about him behind his back. Understandably, he is apparently not motivated to engage in dialogue in the comments thread. I’m sure he’s a busy man, and not disposed to this whole blogging thing. Most of my readers aren’t. But that’s okay. I am posting Al Dager’s email to me so that in this way you get to see what he has to say in his own defense.
Dear John,
Just to let you know, I am not Arminian or Pentecostal. Because one believes that the gifts of the Spirit are still operative does not make one a Pentecostal. Pentecostals focus on the gift of tongues, particularly as evidence of one’s salvation. You should know better. I have never studied Arminian, but I sense that he has been much maligned byReform theologians because of their intractable insistence on all things Calvinistic. Shame on them. I’ve done my in-depth study on the issue of eternal security and have found nothing you or anyone else has said to be viable from a biblical perspective to refute it. Continue believing as you wish. Rots-a-ruck wit dat.
In Jesus’ love,
Al
Dager’s Critique of the TULIP
Media Spotlight editor, Al Dager, in his report, “Eternal Security: What Hath Calvin Wrought?” attempts to criticize the five points of Calvinism, but generally does a pretty bad job of it.
Dager first attempts to correct the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity by writing, ” . . . This doctrine posits that man is so depraved that he doesn’t even have the ability to believe truth except that God first regenerate his spirit and then infuse the truth into him. This, Calvin got from Augustine, the most revered theologian of Romanism. But what does Scripture say?In his parable of the sower, Jesus alluded to the possiblility that some men may have good hearts:But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. (Luke 8:15)
Dager first attempts to correct the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity by writing, ” . . . This doctrine posits that man is so depraved that he doesn’t even have the ability to believe truth except that God first regenerate his spirit and then infuse the truth into him. This, Calvin got from Augustine, the most revered theologian of Romanism. But what does Scripture say?In his parable of the sower, Jesus alluded to the possiblility that some men may have good hearts:But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. (Luke 8:15)
This verse does not deny the Spirit’s sovereign work of sanctifying the heart (1 Peter 1:2), enabling it to hear and keep the word, bearing fruit with patience. Notice how clearly the element of perseverance is featured, though, in the reference to “with patience.”
Dager continues:
Dager continues:
It is true that all men are born in sin. But that does not mean that man created in the image of God, does not retain a sense of right and wrong. Certainly there are Scriptures that allude to the evilness of man. But there are some that apeal to man’s conscience. And there are none which state categorically that fallen men cannot choose right when convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Firstly, Total Depravity does not deny man’s conscience, or sense of right and wrong; Total Depravity teaches that all that fallen man does is sin before God, regardless of its relative benefit or harm done to others, which condition extends to his unwillingness and inablility (Romans 8:7) to respond favorably to Christ freely offered in the gospel. Secondly, it is convenient to demand a proof text that “states categorically” that which he refuses to acknowledge on the basis of valid inference and the analogy of Scripture. But compare Hebrews 12:17, which, although it refers to the Old Testament narrative in which Esau, having been denied the patriarchal blessing and inheritance, weeps bitterly and fails to persuade his father, Isaac, to change his mind and grant it to him after all, the author of Hebrews, when one considers the context, seems by means of a play on words or some clever turn of phrase, to apply the reference to Esau’s inability to repent of his own previous rejection of the patriarchal inheritance, in accordance with his preordained reprobation (Romans 9:12-13). Such tears of Esau reflect Paul’s reference to the “worldly grief which produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:9). So, we see, Esau’s conscience was intact, utilizing his God-given sense of right and wrong, yet he fell short of the ability to actually repent in his totally depraved condition, in which God, in his wisdom, purposed not to graciously intervene.
Turning to Unconditional Election, Dager “categorically” asserts, “This is a term not found in Scripture, but coined as a means to explain Calvinism’s belief that no man can choose God . . . ” Does Dager deny the Trinity? The word “Trinity” isn’t found in Scripture either. But the doctrine is. In the same way, though the term “unconditional election” was not written in the Greek New Testament autographa, nor has it been coined to dynamically translate any parallel words, the concept is clearly revealed in the most detailed passage which teaches us about God’s sovereign, unconditional election. The reference is Romans 9:11. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad (unconditional)–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works (again, unconditional) but because of his call–” Paul in this verse, sandwiches the word election with two parallel phrases emphasizing the unconditional nature of his election.
Though Calvinists certainly limit the numerical extent of the atoning death of Christ, Arminians like Al Dager unwittingly limit the effect of it. Calvinistic theology affirms that Christ’s death actually saved sinners, going beyond merely making men savable. Al Dager holds up the typical proof text that he thinks denies the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
Limited Atonement This tenet posits that Jesus’ shed blood is efficacious only for those whom God has chosen; it was not shed for the sins of the whole world. This is contrary to 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The Calvinist says this means only the whole world of believers. I will deal with this also later. Suffice it to say that John distinguishes between “us” (including himself) and “the whole world.”
Since Biblically, Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice actually turned God’s wrath away from those for whom Christ died, if the words “whole world” mean every individual ever born, then this text teaches universal salvation. Neither Dager nor myself would affirm this doctrine. But this is the interpretation of this text if “whole world” really refers to every individual in the history of the world. Rather than limit the efficacy of Christ’s propitiation for us, it is more theologically sound to look for a less erroneous sense for the term, “the whole world.” May we allow Paul’s words to shed light on this? In Romans 9:24, the Apostle to “the whole world,” the Gentiles, writes, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” This wording demonstrates that it is not erroneous to see Scripture as repeatedly distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles in terms such as are written in 1 John 2:2.
The way Al Dager deals with irresistable grace is kind of funny. It seems to me that it would fit better as a challenge to Perseverance of the Saints. He swiftly passes by the activity actually described by irresistable grace to deal with what comes after one receives God’s irresistable grace. I’ll cite the entire short passage:
Again, Augustine’s influence is seen in this aspect of Calvin’s TULIP. It posits that God’s grace is irresistible to those who are the elect. They cannot refuse to believe (here’s the only description of the doctrine in this paragraph!) and to act with purity of motive and practice. But if this were absolutely true, then it would be impossible for the elect to sin. This, Calvinists will not go so far to say, but they will say that it is impossible for the elect to continue in sin. God’s grace won’t allow it. Yet if God won’t allow His elect to continue in sin, why would He allow us to sin at all? The Calvinist concept of God’s sovereignty negates man’s will, thus making God the author of sin.
You see? After giving a brief, incomplete, yet typically cynical presentation of the definition of irresistible grace, he moves on to talk about the fact that Calvinists believe that God’s sovereignty ensures that those he saves will not “continue in sin.” He then accuses God of being the author of sin because, even though he has the power of keeping the elect from continuing in sin, he stops short of sovereignly preventing sin in the first place. But Scripture teaches at one and the same time that while he that sins is a slave to sin, God does not tempt sinners to sin. Calvinism affirms with Scripture that sinners are enslaved by sin, and also denies with Scripture that God is the author of sin. This is the art and science of biblical hermeneutics. Being able to include two seemingly opposing concepts without philosophizing an explanation for it, or for denying one concept in favor of the other. They are concurrently true, although all the details remain unrevealed to us. This is how Calvinism understands Scripture correctly , and how non-Calvinist systems, get off track.
Al Dager’s Opinion of the TULIP
One of the recent Arminian efforts to counteract the resurgence of Reformed theology among fundamentalists and evangelicals comes on the heels of Dave Hunt’s feeble efforts, by Albert James Dager, of Media Spotlight, a fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Arminian “discernment” ministry newsletter on which I cut my theological teeth. I’ve come a long way, Baby! I was amused to discover yesterday that my beloved Brother Dager has dealt at length with the doctrine nowadays labelled, “Eternal Security.” What amused me about it was that, now that I’m a Calvinist, I get to see how Al Dager deals with the fact that John Calvin once walked the face of the earth. While I was amused, at the same time I was interested by the fact that his reason for dealing with Calvin was because he at least recognizes that eternal security is a modern version of the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. I was fascinated as I was reforming to notice how that the Independent Baptist Articles of Faith to which I had subscribed over the years, all contained an article under the title “Perseverance of the Saints.” I had always experienced Baptists teaching “once saved, always saved,” which seems to stray from their formal doctrinal standard in that what they preached more often resembled the easy-believism of Zane Hodges and the so-called “Free Grace” theologians, which contends that a professing believer can even fall away from the faith and work against Christianity to his grave and yet go to heaven anyway. Realizing that all modern Baptists (probably even the Free Willers) used to be Calvinists, it struck me just how little the Baptists, at least that I associated with, were regulated by their formal doctrinal standards.
I’m in the process of going through Al Dager’s Media Spotlight report, “Eternal Security: What Hath Calvin Wrought?” and I’ll try to post on an issue raised for some of my next several posts. To kick things off, let’s examine how he treats the idea of describing the doctrines of grace by the acronym, TULIP:
Calvinism’s doctrines related to Grace have been conveniently categorized into the English acronym, TULIP. These letters stand for the pillars of
Calvinism’s theology of man’s relation to God. Total Depravity of Man It would be more correct to head the acronym with a “D” since “depravity” is the primary noun, and “total” is an adjective that describes the noun. This applies to almost all the elements of this acronym which would be more accurately stated as DEAGP. But religious men, being what they are, like to make things neat for us so that we unlearned can more easily understand, and thus embrace, their theological systems.
Calvinism’s theology of man’s relation to God. Total Depravity of Man It would be more correct to head the acronym with a “D” since “depravity” is the primary noun, and “total” is an adjective that describes the noun. This applies to almost all the elements of this acronym which would be more accurately stated as DEAGP. But religious men, being what they are, like to make things neat for us so that we unlearned can more easily understand, and thus embrace, their theological systems.
It’s caustic comments like this last sentence that motivated me to call myself, “Captain Headknowledge.” They so despise sound scholarship when it comes to spiritual things, that they have to hold up those of us who respect it as whipping boys and spit at us like we think we’re better than they are. But it’s commitment to sound scholarship that does a better job of preserving orthodoxy than does glamorizing “Spirit-led” ignorance.
But as for his opinion of TULIP, I submit that it is “more accurately” labeled by the adjectives because the adjectives describe the distinctively Pauline, Augustinian, Calvinistic nature of each doctrine.
Everyone knows man is depraved, but Calvinists differ with others on the extent of man’s depravity; Calvinism confesses that the Bible teaches that man is so depraved that he not only will not be subject to God’s law, but cannot be (Romans 8:7).
Everyone agrees that God elects certain people to be saved, but Calvinism confesses that Scripture reveals the unconditional nature of his election of sinners (Romans 9:11).
Everyone agrees that Christ atoned for sin, but Calvinists confess the Scriptural extent (Ephesians 5:25) and effectuality (Hebrews 9:12) of his atonement.
Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit is at work when a sinner is converted, but Calvinists confess the biblical doctrine that the sovereign Spirit’s calling (Romans 8:30) irresistably, or effectually, converts the sinner.
Since Dager agrues with eternal security, and doesn’t dispute the placement of the letter P, I will leave it untreated. Although, it is a fact that not everyone agrees on the Perseverance of the Saints, for Arminians and Pelagians teach that saints retain their salvation by their perseverance, while Calvinists confess the biblical doctrine that saints work out and give evidence of their salvation by their perseverance, relying on God alone to eternally preserve them in the faith.
Theological and Doxological Meditation #35
Sanctification
Q. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace (2 Thes 2:13), whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God (Eph 4:24), and are enbled more and more to die unto sin,
and live unto righteousness (Rom 8:1).
and live unto righteousness (Rom 8:1).
#527, The Trinity Hymnal
Isaac Watts, 1674-1748
Blest are the humble souls that see
their emptiness and poverty;
treasures of grace to them are giv’n,
and crowns of joy laid up in heaven.
Blest are the men of broken heart,
who mourn for sin with inward smart;
the blood of Christ divinely flows,
a healing balm for all their woes.
Blest are the meek, who stand afar
from rage and passion, noise and war;
God will secure their happy state,
and plead their cause against the great.
Blest are the souls that thirst for grace,
hunger and long for righteousness;
they shall be well supplied and fed,
with living streams and living bread.
Blest are the men whose hearts do move
and melt with sympathy and love;
from Christ the Lord shall they obtain
like sympathy and love again.
Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean
from the defiling pow’rs of sin;
with endless pleasure they shall see
a God of spotless purity.
Blest are the men of peaceful life,
who quench the coals of growing strife;
they schall be called the heirs of bliss,
the sons of God, the God of peace.
Blest are the suff’rers who partake
of pain and shame for Jesus’ sake;
their souls shall triumph in the Lord,
glory and joy are their reward.
The KJV Code Revisited
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged on the way that KJV onlyists seek to bind their followers to exclusive trust and use of the King James Version of the Bible, just as the Roman Catholic Church for centuries enforced exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate.
In this effort, one of the goals of KJV onlyism has always been to bind everyone’s conscience to a static KJV text, making any revision unnecessary at best and wrong at worst. In Gail Riplinger’s recent attempt to do so, In Awe of Thy Word, she resorts to the use of computers, namely, the modern discipline of computational linguistics, in order to convince us that the KJV text must remain static on the basis of the results of computer analysis. This is why I associate it with fads like the Bible Code.
The modus operandi of both efforts is to put computers to work on Scripture on a sort of “microscopic” or mathematical/linguistic level in order to persuade the contemporay, technologically sophisticated generation of the validity of their respective points of view. In the case of the Bible Code, there are better ways to explain the inspiration of the Bible, so this fad is only embarrasing and counterproductive; in the case of the “KJV Code,” it’s an attempt to sow seeds of doubt in conventional textual criticism and translation practice in order to motivate contentment with the KJV status quo, and counteract any desire or demand for revision.
What precedent is there in Scripture, history or the disciplines of textual criticism or translation theory/practice for demanding a static translated text? There is none. There are anecdotal cases to which KJV onlyists could appeal, like the superstitious exaltation of the Septuagint, but these are erroneous and would prove utterly ineffective to persuade the bulk of orthodox scholarship to adapt everything to this invalid line of reasoning. Besides, radical KJV onlyists deny the validity of the Septuagint, and wouldn’t want to go there. This leaves them all alone with their novel theory.
What precedent is there in Scripture, history or the disciplines of textual criticism or translation theory/practice for demanding a static translated text? There is none. There are anecdotal cases to which KJV onlyists could appeal, like the superstitious exaltation of the Septuagint, but these are erroneous and would prove utterly ineffective to persuade the bulk of orthodox scholarship to adapt everything to this invalid line of reasoning. Besides, radical KJV onlyists deny the validity of the Septuagint, and wouldn’t want to go there. This leaves them all alone with their novel theory.
The fact is, there is no basis in textual criticism or translation for arguing for the absolute authority of particular textual readings on the basis of the findings of computational linguistics, which examines the connotations of the sum total of the individual translation choices of the KJV committee. This point is irrelevant to the accuracy of the translation. It is nothing more than an invalid argument rushing into an academic void.
The end game of radical KJV onlyism remains the same: bind the conscience to the current text of the KJV for the mere sake of maintaining needless tradition.This is where fundamentalism fails to learn the lesson of history and repeats the mistake of medieval Roman Catholicism in adding unwarranted tradition into church practic and creates a communcation gap between the Word of God and the people of God.
Fundamentalists Contra Mundum!
I returned In Awe of Thy Word to my friend this morning. We discussed some of our personal observations about Riplinger’s writing in general and some things related to this book in particular. I brought up David Cloud’s one page treatment of Riplinger’s book. I pointed out how it did a good job of showing how several of the readings in Wycliffe’s New Testament matched the Latin Vulgate, contrary to Riplinger’s claims. I explained how this discredits her attempt to document her claim that Wycliffe corrected the Vulgate with Old Latin and even Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in order to bring the text into “complete agreement” with the Traditional Text.
Then we moved on to a couple of things about David Cloud’s positions on other things, which raised an interesting question with my friend. Realizing that Cloud writes exposes on almost any prominent Christian leader you can imagine, including fellow fundamental Baptists, like Peter Ruckman and Jack Hyles, for instance, my friend furrowed his brow and asked, “So, who is David Cloud not against?”
I ventured with my tongue squarely in my cheek (but don’t worry, my pronunciation was not affected–you have to point that out for hyper-literalists, you know), “Probably only churches that pay him to come speak!” Then, on a more serious and respectful note, I continued, “You know, that’s what you get when you’re an independent Independent Baptist–not even ‘dependent’ on your own fellowship.” Guys like Dr. Cloud sometimes seem to be able to find an enemy under every rock.
That’s when it hit me! Fundamentalists contra mundum! Fundamentalists who seem to be against everything that’s going on in the broader Christian world except what’s going on within the four walls of their own churches, and the small group of churches with whom they are willing to extend genuine fellowship are like a photographic negative of the man for whom this Latin nickname was coined. There for a minute I considered telling my friend the story of Athanasius, who famously stood “against the world” (contra mundum) to defend the orthodox view of the Trinity and the deity of Christ during the Council of Nicea, but he had plenty of other things on his mind so before I had another chance to speak, the thought had escaped me. But now it’s back, and I thought it was a cute enough little association that serves to underscore the hyper-separatism of fundamentalism, that I just had to share it with you.But let this be a lesson for us all: if we must criticize almost everyone who comes down the pike, let us take the advice my friend’s pastor and father-in-law once told me, “Don’t start nuthin’ unless you know you can finish it!”
They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love
We are one in the Spirit,
we are one in the Lord
We are one in the Spirit,
we are one in the Lord
And we pray that all unity
may one day be restored
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
We will work with each other,
we will work side by side
We will work with each other,
we will work side by side
And we’ll guard each one’s dignity
and save each one’s pride
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
We will walk with each other,
we will walk hand in hand
We will walk with each other,
we will walk hand in hand
And together we’ll spread the news
that God is in our land
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
Theological and Doxological Meditation #34
Adoption
Q. What is adoption?
A. Adoption is an act of God’s free grace (1 Jn 3:1), whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God (Jn 1:12).
#261, The Trinity Hymnal
What wondrous love is this,
O my soul, O my soul,
what wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this
that caused the Lord of bliss
to bear the dreadful curse
for my soul, for my soul,
to bear the dreadful curse for my soul!
To God and to the Lamb,
I will sing, I will sing,
to God and to the Lamb, I will sing;
to God and to the Lamb,
who is the great I AM,
while millions join the theme,
I will sing, I will sing,
while millions join the theme,
I will sing.
And when from death I’m free,
I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on,
and when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on;
and when from death I’m free,
I’ll sing and joyful be,
and through eternity
I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on,
and through eternity I’ll sing on!
Desiring God Blogs on the Head and the Heart
Desiring God has a new blog, and I thought I’d direct you to one of their posts which is right up my alley! It emphasizes the joint necessity of genuine Heartknowledge and genuine Headknowledge! Like I always say, these things are not an “either/or” proposition, but rather, “both/and.”
New Dimensions in "Evangelical" Liberalism
Charismatic preaching that uses an excessive number of exclamation points is geard to appeal to emotion. This tendency entered the Baptist world through revivalism before that. The goal is to provoke the hearers to respond in an uproar of “praise,” rather than to proclaim truth to which the people of God may respond in proper repentance, faith and adoration.
Many Baptist preachers wish their congregations would get excited and shout about the truth (much of which they continue to preach), but fear they are dulled to it, while, if my Baptist preacher friends would notice, much of the “shouting” going on in the congregations of other churches isn’t always in response to “the truth.” At best, it’s often a response to peripheral issues which have little to do with the truth. Pessimistically, I’d say much of it is in response to errors ranging from minor to major. On the extreme, there is rank heresy being foisted on Christian congregations by those who make a living knocking traditional Christianity. Most of the time, those who habitually “knock traditional Christianity” do so by belittling the foibles and failures of traditional Christians. They knock our unbiblical traditions. Fair enough. However, sometimes they take things way too far and begin rewriting Christian theology.
Case in point, Carlton Pearson.
For the sake of this cause, Carlton Pearson has sacrificed two very important doctrines: the existence of hell, and the exclusivity of Christ, not to mention the sufficiency of Scripture, considering the source of his information is the “conversation” Pearson had with “God” while waiting to be seated in a restaurant.
Read the following passage from Media Spotlight by Pentecostal Fundamentalist, Albert James Dager. Al Dager is one of those early influences which sparked an interest in me to begin searching for the truth behind Christian movements and activities in the world outside my fundamental Baptist enclave. While I have great nostalgia for him and his ministry and it’s influence on my theological thought process, and would certainly recommend some of his articles, naturally, nowadays I have quite a few theological differences with him, and would definitely not recommend all of them. Dager would probably fall well into the same category in which a Dave Hunt would be found.
Recently, I looked up his website and noticed an article he wrote back in 2005 when Joel Osteen began sending shockwaves through the Christian community by famously attempting to avoid declaring the exclusivity of Christ–the fact that one can only come to God the Father by salvation through Jesus Christ. Dager reprinted much of the transcript of Osteen’s interview by Larry King. But he didn’t stop there, he pointed out a few other “Christian leaders” who’ve been toying with the truth in their own ways in the media. These include Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Billy Graham and Joyce Meyers. But Carlton Pearson blew my mind. This guy at least used to claim to be an evangelical. But if I heard someone else preaching what Pearson preached once on TBN, I’d call him theologically liberal. Well, it looks to me like many evangelicals are no longer on what Spurgeon called the “downgrade.” It looks like they’ve already landed at rock bottom and are subsequently preaching a false gospel.
In “Joel Osteen: Another Victim of Larry King,” Dager writes about Carlton Pearson:
Then there are those who preach a new kind of universalism—called “inclusion”— which says every one is already saved; they just need to be told so. One example is self-proclaimed “bishop” Carlton Pearson, who appeared on a Trinity Broadcasting Network “revival” meeting in which he claimed God told him there is no hell. He told of going into a restaurant and declining the offer to sit in the bar while waiting for a table.
The Spirit of God spoke to me and said, “I’m over there.” He said, “Look at them drinking. The ones that are drinking themselves—you know why they’re drinking?”
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
“They’re just—tell them my blood! They’re already bought; they just don’t know. I paid for their sins! They’re justified! They’re accepted! Tell them that I love them!… “You have convinced them—[you] in the religious world—that I don’t have good will toward them; that I’m angry, and I’m a judge, and I’m going to send them to hell! Tell them I have good will; I’m pleasantly disposed toward them!”
…I’m sitting in front of my television, eating my dinner with my new baby girl—she’s about three months old or some thing, Majesty—watching the news. The Tutsies and Hutus are returning from Zaire to Rwanda, and they’re dropping by the thou sands on the road—flies caked in the corners of their eyes, and of their mouths, and sores all over their bodies, and they’re gaunt and drawn and starving to death. And I sat there with a plate full of food, and my baby in my arms, and I said—and I’ll be honest with you, I was angry—I said, “God, how can You call Yourself God, and let those people fall like that and just suck them right into hell?”
He said, “Oh, that’s what you think I’m doing?”
Now this is in my mind, God is speaking. I said, “Well, that’s what I’ve been taught.”…
He said, “Oh, you think I’m pulling them right into hell.” He said, “Do you believe that my Son died for them?”
I said, “Yes.”
“Do you believe that His blood can cover their sins?”
I said, “Yes.” “Well, if you think they’re all going to hell, if you go over there and tell them, do you think that that would save them?”
I said, “Yes.”
He said, “Well how come you’re not on the first thing smokin’ to get over there?”
And I got mad. I said, “God, don’t put that guilt trip on me.”
I said it. I said, “Don’t put—don’t do it; I cannot save every body.”
He said, “Ex actly. I am the Savior.”
He said, “I’m not sucking them right into hell! They’re already in hell; can’t you see it? I’ve prepared a place for them.”
I said, “Wait a minute; wait a minute! They didn’t hear my message and respond to my ‘Just as I am’ song and altar appeal.”
He said, “My blood covers. While they were yet sinners I died for them. I was wounded for their transgressions; I was bruised for their”—we have not preached the full Gospel!
We don’t understand the finished work of Christ. We think they gotta all come in our way—our church, our altar call, our four spiritual laws. I don’t believe that any more. Now maybe you all don’t want me to come back, but I believe that Jesus covers sins. We are to tell them, “You’re justified! You’re forgiven! You just don’t know it! He owns you; He bought you!”
The devil has convinced you; he said “All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.”
… [God said], “Stop tell ing them to get saved, and start telling them they are saved.”
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute now, wait a minute; they couldn’t be saved.
“What do you think I died for? You have n’t been preaching the Gospel right. You’ve been preaching your gospel, not Mine. Tell them that while they were yet sinners I died for them.”
… I said, “Wait, wait, wait, Lord, you’ve got to send somebody to hell! You know, we’ll have another Jerusalem council to try to—wait a minute Lord, some of these people gotta go to hell! You’ve gotta find a way for some of them!”
We would argue. If you found out that everybody was going to Heaven you’d lose your religion.
“Somebody gotta go to hell, God, please!”
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Speaking of sinners who consider themselves unworthy to be in a church, Pearson tells them to forgive themselves:
First of all, accept God’s love. I’m not going to tell you to stop sinning first, because you don’t know how to do that by yourself. Accept God’s love; accept His deliverance. Stop judging yourself. You see, you can’t expect God’s forgiveness if you don’t forgive yourself.5
Notice that Pearson attributes God’s Word to Satan: “The devil has convinced you; he said, ‘All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.’”
How ungodly is that? To take a biblical truth, spoken by one of God’s greatest prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and attribute it to Satan. That in itself should convince us that Pearson was not hearing from God. And if not from God, then what demon gave him this “gospel”?
Pearson’s doctrine of “inclusion” states simply that we do not need to tell people to get saved; we need to tell them that they are already saved. If this were true, that would have been the apostle Paul’s response to his jailer: Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.” (Acts 16:29-31) Why did Paul and Silas not simply say, “Don’t worry, you’re already saved”? Paul further states that God desires that all men would come to salvation. Nowhere does he, or any one else in Scripture, say that every one is already saved, and all that is needed is for them to be told about it.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men—for kings, and for all that are in authority—so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl edge of the truth. (1 Tim o thy 2:1-4)
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Read more about the heresy of Carlton Pearson straight from the horse’s mouth–or, rather, the heretic’s own website.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
Thoughts on Meditation from Tabletalk
Share this: